University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

RESOURCE ALLOCATION STRATEGIES AND EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY:
CASE STUDIES OF SCHOOL LEVEL RESOURCE USE IN CALIFORNIA
MIDDLE SCHOOLS

by

Mark Steven Johnson

____________________________________________________________________

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Mark Steven Johnson
ii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Susan, and my three beautiful little
girls, Addison, Emma, and Ashtyn, whose tremendous love, support, patience and
understanding have made the completion of this dissertation possible. The four of
you are my world. I love you dearly and I am blessed to have you in my life.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My Parents, Glenn and Diane Johnson, who have always believed I could
accomplish anything that I set my mind to.
My mother and father in-law, Paul and Sandy Lundy, who have provided
tremendous support to my wife and I, as well as our three girls.
Dr. Larry Picus, Dissertation Chair and Advisor, thank you for making the process
attainable. Your encouragement, advice and guidance were instrumental.
Dr. Guilbert Hentschke
Dr. John Nelson
Members of this Thematic Dissertation Group:
Andrew and Jim (Thank you for your support and friendship)
Cynthia, Hyacinth, Emma, Chris, Ramona, Steve, Nate and Martha.
The Staff of Oak Middle School and Laurel High School with a special thank you to
Dr. Gregory Franklin and Dr. Sherry Kropp for their friendship and mentoring. I am
indebted to both of you.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES ix
ABSTRACT xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 11
Importance of the Study 12
Summary of Methodology 14
Limitations 14
Delimitations 15
Assumptions 16
Definition of Terms 16
Organization of the Dissertation 20
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 22
Federal Role in Education Reform and Financing 23
California School Finance 30
California Student Achievement and Resource Allocation 40
Equity vs. Adequacy in Education 50
The Evidence-Based Model: Funding for Adequacy 61
Successful School Strategies 71
Conclusion 91
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 94
Research Questions 96
Research Design 97
Population and Sample 98
Instrumentation and Data Collection 101
Data Analysis 103

v

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 106
School Profile 107
School Performance 110
Instructional Improvement Strategies 125
Resource Allocation 145
Changes in Response to the Budget Crisis 150
Conclusion 153

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 158
Summary of Findings 159
Limitations of the Study 168
Recommendations for Future Research 169
Conclusions 171
REFERENCES 173
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Email Invitation to Participate 184
Appendix B: List of Documents Requested from Schools 185
Appendix C: School Visit/Interview Dates 187
Appendix D: List of Documents and Artifacts Provided by Participating
Schools 188
Appendix E: Data Collection Codebook 189
Appendix F: Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol School Sites 201
Appendix G: Data Collection Protocol 204
Appendix H: Mt. Woodson Intermediate School 211
Appendix I: Mesa Linda Intermediate 233
Appendix J: Oak Quarry Intermediate 255
Appendix K: Arroyo Middle School 277
Appendix L: Redhawk Middle School 297
Appendix M: Goose Creek Intermediate 320

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: 2008-09 Federal Funding of Public Education 26
Table 2.2: Comparison of Selected Tax Rates and Expenditure Levels of
two School Districts in Two Selected Counties (1968-69) 32
Table 2.3: Number of Schools in Program Improvement in California
2009-2010 43
Table 2.4: National Educational Rankings of California 44
Table 2.5: Student Demographic Population and Largest Significant
Subgroups in California 48
Table 2.6: Evidence-Based Model: Prototypical Middle School 62
Table 2.7: Two Approaches to Providing Professional Development 81
Table 2.8: Strategies for Improving Instructional Time 83
Table 2.9: Categories of Effective Instructional Practices as they Relate to
Student Achievement 89
Table 3.1: Statewide API Ranks Compared vs. Similar Schools API Ranks 95
Table 3.2: Three Year Comparison of Each School’s API and SSR from
2007-2010 100
Table 3.3: Student Demographic Data 101
Table 4.1: School/District Enrollment and Locations of Sample Schools 108
Table 4.2: Similar School & Statewide Ranking of Sample Schools 113
Table 4.3: 2009-10 Adequate Yearly Progress of Sample Schools 116
Table 4.4: Implementation of Odden’s 10 Strategies at the Six Sample
Schools 144
Table 4.5: Resource Allocation According to EMB vs. Actual Resource
Allocation at Sample Schools 149

vii

Table 4.6: Class Sizes in Sample School vs. EBM School 150
Table 4.7: 2010-11 Budget Cuts Due to Fiscal Crisis in California’s State
Budget 152
Table H1: Mt. Woodson Intermediate School Demographic Comparison 212
Table H2: Mt. Woodson Intermediate and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance 228
Table H3: Mt. Woodson Intermediate and Evidence-Based Model Resource
Use Comparison 229
Table I1: Mesa Linda Intermediate School Demographic Comparison 234
Table I2: Mesa Linda Intermediate and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance 250
Table I3: Mesa Linda Intermediate and Evidence-Based Model Resource
Use Comparison 251
Table J1: Oak Quarry Intermediate School Demographic Comparison 256
Table J2: Oak Quarry Intermediate and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance 272
Table J3: Oak Quarry Intermediate and Evidence-Based Model Resource
Use Comparison 273
Table K1: Arroyo Middle School Demographic Comparison 278
Table K2: Arroyo Middle School and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance 292
Table K3: Arroyo Middle School and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use
Comparison 293
Table L1: Redhawk Middle School Demographic Comparison 298
Table L2: Redhawk Middle School and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance 315

viii

Table L3: Redhawk Middle School and Evidence-Based Model Resource
Use Comparison 316
Table M1: Goose Creek Intermediate School Demographic Comparison 321
Table M2: Goose Creek Intermediate and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance 339
Table M3: Goose Creek Intermediate and Evidence-Based Model Resource
Use Comparison 340

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: 2008-09 Revenues for K-12 Education 37
Figure 2.2: How Resources are Distributed in California’s School Finance
System 38
Figure 2.3: K-12 Proposition 98 Funding from 2007-2010 39
Figure 2.4: K-12 Enrollment for the 5 Largest States in the United States
2005-06 41
Figure 2.5: Percent of California Students Proficient or Advanced in English
Language Arts by Significant Subgroups 2008-09 47
Figure 2.6: Percent of California Students Proficient or Advanced in
Mathematics by Significant Subgroups 2008-09 47
Figure 2.7: Evidence-Based Model 63
Figure 4.1: Percent of Asian, Hispanic and White Students Attending Sample
Schools 109
Figure 4.2: Percentage of SED and EL Students Attending Sample Schools 110
Figure 4.3: Change in API of Sample Schools from 2006-10 112
Figure 4.4: Schoolwide Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or
Advanced on the English Language Arts California Standards
Test from 2006-2010 117
Figure 4.5: Percentage of Hispanic Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced
on the English Language Arts California Standards Test from
2006-2010 118
Figure 4.6: Percentage of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students
Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the English Language Arts
California Standards Test from 2006-10 119

Figure 4.7: Percentage of English Learner Students Scoring Proficient or
Advanced on the English Language Arts California Standards
Test from 2006-2010 120

x

Figure 4.8: Schoolwide Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or
Advanced on the Mathematics California Standards Test from
2006-2010 121
Figure 4.9: Percentage of Hispanic Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced
on the Mathematics California Standards Test from 2006-2010 122
Figure 4.10: Percentage of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students Scoring
Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the Mathematics California
Standards Test from 2006-2010 123

Figure 4.11: Percentage of English Learner Students Scoring Proficient or
Advanced on the Mathematics California Standards Test from
2006-2010 124
Figure H1: Mt. Woodson Intermediate Demographic Data 213
Figure H2: Mt. Woodson Intermediate Academic Performance Index Data
(2006-2010) 214
Figure H3: Mt. Woodson Intermediate English Language Arts Percent
Proficient or Above 215
Figure H4: Mt. Woodson Intermediate Math Percent Proficient or Above 216
Figure I1: Mesa Linda Intermediate Demographic Data 235
Figure I2: Mesa Linda Intermediate Academic Performance Index Data
(2006-2010) 236
Figure I3: Mesa Linda Intermediate English Language Arts Percent
Proficient or Above 237
Figure I4: Mesa Linda Intermediate Math Percent Proficient or Above 238
Figure J1: Oak Quarry Intermediate Demographic Data 257
Figure J2: Oak Quarry Intermediate School Academic Performance Index
Data (2006-2010) 258
Figure J3: Oak Quarry Intermediate English Language Arts Percent
Proficient or Above 259

xi

Figure J4: Oak Quarry Intermediate Math Percent Proficient or Above 260
Figure K1: Arroyo Middle Demographic Data 279
Figure K2: Arroyo Middle School Academic Performance Index Data
(2006-2010) 280
Figure K3: Arroyo Middle English Language Arts Percent Proficient or
Above 281
Figure K4: Arroyo Middle Math Percent Proficient or Above 282
Figure L1: Redhawk Middle School Demographic Data 299
Figure L2: Redhawk Middle School Academic Performance Index Data
(2006-2010) 300
Figure L3: Redhawk Middle School’s English Language Arts Percent
Proficient or Above 301
Figure L4: Redhawk Middle School’s Math Percent Proficient or Above 302
Figure M1: Goose Creek Intermediate School Demographic Data 322
Figure M2: Goose Creek Intermediate School Academic Performance Index
Data (2006-2010) 323
Figure M3: Goose Creek Intermediate English Language Arts Percent
Proficient or Above 324
Figure M4: Goose Creek Intermediate Math Percent Proficient or Above 325

xii

ABSTRACT
This study selected a purposeful sample of six intermediate/middle schools in
Southern California with a Similar Schools Ranking of 10, as identified by the
California Department of Education. Using a case study approach, principal
interviews, student achievement data, and site resources were analyzed to better
understand the improvement and resource allocation strategies each school employed
over the last five years. Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based Model (EBM) for
resource allocation, and Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance were used as frameworks to view and analyze each school’s reform
efforts.
Findings from this study show that there is a tight alignment between the
improvement strategies employed at each school and Odden’s (2009) ten strategies
for increasing student performance. All of the sample schools had high levels of
implementation in the following areas: urgency, goal-setting, instructional vision,
professional development, using instructional time wisely, using research to make
decisions and the sharing of best practices. Schools varied in collaboration and the
regular use of assessment data. Findings also suggest that weekly collaboration and
regular use of assessment data were critical to increasing achievement. None of the
schools in this study were able to provide resources anywhere near the levels
discussed in the EBM. And while the EBM provides guidance on how schools
should spend money, California’s current fiscal crisis, and recent cuts to education
are preventing schools from being able to provide the resources needed to help all

xiii

students reach proficiency. Implications for future practice and decision-making are
discussed.

1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Over the last twenty years, there has been an enormous effort to reform
education in America (Elmore, 2002). As part of this reform effort, there have been
numerous changes in educational policies, curricula, funding, strategies, leadership,
organizational structure, and instructional practices. However even with this
massive effort, it is still difficult for many schools across this country to improve the
learning outcomes for students, specifically in urban impoverished communities
where large numbers of minorities reside (Johnson, 2002; Marzano, 2003). This
failure to improve student achievement brought about the passing and
implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, an accountability
mandate that requires all schools receiving federal funding in America to reach
100% proficiency by the year 2014 (California Department of Education, 2009).
With the passing of NCLB, the Federal government instituted an accountability
system unlike anything that had been seen in previous administrations (Archibald,
2006).
With the increasing demands to improve student achievement in America,
some argue that there must also be greater accountability in how schools spend the
money they receive, especially as it relates to improving student performance
(Hanushek, 1997; Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Hanushek and Lindseth (2009)
argue that although funding has increased greatly over the last 35 years, twelfth
grade students in 2004 performed about the same on the NAEP tests as students who

2

took the test 35 years earlier. This argument, along with others on resource
allocation, equity and adequacy (Karoly, 2001; Hanushek, 1997; Odden & Picus,
2008), has caused many state legislators to reconsider how money is allocated and
used by local schools and districts to drive improvements in student performance.
And while it is clear that just simply adding money to the pot will not help every
student reach proficiency by 2014, as required by NCLB, there is growing evidence
that the proper allocation of money and resources can improve student achievement,
even in urban areas where students have historically underachieved (Baker, 2005;
Odden 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008). This study will
analyze resource allocation strategies in schools that have consistently lowered the
achievement gap and outperformed schools that have similar demographics and
student populations.
Background of the Problem
Federal Impact on Educational Funding and Achievement
Beginning with the groundbreaking decision of Brown v Board of Education
(1954) and the implementation of Title I funding by President Johnson, as part of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), there has been a major effort to
improve educational outcomes for underserved student populations (Cross, 2004).
As part of this effort, the Federal government has used funding to encourage states
and local districts to adhere to Federal initiatives in education (McDonnell &
Elmore, 1987). Categorical programs such as Title I, Title II, Title III, Economic
Impact Aid (EIA), and the American Rehabilitation of Recovery Act (ARRA) are

3

just a few examples of how the Feds have influenced local policies and practices.
And although a majority of the demands made by the Federal government on
education are underfunded, the amount of money the Federal government provides is
enough to force local districts to adhere to the these mandates, with NCLB being one
of the most aggressive initiatives to date (Linn, 2005).
With the increased role of the Federal government in education, and the
implementation of NCLB in 2001, school accountability has become a mainstream
topic (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). And while the pressures and increased
accountability have caused a great deal of stress on educators, Weiss (2007) argues
that no previous legislation has done more to improve performance for ethnic
minority and low SES students that have been historically forgotten. Under NCLB,
schools have to improve student achievement for all of their significant sub-groups
in order to meet their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets (California
Department of Education, 2010). And while the targets set forth under NCLB
require all students to be proficient by the year 2014, the current targets for each
middle school sub-group is 58% in Math and 56.8% in English Language Arts
(ELA). Schools that do not make their AYP targets for two consecutive years are
placed under Program Improvement (PI), resulting in an increased set of sanctions or
penalties for each year they continue to miss their AYP goals. While every school in
this country is trying to meet these ambitious targets, Linn (2005) argues that
eventually every school will be in PI.

4

As part of the Federal government’s stimulus package, roughly $4.5 billion
was set aside for a reform initiative titled Race to the Top (RTTT). And while $4.5
billion is not a significant amount of money in education, less than 1% of total
expenditures on K-12 public education, in today’s fiscal crisis it is having an
interesting impact on educational policy at the state and district level. As part of this
reform effort, states compete with one another for a share of the funding. In order to
eligible, schools must comply with a few guidelines. RTTT calls for changes in four
major areas in education: 1) teacher and principal effectiveness, 2) data systems, 3)
standards, and 4) turning around struggling schools (EdSource, 2009d). To date, two
states have been received funding during the first distribution phase of RTTT
(Peterson & Rothstein, 2010).
California Resources in Education
Educational funding in California has changed drastically since the Serrano v
Priest (1971) court ruling. In Serrano v Priest the courts found that California’s
educational funding model (which was based largely on local property tax revenues)
violated the Fourteenth Amendment, as there were large disparities in the quality of
education for students attending urban schools in poor neighborhoods (EdSource,
2009a). As a result of the Serrano v Priest decision, along with numerous other
court decisions, legislation, and ballot measures, many believe that it has caused
California to fund its schools well below the national average (PACE, 2006;
EdSource, 2009b).

5

The first piece of legislation to result from the Serrano v Priest decision was
SB 90 in 1972. SB 90 created the revenue limit and put a “ceiling” on the general-
purpose revenue each district could raise. After the decision of Serrano II (1976),
another senate bill was introduced in 1977 titled SB 65. This new legislation made
more changes to the funding system using what is called a “power equalization” plan
that redistributes revenues based upon differences in property tax revenues per
student (EdSource, 2009b). Both of these pieces of legislation were intended to
equalize educational disparities between districts within the state.
In 1978, educational funding in California underwent a major transformation
with the passing of Proposition 13. This ballot measure protected property owners
by capping the property tax rate to 1% of the assessed value. It also limited the
annual growth of assessed value to 2% per year (until a property is sold), greatly
reducing the ability of local districts to generate additional funding. This measure,
along with SB 154, basically ended local control of property tax revenues and
increased the State’s control of public education (EdSource, 2009a). In an effort to
help fix the state’s spending on education, Proposition 98 was passed in 1990 along
with SB 111 (Educational Data Solutions, 2006). Proposition 98, also known as the
Classroom Instruction Improvement and Accountability Act, created a guaranteed
level of funding in education using a complex system that uses one of three tests
depending on the State’s revenues and economic climate.
Needless to say, California has one of the most complicated educational
funding systems in the nation (EdSource, 2009a; Kirst, 2006). Kirst (2006) suggests

6

that due to these complexities, only a few people actually understand the minutia of
the state’s funding model. Furthermore, Timar (2004) found that California had over
124 categorical grants that could be classified into 10 different categories. In
addition to having one of the most complex funding models, it has also been found
that Californian schools vary greatly in per pupil spending based upon
demographics. For example, Loeb, Grissom and Strunck (2007) have found that
urban districts spend significantly more than suburban and rural districts when all
revenue sources are considered. Based upon these variances and complexities, it has
been challenging for state legislators to agree upon a funding model that meets the
needs of all students within the state.
Although California serves one of the most diverse, and arguably one of the
most challenging student populations to educate (with high numbers of low SES and
EL student populations), it ranks somewhere in the middle of the nation in per pupil
spending among the five largest states (EdSource, 2008). In fact, in 2005
California’s per pupil spending was $614 less than the national average, and that it
ranks last in total school staff per student (EdSource, 2008). If California is ever
going to improve student achievement, it has to put together an adequate funding
model to reduce many of the discrepancies found within the system.
California Achievement
In California, the increased demands of NCLB, specifically with regard to
ethnic minority, low socioeconomic status (SES), and English Learner (EL) sub-
groups, has caused great concern (EdSource, 2010b). California not only has the

7

most students attending public schools in the country (6.3 million), but it is also has
the most diverse student population in the nation with over 46% of students attending
its schools speaking a language other than English at home. EdSource (2008) states,
“For good or ill, there is clearly no state that compares with California. And no state
will play as large a role in educating America’s future citizens” (p. 1). California
also has the highest percentage of students (25%) that live with a parent who has not
graduated high school. With parent education being such a strong predictor of
student achievement and family income, it is becoming more and more evident that
there is a tremendous hill for California educators to climb to reach the lofty
performance targets of NCLB.
When taking a closer look at student performance in California from 2002-
2007, it is clear that there is still a tremendous amount of work to be done. While
elementary students across the state have made significant gains in math and reading
achievement, student achievement falls off significantly in high school (EdSource,
2008). When looking at the performance of California students on national
assessments (NAEP), only 23% of 4
th
grade students scored proficient or above in
Reading/ELA, and only 24% of 7
th
and 8
th
grade students scored proficient or above
in math. When the proficiency levels of low SES students are included, those
percentages fall to 11% and 12% respectively (Governor’s Committee on Education
Excellence, 2007). With such a large student population, and the dismal
performance on the NAEP exam, it is clear that politicians and educators must work
together to provide an adequate education for all students. And while some

8

researchers may argue that money isn’t the reason for education’s failure to improve
student achievement for all students (Hanushek, 2006; Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009),
the incorporation of the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the
linkage between instructional strategies and resources could provide policy makers,
and educators with the framework needed to move California in the direction of
adequacy.
From Equity to Adequacy
For most of the 20
th
century, improving school finance structures has largely
dealt with issues related to equity. Court cases such as Brown v Board of Education
(1954), Serrano v Priest (1971), Serrano II (1976), Rodriguez v San Antonio (1973),
and federal initiatives such as the ESEA have all sought to provide more resources
for students that have been historically underserved (Odden & Picus, 2008; PACE,
2006; Timar, 1994; Timar, 2004). However over the last twenty years, there has
been a shift from equity to adequacy. This shift is largely due to the increased role
of state governments in educational funding and the increased scrutiny of how those
dollars are being allocated to improve student achievement (Odden, 2003). Equity
issues deal with the resources needed to provide access to a high quality education,
and are founded in the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides equal protection
under the constitution. However, adequacy attempts to discern the appropriate level
of resources needed to achieve high learning outcomes for all students, regardless of
background, race, home language or socioeconomic status (Chambers & Levin,
2006; Odden & Picus, 2008).

9

With the increased attention on student achievement, and the inability for
most schools in America to close the achievement gap, it has become critical for all
those in education and school finance to take a closer look at how resources are
being used to improve student achievement (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Johnson,
2002; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008). And while most financial
policies in education have simply addressed the need for more resources, until
recently, they have not closely examined the adequate level of resources needed to
raise student achievement. The question adequacy attempts to answer is whether or
not schools have the adequate funding necessary to implement strategies and
initiatives that have proven efficacy in raising student achievement (Odden, 2003).
This process involves identifying the costs associated with effective programs and
strategies, and then linking those strategies and programs to the dollar amount
needed to provide them. And while a number of states have already begun the
adequacy investigation and implementation (Wyoming, Arkansas, Kentucky and
New Jersey), many others states are just beginning this investigation.
There are four major methods for determining the adequate level of funding.
Brief explanations of the four methods are included below (Odden, 2003).
1) Successful District Model: Identifies school districts that have been
successful in achieving student achievement outcomes and then sets the
adequacy level using a weighted formula for per pupil spending.
2) Cost Function Model: uses a regression analysis per pupil spending as the
dependent variable and then factors in the student/school characteristics and

10

the desired outcome levels as the independent variable. From this analysis an
average expenditure level is set for the district and then modified based upon
student needs.
3) Professional Judgment Approach: Uses educational experts to identify
effective instructional strategies and then determine the “ingredients” and the
necessary resources and funding needed to implement them.
4) Evidence-Based Approach: Uses educational research and identifies the
necessary funding and strategies needed to provide a high quality educational
program for all students that results in all students reaching proficiency.
Although none of the adequacy models are “perfect” for every setting or
context, and all are subject to some form of skepticism (Hanushek, 2005; Hanushek
& Lindseth, 2009), there is a growing body of research that the Evidence-Based
Model could be the most effective approach for allocating resources to improve
learning outcomes (PACE, 2006; Odden & Picus, 2008).
Statement of the Problem
Schools across this nation are struggling to meet the demands of NCLB. In
fact, the number of schools being identified as PI schools is increasing at an alarming
rate (EdSource, 2010a; Linn, 2005). As the NCLB proficiency targets increase each
year, everyone from teachers to district office administrators to researchers and
policy makers are looking for ways to improve student achievement. While much of
our past has focused on improving equity and access in education, it is becoming
very clear that we must take a different approach moving forward. A major part of

11

this conversation, especially for our most struggling student populations, includes the
proper allocation of resources to meet the demands of NCLB. Research on how
resources can be used systematically at the district and site level is desperately
needed to attain the rigorous targets of NCLB.
Purpose of the Study
This study uses the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a
framework for analyzing the use of school resources to raise student achievement on
the CST at six middle/intermediate schools serving students from varying ethnic
backgrounds and varying socioeconomic statuses. Using the Similar Schools
Ranking (SSR) of 10 as the standard to be included in the sample (as defined by the
CDE), schools with various levels of achievement (state decile raking 6 - 9) were
selected. Due to the populations they serve, all of the schools are funded at different
levels, but can be analyzed using the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008).
How and where resources were allocated will help provide evidence for future
resource allocation decisions. In support of this claim, EdSource (2007a) found that
although many schools receive relatively the same amount of funding, achievement
could vary greatly between these schools. And while the evidence and research
regarding improving student achievement has improved greatly over the last 20
years, and more and more educators are looking to the literature to make decisions,
there continues to be a need to examine how resources can be better used to improve
student performance, especially in California where funding levels have been cut
significantly over the last two years (EdSource, 2010a; Marzano, 2003; Odden &

12

Picus, 2008; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden, 2009). As stated before, the current
literature is extensive with regards to improving student achievement, however, there
is still a gap in how resources can be used to improve student achievement.
This study investigated a sample of schools with a SSR of 10 in Southern
California and examined the links between resource allocation and student
achievement. This study will answer the following questions:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at
the school level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the
school’s instructional improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in
response to the recent budget adjustments including overall funding
reductions and changes in the use of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with
or different from the resources use strategies used in Odden and Picus’
(2008) Evidence-Based Model?
Importance of the Study
Over the last three years, California has had major fiscal problems resulting
in devastating cuts to education (EdSource, 2009c). With the drastic reductions in
educational funding and the increased accountability demands being placed upon
educators, it is clear that schools must carefully consider the way(s) in which they
allocate resources. In addition, with the research clearly articulating the failed

13

attempts to create equity in education over the last 50 years, especially related to
equitable educational outcomes, there is a growing body of evidence to move from
equity to adequacy (Odden, 2003; Odden & Picus, 2008; PACE, 2006). While there
is no clear adequacy approach or recommendation that will work in every setting
(PACE, 2006), there is a growing body of research suggesting that an Evidence-
Based Approach could provide the necessary recommendations for linking resource
allocation strategies to student achievement. Additionally, with the low performance
of California’s students on the NAEP (below the national average in every measure,
and even worse when we factor in low SES students), it is critical to provide more
evidence that the appropriate use of resources can improve student achievement,
regardless of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and family background.
This study will use the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) to
provide more data on how resources can best be used to improve student
achievement. The results from this study will be used to build upon the previous
studies conducted using the Evidence-based Model. The intent of this research is to
provide state legislators, and district and site administrators with recommendations
on how resources can best be allocated to improve student achievement. This
research will also contribute to the academic literature on educational resource
allocation models, specifically as they relate to providing an adequate education for
all students in America.

14

Summary of Methodology
In an effort to study resource allocation in successful schools, this study will
conduct case studies of six middle/intermediate schools in Southern California. The
study design used to investigate the research questions state above is a multiple
methods design, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data.
Achievement data was collected from the California Department of Education, which
was used to identify six middle/intermediate schools in Orange County that had a
SSR, as identified by the CDE, of 10 based upon 2008 Academic Performance Index
(API). Although there are large variances in each school’s state decile ranking, they
are all ranked in the top 10% of the state when compared to schools serving students
with similar demographics. Due to the study’s multiple methods approach, and the
use of interviews as a primary source of information, this study will rely on the
candor, knowledge, and honesty of the participants to provide accurate details about
resource allocation and improvement strategies that were implemented at each
school site. These data will be compared to the Evidence-Based Model (Odden &
Picus, 2008), and the ten strategies for raising student performance found in Odden
(2009).
Limitations
As with any research, there are limitations to this study. The study was
conducted in six middle/intermediate schools in southern California that are
identified as a 10 by the CDE’s SSR criteria. Data was collected between September
and December 2010. And while an effort was made to include a variety of schools in

15

the sample, the study was limited to these schools. The schools were not chosen in a
random manner; therefore, the data that was obtained cannot be generalized to other
settings. The choice of schools included in this studied is also limited by the
willingness of the site principals to participate in the study. However, instructional
and other improvement strategies identified by this study can be applied to other
schools.
The study instrument involved analysis of documents, and open and closed-
ended interviews with site 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 largely upon the memory of
interviewee (principal) and how thoroughly s/he revealed all pertinent information.
Nevertheless, 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, find sample schools, cost concerns and the
permissions required to observe each school. The study was conducted on public
middle/intermediate schools that serve students from various backgrounds. The
interviews obtained in this study were conducted with the site principal only.

16

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.
3) The similar schools ranking is a valid measure of school performance as
related to schools with similar demographics.
Definition of Terms
1. Academic Performance Index (API): A number designated by California
Department of Education (2009b) that ranges from 200 to 1000 and is calculated
from student results on statewide assessments. California has set a target score of
800 for all schools to meet, and those that do not achieve a score of 800 are required
to meet annual growth targets set forth by the state.
2. Add-ons: A funding source that is typically considered as adding to the LEA’s
general purpose revenue outside of local property taxes and state aid (Timar, 2006).
3. Adequacy: Framed and interpreted within each individual state constitution,
adequate educational funding is defined as the level of funding that would allow each
LEA to provide a range of instructional strategies and educational programs so that
each student is afforded an equal opportunity to achieve to the state’s education
performance standards (Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008).
4. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A report required by the federal No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 and is used to measure how well individual
schools and districts are doing in meeting the following requirements: (a) student

17

participation rates on statewide tests; (b) percentage of students scoring at the
proficient level or above in English-language arts and mathematics on statewide
tests; (c) in California only, API growth; and (d) graduation rate (California
Department of Education, 2009b).
5. Base Revenue Limits: Is the amount of general purpose funding per ADA that a
LEA receives in state aid and local property taxes to pay for the basic cost of
educating a student regardless of special classifications or categories (EdSource,
2009a). In California the base revenue limit equals the state aid to the LEA + local
property tax collected by the LEA (Timar, 2006).
6. Brown v. Board of Education (1954): A landmark legal decision by the United
States Supreme Court that declared state laws establishing separate schools based on
race unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
7. California Standards Tests (CSTs): A series of tests that measure student’s
achievement of California’s content standards in the areas of English-language arts,
mathematics, science, and history-social sciences (California Department of
Education, 2009a).
8. Categorical Funding: Funds that are targeted to support specific groups and/or
class of students, such as students with special needs, low-income, or English
learners. There are four types of categorically funded programs: entitlement,
incentive, discretionary grants, and mandated cost reimbursement (Timar, 2006).

18

9. English Language Learner (ELL): Indicates a person who has a first language
other than English and is in the process of acquiring English.
10. Equity: Within education, the term is used to measure (1) horizontal equity, or
the equal access of education from individual to individual; and (2) vertical equity,
or the appropriate treatment of each individual based on their unique needs (Bhatt &
Wraight, 2009).
11. Evidence Based Model: An educational funding approach based on identifying
individual, school-based programs and educational strategies that research has shown
to improve student learning (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
12. Excess Taxes: Considered an add-on in California, LEAs are allowed to keep
any excess taxes that they generate beyond their revenue limits and is calculated by
determining the difference between a LEAs revenue limit and property tax revenues
(Timar, 2006).
13. Expenditures: For elementary and secondary schools, all charges incurred,
both paid and unpaid and debt, applied to the current fiscal year (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2010a). Expenditures types include current expenditures,
instructional expenditures, and expenditures per student.
14. General Purpose Funding: definition here (Timar, 2006). In California, general
purpose funding equals the base revenue limits + revenue limit add-ons + excess
local property taxes.

19

15. Local Education Agency (LEA): An educational agency at the local
governmental level that operates schools or contracts for educational services. LEAs
can be as small as single school districts and as large as county offices of education.
16. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): A national
standardized assessment sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education since 1969
in an attempt to measure and compare student achievement across the nation or
against other states (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010b).
17. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002: Also referred to as the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), affects education from kindergarten through
high school by (a) requiring accountability for results in schools, (b) providing more
choices for parents, (c) giving greater local control and flexibility, and (c)
emphasizing adoption of evidence-based practices.
18. Program Improvement (PI): A formal designation required under NCLB
(2002) for Title I funded LEAs and schools that fail to make AYP for two
consecutive years (California Department of Education, 2009c). While a LEA or
school is under PI status, they are obligated to implement certain federal and state
requirements.
19. Proposition 13: Enacted in 1978 by California voters, the proposition amended
the California Constitution and resulted in a 1% cap on property tax rates as well as
required a two-thirds majority vote in both legislative houses for any future tax rates.
20. Proposition 98: Voted into law by California voters and also known as the
Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act, amended the

20

California constitution to mandate a minimum level of K-14 education spending
based on a three-pronged test.
21. Rodriguez v. San Antonio (1973): A pivotal case heard by the United States
Supreme Court that determined that Texas’ school-financing system based on local
property taxes did not violate the equal protection clause. The ruling further clarified
that education is not a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, but
was a responsibility left to the states under the Tenth Amendment.
22. Serrano v. Priest I, II, III (1971; 1976; 1977): A series of three cases brought
forth to the California Supreme Court that challenged the state’s public education
funding model based on the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.
23. Socio-economic Status (SES): A measure of an individual or family's relative
economic and social ranking (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010a)
24. Title I: A federal program that provides financial assistance to LEAs and
schools with high numbers and percentages of poor children in order to help all
children meet state adopted academic standards (U.S. Department of Education,
2010).
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter One provides a summary of the relevance of the current study of
educational reform and adequacy. Chapter Two discusses the literature involved in
federal policy reform, school finance, student achievement, adequacy and research-
based strategies for improving schools. Chapter Three outlines the study design,
research questions, instrumentation, data collection and an analysis of the data.

21

Chapter Four discusses the findings, and provides answers to the four research
questions used to guide this study. Chapter Five provides a summary of the findings,
limitations of the study, recommendations for future research and a conclusion to the
study.

22

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Over the last few decades, public education has faced a tremendous amount
of criticism regarding their failed reform attempts to produce high levels of learning
for all students in America (Elmore, 2002; Reeves, 2005). As part of this reform
process, the federal government took a more involved role in driving and funding
public education (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). While a large part of the federal
government’s early efforts in education focused on providing equity, with the
provision of additional resources, the passing and implementation of the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 demonstrated their desire and commitment to truly
drive education reform through an intense accountability program (Weiss, 2007). In
addition, legislators, educators and researchers have all begun to carefully examine
the ways in which resources are used at the site level to improve performance,
causing a shift from equity to adequacy. While equity looks at providing equal
access to an education, adequacy tries to determine the amount of funding needed to
produce high levels of learning for all students (Odden, 2003). Thus, the current
review will explore accountability, school finance, challenges specific to California,
and school resource allocation strategies as they relate to providing an adequate
education for all students.

23

To facilitate this review of the literature, six key areas have been identified:
1. An examination of the historical impact that federal reports and policy
makers have had on the reform efforts in K-12 education, including an
overview of the relative roles of each;
2. An examination of how school financing has moved from local to state
control, the key policy initiatives that caused such change, as well as the
current fiscal condition of education and the modifications that have been
created to deal with such drastic cuts;
3. An examination of the student achievement in California, as well as the
struggles California faces with meeting the demands of federal policy
initiatives with such a diverse and challenging student population;
4. An examination of the shift from equity to adequacy and the theoretical
basis for such a shift in today’s world;
5. An examination of the theoretical basis of the Evidence-Based Model of
educational adequacy, as well as the recommended resource allocations
for providing an adequate education;
6. An examination of the research-based strategies for guiding educational
reform, as well as the steps for implementation.
Federal Role in Education Reform and Financing
While the Federal government never intended to play a large role in
educating its citizens, clearly evident from the lack of language in the U.S.
Constitution and the lack of initial funding to states, ever since the ground breaking

24

decision of Brown v Board of Education (1954), the Federal government has slowly,
and not always quietly, tried to impact major policy and reform efforts in education
(Chambers & Levin, 2006). Some of the more publicized educational reform efforts
initiated by the Feds include: the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
in 1965 (resulting in the creation of major Title movements), the publication of A
Nation at Risk in 1983 (which helped to spark the standards-based movement and
reform efforts of the 80’s and 90’s), the implementation of the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) of 2001 (an accountability policy that penalizes and sanctions low-
performing schools and districts), the more recent creation of the American
Rehabilitation of Recovery Act (ARRA) which has helped schools remain solvent
during one of the most devastating fiscal crises in recent memory, and Race to the
Top (RTT) a federal effort connected to ARRA aimed at providing schools with
extra funding for connecting achievement to four specified areas (Elmore, 2002;
Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Odden, 2003; PACE, 2006; Peterson & Rothstein,
2010).
Although the Federal government does not have legal authority to mandate
reform efforts in education, they have used money (inducements) to strongly
encourage (mandate) states and local districts to comply with federal initiatives
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Timar, 2006). And while most people in education
would strongly contend whether or not the federal government adequately funds
these mandates, most districts could simply not survive without some level of federal
funding (EdSource, 2009c).

25

Early Efforts by the Federal Government
Because the Federal government never intended to play a large role in public
education, instead opting for state control, early federal contributions in education
were relatively small. In fact, the Feds provided approximately 1-2% of the overall
education budget, with a large portion of educational funding consisting almost
entirely of funds collected by local districts through property and other local taxes
(EdSource, 2009b). However, as the political climate changed during the 1950’s
with the civil rights movement, and the number of court rulings in favor of minority
and/or poor plaintiffs continued to increase, the federal government began to alter the
way(s) in which states and local districts behaved (Koret Task Force, 2006). One of
the most influential court rulings affecting education was the United States Supreme
Court’s decision in Brown v Board of Education (1954). As stated previously, prior
to this ruling, the federal government was basically non-existent in controlling or
funding education. After the Brown ruling, court cases involving desegregation-
based lawsuits in education continued to grow in both state and federal courts
(Lindseth, 2006). These desegregation lawsuits forced local school districts to
eliminate racially segregated schools, improve integration of faculty and staff, and
provide the equal allocation of resources for all students (Hanushek & Lindeth,
2009).
As desegregation based lawsuits continued over the next forty years, and the
public became increasingly aware of the discrepancies in public education, especially
for minority and low socioeconomic status (SES) youth, the federal government

26

provided an increase in funding to try and equalize the allocation of resources for
underserved student populations (Lindseth, 2006; Woody & Henne, 2006). One of
the first major efforts of the federal government to improve resources for minority
and low SES students came in 1965 with the passing and implementation of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In fact, President Johnson
claimed that the legislation was going to end the war on poverty (Cross, 2004). This
new bill provided approximately 1 billion in revenues for local districts in the first
year. To provide perspective, the entire non-social security federal budget at the
time was under 100 billion. Reports estimate that the federal government has
allocated over 150 billion dollars to ESEA between 1965 and 2000 (Cross, 2004).
Today, ESEA continues to provide additional resources to some of the neediest
students. Recent estimates report that California receives approximately three billion
in funding under ESEA, with Title I funds making up about two-thirds of these
monies (EdSource, 2010c). Table 2.1 provides the most current information from
EdSource (2010c) on the federal funding of public education in California.
Table 2.1: 2008-09 Federal Funding Of Public Education
Federal Programs Purpose Amount in
Millions
ESEA Title I Program Extra support for students of
Poverty
2,011
ESEA Title II Program Teacher and Administrator
Improvement
374
ESEA Title III Program English Learners 172
ESEA Title IV Program 21
st
Century Skills 199
ESEA Title V Program Innovative Programs Ended: 2009
ESEA Title VI Program Assessment 24

27

Table 2.1, Continued
Federal Programs Purpose Amount in
Millions
Child Nutrition Food program for low income
students
2,035
Special Education Students with disabilities 1,860
Child Care and
Development
Funding for low income parents
and students
551
Vocational Education Alternative programs for students 140
Adult Education Programs for adults 79
Source: EdSource (2010c)
A Nation at Risk
While federal funding has continued to grow since the Johnson
administration, when President Ronald Reagan entered office, there was a political
shift to downsize government, even in education. However, it was about this same
time that A Nation at Risk (1983) was published, clearly articulating America’s failed
efforts to educate its youth, and demanding for better results in education (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Although Hanushek and Lindseth
(2009) argue that there were very few recommendations that came from this report,
its findings sent shock waves throughout the country, as well as education. And
while some at the time found that the report was simply too critical of those in
education, especially teachers, today many have found that it was a fair assessment
of where education was, and where it was headed without immediate attention and
intervention (Toppo, 2008). In addition, Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) argue that it
was this report that changed the political landscape of education forever, as the
public concern about education has remained a hot political issue even today. They
also argue that it is has done little to improve student achievement in America. The

28

inability to provide better educational outcomes for students led to a greater federal
role in education, and ultimately, the reauthorization of ESEA and the
implementation of NCLB in 2001.
No Child Left Behind
With the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, the
federal government implemented one of the most rigorous pieces of legislation to
date, demanding for all students to be proficient or above in both Math and English
Language Arts (ELA) by the year 2014 (The Commission on No Child Left Behind,
2007). Archibald (2006) states that with the passing of NCLB, the federal
government has taken a major step toward improving student achievement,
particularly for students that have historically underachieved (low SES, EL, and
ethnic minorities). And while it is difficult to argue with the claim that NCLB has
done more to improve educational outcomes than any previous legislation, The
Commission on No Child Left Behind (2007) states that these improvements are
simply not enough, as too many ethnic minority and low SES students continue to
underperform their white counterparts.
The guidelines under NCLB require all schools to make Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) in improving student proficiency each year with 100% of students
being proficient by the year 2014 in both ELA and Math (California Department of
Education, 2009). Based upon the 2010 AYP requirements, middle schools in
California must have all of their significant subgroups (100 or more students of
similar ethnic or family backgrounds) scoring at least 56.8% proficient or advanced

29

in ELA and 58% proficient in math (California Department of Education, 2009). If a
school fails to meet even one of their AYP targets, they are identified of being at-risk
of going into Program Improvement (PI), which is an escalating series of sanctions
that places a tremendous amount of pressure on a school to undergo significant
change. While Elmore (2003) argues that NCLB is poorly written and has numerous
unintended consequences, Weiss (2007) argues that it has created momentum around
accountability and improved the learning outcomes for all students. Furthermore,
with the recent release of the U.S. Department of Education’s (2010) plan for reform,
it is likely that the federal pressure to improve student performance will be around
for a long time.
Federal Stimulus: Race To The Top
As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, a
major stimulus package for the U.S. economy and public education, the U.S.
Department of Education allocated 4.35 billion dollars to initiate a competitive grant,
Race To the Top (RTTT) to drive educational reform (Peterson & Rothstein, 2010).
RTTT calls for changes in four major areas in education: 1) teacher and principal
effectiveness, 2) data systems, 3) standards, and 4) turning around struggling schools
(EdSource, 2009d). While a number of states waivered in deciding whether or not
they would participate, 40 states ended up applying, and 16 finalists were selected.
California’s interest in applying for the RTTT program is founded in their desire to
align state policy with future federal reform efforts, and possible changes to ESEA
(EdSource, 2009c). After close scrutinization of the 16 finalists, two states

30

(Delaware & Tennessee) came out on top and were awarded the grant (Peterson &
Rothstein, 2010). While time will tell how this funding leads to improved outcomes
for students, the additional funding in today’s economy could be enough to get those
in education to make significant strides in implementing change (Peterson &
Rothstein, 2010).
California School Finance
Over the last forty years, school governance and finance systems have
changed dramatically in California (Timar, 2006). The public’s assumption of local
school control, a system that was in place for the previous 150 years, has eroded and
been replaced with a system of state control. In fact, up until 1980 most schools
were still funded with local property taxes and with some state support, which was
provided for special purposes and to ensure a basic level of funding (Timar, 2004).
Today, the amount each district spends on each student depends largely on a
complex system involving: the state’s economy, ballot measures, political priorities,
and court decisions (EdSource, 2000). Timar (2004) adds that most of the money a
district receives, and even how it is spent, is decided by policymakers in Sacramento,
not by the 1,000 or so local school boards across the state. Regardless of how or
why California school finance has changed, it is a complex system that many people
in education struggle to understand (Kirst, 2006).
California School Finance: A Historical Perspective
As stated earlier, a combination of new policies, court proceedings, ballot
measures, and inconsistencies in the state’s economy have dramatically changed

31

caused school finance structures in California over the last forty years (Timar, 2004).
For over 150 years, local school districts used property taxes to finance their efforts
to provide a high quality education to the students that resided within local school
boundaries (Timar, 2006). However in the 1970’s, a series of court rulings, new
legislation and voter initiatives all contributed to the erosion of local control and an
increase in state control over school funding and governance.
Serrano v Priest I
Perhaps one of the most well publicized and important court rulings in
California history, which ultimately lead to greater financial parity, was Serrano v
Priest (1971). In this court case, it was argued that a locally funded school system,
based largely on property taxes, resulted in vast disparities in educational
opportunities, and did not provide students with equal protection under the law
(EdSource, 2000; EdSource, 2007b). As a result of previous funding methods,
school districts with more commercial and industrial properties were able to generate
more revenues than surrounding districts with lower housing rates and fewer
commercial properties. To compensate for these differences, low wealth districts
had to impose higher property taxes to generate the same amounts of revenue. Table
2.2 demonstrates the differences between two districts (Baldwin Park and Beverly
Hills) based upon their abilities to generate revenues using the pre-1970 funding
system (Timar, 2006). In this case, Baldwin Park had to institute a high tax rate of
$5.48 per $1000 of the assessed value, which provided the district with $577 per
average daily attendance (ADA). However, Beverly Hills was able to institute a

32

lower tax rate of $2.38 per $1000 of the assessed value, but was able to generate
$1,232 per ADA. Clearly, there were large variances in each district’s ability to
provide the same educational opportunities.
Table 2.2: Comparison of Selected Tax Rates and Expenditure Levels of Two School
Districts in Two Selected Counties (1968-69)
County ADA Assessed Value
per ADA
Tax
Rate
Expenditure
per ADA
Fresno
Coalinga Unified 2,640 33,244 2.17 963
Clovis Unified 8,144 6,480 4.28 568
Los Angeles
Beverly Hills
Unified
5,542 50,885 2.38 1,232
Baldwin Park
Unified
13,108 3,706 5.48 577
Source: Adapted from Timar (2006)
New Legislation and Serrano II
In response to the Serrano I decision, and in anticipation that the decision
would try to equalize funding throughout California, policymakers passed Senate
Bill (SB) 90 in 1972. SB 90 created the new revenue limit system, which capped the
general purpose funding that each district would be able to generate (EdSource,
2007b). In addition, this bill restricted the revenue limit based upon state aid and
local property taxes received in 1972-73. Each year, the revenue limits would be
adjusted for inflation with the high wealth districts receiving lower inflation
adjustments and the lower wealth districts receiving larger ones. Over time, it was
thought that these inflation adjustments would be able to equalize funding across the
state. However, SB 90 was not enough to truly equalize revenue sources, as the
inflation adjustments would have taken over 40 years to truly achieve fiscal parity

33

(Timar, 2006). The inability to equalize resources for all students in California
brought about a second case titled Serrano II (1976).
With the Serrano II court ruling creating more pressure to equalize education,
the legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 65 in 1977. This system brought about
funding changes that redistributed state revenues using a “power utilization” plan
(EdSource, 2007b). However, AB 65 was never implemented as Proposition 13 was
passed a month prior to the implementation of AB 65 and was implemented
immediately. In short, Proposition 13 basically reallocated more than half of local
property tax revenues, and killed the intended power of AB 65.
Proposition 13: A Revolutionary Voter Initiative
With the passing of Proposition 13 (1978), California citizens voted to
drastically reduce property taxes as a means to generate local revenues, and
ultimately created a state school finance system (Timar, 1994). At this time, many
referred to the centralization of school funding as a tremendous step toward greater
equity for Californians. Proposition 13 sought to protect property owners throughout
the state by limiting the property tax assessment to 1% of the assessed market value,
based upon 1975-76 levels, and placed a ceiling on increases in assessed value to
2%, or the growth of the Consumer Price Index CPI, whichever was less (EdSource,
2000; Timar 1994; Timar, 2006). The effects of Proposition 13 broke the connection
between local schools and property taxes. In addition, Proposition 13 also reduced
the overall impact of property taxes on school funding, and arguably broke the bond
between local districts and their constituencies (EdSource, 2007a).

34

Along with Proposition 13, SB 154 was passed in 1978. This bill allowed the
state to take control of property taxes to cities and counties, a change that has forced
education and local governments to follow Sacramento’s movements with a
magnifying glass ever since (EdSource, 2007b). During this redistribution process,
high wealth districts received smaller revenue limit increases than did low wealth
districts creating a “sliding” scale, which helped cushion the effects of SB 154 on the
state budget. However, the redistribution of money was difficult to enact all at once,
and AB 8 was passed in 1979. In an effort to minimize the impact of losing all local
property taxes, the state tried to provide aid to schools districts resulting in an
average loss of approximately 15% to most districts. This bill was only a temporary
solution to bridge the changes in funding mechanisms (Timar, 2006).
To further add to the major changes in funding California schools,
Proposition 4 was implemented in 1979. The ensuing legislation around Proposition
4 was known as SB 1342, also known as the Gann Limits, which limited the amount
of tax revenues that state and local governments could spend (EdSource, 2000). This
change, along with the numerous others mentioned above, has forced education to
become significantly more dependent on the state’s economy for fiscal security. And
with the major economic shifts that have occurred over the years in California, and
education’s dependence on the state’s ability to generate revenues, California has
gone from one of the best education systems in the country to one of the worst in
approximately thirty years. In 1977, California was one of the highest spending

35

states in the country, and by 2003 it had fallen to 43
rd
in per pupil expenditures when
adjusted for cost of living differences between states (Lindseth, 2006).
Proposition 98
In 1988, a voter initiative (Proposition 98) provided K-14 education with a
protected portion of the state’s annual budget (Timar, 2006). The intent of
Proposition 98 was to protect public education from major shifts in state revenues,
and guarantee that school funding kept pace with both changes in enrollment and the
cost of living (Picus, 2006). However, (EdSource, 2010b) argues that Prop. 98 is
actually just a policy tool for the state’s budget. EdSource (2000) explains that since
legislators do not typically know how much money they will have the following
year, and because 40% of the state’s general fund goes to public education (K-14),
there always seems to be a last minute scramble to spend additional funds. Instead
of giving more money to schools, policymakers often use additional funds to pay for
special interests. While many people feel that the tug of war over additional funds
takes place for a variety of reasons, such as teacher’s salaries or special programs
named after state legislators, others feel that Proposition 98 has simply caused the
steady growth of categorical funds, and reduced the ability of local districts to use
resources effectively, resulting in enormous waste (EdSource, 2000).
California School Finance Today
California has one of the most complex finance systems in the country
consisting of a combination of general-purpose revenues and categorical aid
(EdSource, 2000; Kirst, 2006). Almost two-thirds of the money comes from the

36

general fund, with the remaining one-third coming from categorical aid. General
purpose funding is a combination of base revenue limits, revenue limit add-ons, and
excess local property taxes (Timar, 2006). The primary components of the base
revenue limit are local property taxes and state aid. While each district has a
different revenue limit per student, the total revenue limit for a district is dependent
on the number of students attending its schools, also called the Average Daily
Attendance (ADA). Under the base revenue limit, the amount of state aid each
district receives is inversely related to the amount of property taxes it is able to
generate, however as required by the Court in Serrano, the relationship between
property wealth and expenditures is virtually eliminated under the revenue limit
system. In addition to the base revenue limit, districts are able to keep add-ons,
which account for approximately 5% of the general-purpose fund (Timar, 2006).
Excess taxes above the revenue limit are also kept by districts, but are calculated as
part of the add-ons to the general fund.
In addition to the base revenue limit allocations, districts also receive
categorical aid, in varying amounts (EdSource, 2000). Categorical aid is
“earmarked” for special purposes and is typically heavily regulated. In many cases
categorical aid consists of both federal and state court rulings, as well as legislative
action (Timar, 2006). Some examples of categorically funded programs in
California include: Class Size Reduction, instructional materials, low SES, EL,
migrant families, and special education (EdSource, 2000). Figure 2.1 provides a
graphic breakdown of all revenue sources for K-12 public education in California.

37

And although there are a number of other revenue sources that help make-up each
district’s budget, for the purposes of this study, smaller revenue sources were not
included in the narrative. Figure 2.2 shows how the different funds are actually
allocated between the general fund and categoricals.
Figure 2.1: 2008-09 Revenues for K-12 Education

Source: EdSource (2009a)

38

Figure 2.2: How Resources are Distributed in California’s School Finance System

Source: EdSource (2009b)

Although school finance in California is complex, and sometimes
inconsistent, the current fiscal crisis in California has caused additional problems for
local districts (EdSource, 2010b. Some of the current issues include a reduced
ability balance budgets, retain teachers, and continue to meet the accountability
demands placed upon them by the state and federal governments (EdSource, 2010a).
A recent publication reported that K-12 education in California has been drastically
cut resulting in approximately a $12,000 cut per classroom (EdSource, 2010b).
Figure 2.3 shows how Proposition 98 funding in K-12 education has changed from
2007-08 to 2009-10. If we look at the figures more closely, we can see that K-12
education took a one-year cut of approximately $7.2 billion from 2007-08 to 2008-
09. In today’s fiscal crisis, the need to provide better recommendations for resource
allocation, as it relates to student achievement, is critical as the demands on public
education continue to increase each year under NCLB.

39

Figure 2.3: K-12 Proposition 98 Funding from 2007-2010

Source: EdSource (2009a)
In response to this fiscal crisis, the state provided some flexibility within the
state categorical programs, providing districts with more localized control to make it
through these tough economic times (EdSource, 2010b). And although the state cut
all categorical programs by approximately 20%, the new flexibility will provide
districts with the ability to control how these monies are spent. In addition to the
flexing of categorical programs, the state is also allowing local districts to redirect
ending fund balances from approximately 50 programs to pay for any educational
purpose (EdSource, 2010b).
The third section of the literature review will focus on California student
achievement, and the accountability measures that have been implemented over the
last ten years. If resource allocation should be guided by student need,

40

understanding California’s student population, as well as their gaps in achievement
will provide a better understanding of how resources can be used to improve student
achievement.
California Student Achievement and Resource Allocation
California education, by far, serves the largest and one of the most
challenging student populations in America (EdSource, 2008). Recent publications
indicate that California serves more than 6.3 million students, resulting in two
million more students than the next populous state (EdSource, 2009c; EdSource,
2010a). Figure 2.4 provides the most current student population data for K-12
enrollment available for the five most populous states. As we take a closer look at
Figure 2.4, we find that the difference between the two most populous states,
California and Texas, is about the same as the student enrollment of the fifth most
populous state Illinois. Needless to say, with such a large population of the future
workforce attending California schools, roughly one in eight students in America
today, it is critical for educators and policymakers to make significant improvements
in achievement (Bitter & O’Day, 2006; EdSource, 2008).

41

Figure 2.4: K-12 Enrollment for the 5 Largest States in the United States 2005-06
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
C alifornia Texas New Y ork Florida Illionois
Source: EdSource (2008)

California Accountability and NCLB
Over the last 15 years, California has worked hard to improve its
accountability measures across the state (Hatami, 2006). Beginning in 1994, using
outcome based accountability systems became the primary goal within K-12
education (Bitter & O’Day, 2006). The poor performance on the 1994 NAEP, along
with the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA), provided a spark for the
implementation of a world-class accountability model.
To begin this process, the state created a series of content specific grade level
standards, as well as the Standardized Testing and Reporting system (STAR).
However, it was the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) in 1999 that truly
helped to establish this outcome based accountability system (Bitter & O’Day,
2006). One of the most publicized and well-understood pieces of the PSAA was the
creation of the Academic Performance Index (API), a scoring system that ranks and

42

measures each school in California based upon a weighted formula. API scores for
every school in California are released each fall, with the beginning of a new school
year, and provide all stakeholders with the academic progress made during the
previous school year. To date, API scores are one of the greatest factors parents
consider when selecting the school their child will attend.
In addition to API scores, under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of
2001, all schools in California are also accountable for meeting federal guidelines
(Hatami, 2006). NCLB uses a different accountability model, and as previously
discussed in an earlier section, calling for 100% of students to be proficient on the
CST by the year 2014. Under this system, schools are either determined to be
successful or failing. The resultant label for each school is based upon their ability
to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for each of their significant subgroups as
defined by NCLB. Schools that make their AYP targets each year can let out a sigh
of relief, while those that do not, fall into the at-risk category in year one, and if they
fail to make AYP a second year in a row fall into Program Improvement (PI).
Schools that fall into PI are subject to a series of sanctions that increase each year as
they continue to fail to make AYP. Table 2.3 provides the most current statistics on
the number of California schools in PI. Recent reports claim that 41.5% of all
middle schools and 71% of Title I schools are currently in PI in California. In
addition, Table 2.3 shows how long many schools have been in PI. It should be
noted, that non-Title I schools in affluent neighborhoods are not held accountable for
making their AYP targets each year (California Department of Education, 2009).

43

Table 2.3: Number of Schools in Program Improvement in California 2009-2010
2009-10 Elementary Middle High Total
Number of
Schools
5,998 1,466 2,453 9,917
Number of
Title I
Schools
4,139 859 1,067 6,065
Title I Schools in Program Improvement
Year 1 493 88 167 748
Year 2 186 50 73 309
Year 3 227 39 57 323
Year 4 208 60 60 328
Year 5 601 371 103 1,075
Total 1,715 608 460 2,783
Source: EdSource (2010a)
Student Demographics and Challenges
In addition to serving the largest student population in America, California
also has some of the biggest challenges when it comes to student achievement and
high school graduation. Woody and Henne (2006) argue that almost half of
California’s student population is at risk of failure in education due to parent income
levels. In fact, California’s percentage of low SES students is higher than the
national average, and has increased over the last ten years, even though this is
divergent to the national trend. Recent reports indicate that approximately 54% of
students in California qualify for the federal free and reduced lunch program, the
primary indicator of low SES students (EdSource, 2010a). Furthermore, California
has the largest number of students (approximately 25%) who live in a family where
the head of household has not completed high school (EdSource, 2010a).

44

The connection between poverty and low student achievement is widely
accepted in education. However, with all of the policy initiatives, ballot measures,
and increases in funding, the perplexing issue is that the achievement gap remains
(Woody & Henne, 2006). According to the most recent National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) results, California placed 48
th
and 49
th
respectively (in
the country) on the 4
th
and 8
th
Grade Reading assessments (NCES, 2009).
Furthermore, low SES students are 30% less likely to achieve proficient or advanced
on the California Standards Test in both English Language Arts and Math (Woody &
Henne, 2006). Table 2.4 provides the most recent national rankings of California in
a number of critical areas related to student achievement. In addition, Table 2.4
contains the most current math and reading NAEP rankings for California. These
results clearly indicate the failed attempts of everyone in education to provide a high
quality education to every student in California.
Table 2.4: National Educational Rankings of California

California
Ranks in
U.S.
California
Average
U.S.
Average
Highest Lowest
Teacher Salaries
(2007-08)
1 $65,808 52,800 65,808/CA 36,674/South
Dakota

Expenditures
per Pupil (2007-
08)
41 $8,586 9,934 17,109/District
of Columbia

5,685/Arizona
Public School
Revenue (2006-
07) per 1,000
Personal Income
in 2007
22 $47 $46 $60/Vermont $24/District of
Columbia

Per Capita
Personal Income
(2007)
9 $43,221 $39,430 63,881/District
of Columbia

$29,549/
Mississippi

45

Table 2.4, Continued
California
Ranks in
U.S.
California
Average
U.S.
Average
Highest Lowest
Percentage of
Children in HH
in Which the HH
Head Has Not
Completed High
School (2008)
1 26% 16% 26%/California 5%/Maine
Percentage of
Children Who
Speak a
Language Other
Than English at
Home (2008)

1 44% 21% 44%/California 3%/Mississippi &
Virginia
4
th
Grade NAEP
Reading*
48 210 Scaled
Score (23%
Prof/Adv)
220
Scaled
Score
(31%
Prof/
Adv.)

234 Scaled
Score (57 %
Prof/Adv.)
Massachusetts
207 Scaled Score
(18 % Prof/Adv.)
Louisiana
8
th
Grade NAEP
Reading*
49 253 Scaled
Score
(22 %
Prof/Adv.)
262
Scaled
Score
(30 %
Prof/
Adv.)

274 Scaled
Score
(42 %
Pro/Adv)
Massachusetts
251 Scaled Score
(19 % Prof/Adv)
Louisiana
4
th
Grade NAEP
Math*
45 232 Scaled
Score
(30%Prof/A
dv)
239
Scaled
Score
(39%
Prof/Ad
v)

252 Scaled
Score (57%
Prof/Adv)
Massachusetts
227 Scaled Score
(23% Prof or
Adv.) Mississippi
8
th
Grade NAEP
Math*
46 270 Scaled
Score
(23%
Prof/Adv)
282
Scaled
Score
(32%
(Prof/
Adv)

299 Scaled
Score (51%
Prof/Adv.)
Massachusetts
265 Scaled Score
(16%Prof/Adv.)
Mississippi
Source: EdSource (2010a); NCES (2009a); NCES (2009b)

Another concern and challenge for California educators is the relationship
between performance and EL students. EdSource (2008) states that nearly half of

46

the students attending California schools speak a language other than English at
home. In fact, California has 28% of the country’s students that speak a language
other than English at home. Furthermore, California also has the greatest number of
EL students (24%) attending its schools, comprising 37% of the country’s total EL
population (EdSource, 2008). While the student population in California has
increased by about 50% since 1981, the EL population in California has increased by
almost 300% (Woody & Henne, 2006). The most current CST results indicate that
EL students perform significantly lower in both ELA and Math than the statewide
proficiency averages, and fare even worse when compared to White and Asian
subgroups. Figures 2.5 and 2.6 show the proficiency levels of each significant sub-
group in California in both math and ELA. Clearly, there is a large achievement gap
for low SES and EL students attending school in California. With parent education
levels, parent income, and home language impacting student achievement so greatly,
it is critical for educators, researchers and policymakers to find ways to provide
higher learning outcomes for these students.

47

Figure 2.5: Percent of California Students Proficient or Advanced in English
Language Arts by Significant Subgroups 2008-09

Source: California Department of Education, (2010)

Figure 2.6: Percent of California Students Proficient or Advanced in Mathemetics by
Significant Subgroups 2008-09

Source: California Department of Education, (2010)
In addition to having the largest EL and low SES student populations in
America, California also serves one of the most ethnically diverse student
populations. Table 2.5 provides the demographic data for California’s total student
population. When looking at the ethnic data, we see that every significant sub-group
decreased in size, except for Hispanic and Multiple/No Response, even though the
total student population decreased by approximately 70,000 students. In addition,

48

the number of low SES students has also increased between 2004-2009 by
approximately 150,000 students. With each significant subgroup presenting its own
unique challenges for educators, especially as resources relate to student needs,
stakeholders in California may need to seriously consider the one-size fits all
resource model that has been in place for the last thirty years.
Table 2.5 Student Demographic Population and Largest Significant Subgroups in
California
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Hispanic 2,961,104
(46.8%)
3,003,716
(47.6%)
3,026,956
(48.1%)
3,056,616
(48.7%)
3,064,614
(49.0%)
White 1,981,547
(31.3%)
1,915,491
(30.3%)
1,849,078
(29.4%)
1,790,513
(28.5%)
1,741,664
(27.9%)
Asian/Pacific
Islander
550,083
(8.7%)
557,558
(8.8%)
549,232
(8.7%)
555,946
(8.9%)
526,403
(8.4%)
African
American
505,221
(8.0%)
495,017
(7.8%)
477,776
(7.6%)
466,141
(7.4%)
454,781
(7.3%)
Filipino 163,151
(2.6%)
165,572
(2.6%)
165,480
(2.6%)
167,385
(2.7%)
168,112
(2.7%)
Native
American/
Alaskan
51,821
(0.8%)
50,758
(0.8%)
48,383
(0.8%)
47,543
(0.8%)
46,446
(0.7%)
Multiple/No
Response
109,214
(1.7%)
124,324
(2.0%)
170,038
(2.7%)
191,325
(3.0%)
210,501
(3.4%)
Total
Enrollment
6,322,141 6,312,436 6,286,943 6,275,469 6,252,031
LARGEST SIGNIFICANT SUBGROUPS IN CALIFORNIA
Socio-
Economically
Disadvantaged
(SED)
3,127,202
(49.9%)
3,164,384
(51.1%)
3,149,361
(50.8%)
3,118,053
(50.9%)
3,284,120
(53.7%)
Hispanic 2,961,104
(46.8%)
3,003,716
(47.6%)
3,026,956
(48.1%)
3,056,616
(48.7%)
3,064,614
(49.0%)
White 1,981,547
(31.3%)
1,915,491
(30.3%)
1,849,078
(29.4%)
1,790,513
(28.5%)
1,741,664
(27.9%)
English Learners
(EL)
1,591,525
(25.2%)
1,570,424
(24.9%)
1,568,738
(25.0%)
1,553,091
(24.7%)
1,515,074
(24.2%)
Special
Education
(Age 0-22)
681,969
(10.8%)
683,178
(10.8%)
679,648
(10.8%)
677,875
(10.8%)
678,105
(10.8%)
Source: EdSource (2010a)

49

Resource Allocation in California
Despite the policy initiatives, reform efforts, improvements in achievement,
and increased accountability measures, California still continues to lag behind other
states in numerous areas (Loeb, Bryk & Hanushek, 2007). As a result, thousands of
California schools are in PI, and NAEP scores rank among the lowest in the country
in both math and reading (see Table 2.4). And while some people may argue that
California’s low performance can be attributed to its large low SES and EL student
populations, Loeb, Bryk and Hanushek (2007) argue that this is simply untrue.
When we take a closer look at all student subgroups, we actually find that California
does not do well for any of them. This failure has led to the claim that California’s
inability to produce high achievement results for its students is largely due to its
inability to provide adequate resources for its students (Bitter & O’Day, 2006). In
fact, many argue that California schools are among the most poorly funded schools
in the nation (Bitter & O’Day, 2006; EdSource, 2010b; Loeb, Bryk & Hanushek,
2007). While California has one of the largest economies in the world, and ranks 9
th

in the country in per capita income, it ranks 22
nd
in public school revenue and 41
st
in
expenditures per pupil (see Table 2.4).
While many agree that California’s low student achievement will hurt the
students’ economic outcomes later in life, Loeb, Bryk and Hanushek (2007) explain
that it could also be devastating for the state. In fact, Hanushek and Lindseth (2009)
claim that the differences in performance on standardized tests have significant
implications on an individual’s success and the success of the community. Hanushek

50

adds that performance on standardized tests in math and science are strongly
correlated with a person’s earning potential, productivity, and even to our national
economic growth. With stakes as high as these, and in the face of the current
economic crisis, it is critical that educators use research to better align resource
allocation with student achievement, and ultimately high school graduation. The
next section will focus on the shift from equity in education to adequacy.
Equity vs. Adequacy in Education
Ever since Brown v Board of Education (1954), and the civil rights
movement in the 1960’s, there has been a shift in education to provide all students
with equal access to a public education (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). The
implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965,
and the funding that was attached to it, also sought to create equity in education by
providing more resources to the students from the most challenging backgrounds
(Cross, 2004). In addition, the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 also added to
the effort to provide an equitable education by drawing attention to the disparities in
student achievement between different ethnic and socioeconomic sub-groups (Nation
at Risk, 1983). And although policymakers, researchers and educators have all been
working to improve learning outcomes for every student in this country, especially
those that have been historically underserved, many would argue that none of these
efforts have made a difference in improving student achievement, especially for low
SES, EL and students of color (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Hatami, 2006; Johnson,
2002; Reeves, 2005).

51

With the increased attention on student achievement, and the inability for
most schools in America to close the achievement gap, it has become critical for
everyone in education and school finance to take a closer look at how resources are
being used to improve student achievement (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Johnson,
2002; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008). And while most financial
policies in education have simply addressed the need for more resources, until
recently, these policies have not closely examined the adequate level of resources
needed to raise student achievement. The question adequacy attempts to answer is
whether or not schools have the adequate funding necessary to implement strategies
and initiatives that have proven efficacy in raising student achievement (Odden,
2003). This process involves identifying the costs associated with effective
programs and strategies, and then linking those strategies and programs to the dollar
amount needed to provide them. And while a number of states have already begun
the adequacy investigation and implementation (Wyoming, Arkansas, Kentucky and
New Jersey), many others are just beginning to take notice (Baker, Taylor & Vedlitz,
2008).
Resource Allocation Models: Four Approaches to Adequacy
Over the last ten years, there has been an increase in the attention given to
educational adequacy studies (Imazeki, 2008; Taylor, Baker & Vedlitz, 2005). In
fact, Baker, Taylor and Vedlitz (2008) found that over 30 states have initiated one or
more studies on how an adequacy model can be used to reach desired objectives.
Adequacy, in its purest form, is when both school resources and school improvement

52

or accountability come together. It is where extra resources are allocated at the site
level to improve educational outcomes for the students that need them (Clune, 1994).
Imazeki (2008) defines adequacy as the minimum amount of money a district must
spend to achieve a desired educational outcome. Odden and Picus (2008) provide a
more detailed definition of educational adequacy, arguing that adequacy models
should include:
• the state’s expectations of what should be taught to each student
throughout their education.
• the goal to provide all students with an education that allows them
to attain proficiency (as defined by each state) on a state
standardized assessment, and to work toward improving the
number of students scoring advanced.
• the alignment between the state’s accountability system and
NCLB, which believes that all students can attain proficiency
regardless of ethnicity, SES, and/or home language.
• the provision of the necessary funding required to provide every
student with the necessary resources to attain proficiency.
In short, adequacy answers the question of how much money it would cost to ensure
that all students meet grade level standards every year, and ultimately, graduate from
high school with the necessary knowledge and skills to be successful. With such a
large effort focused on the costs/resources associated with providing an adequate
education, we can clearly see that policymakers, researchers and practitioners are all

53

concerned with finding ways to improve educational outcomes for all students by
strategically allocating resources to meet these challenges (Taylor, Baker & Vedlitz,
2008).
Categories of Adequacy Models
In looking through past adequacy studies and reports, we find that there are
four adequacy models that have been studied in the United States (Picus, 2006).
These four models all fall into two basic categories. They are considered as either a
top down analyses or a bottom up analyses (Taylor, Baker & Vedlitz, 2008). Top
down studies look at resource allocation, achievement, and other factors and then
estimate the costs associated with providing an adequate education by connecting the
inputs to the outputs. Bottom up studies look at the costs associated with
constructing the model school. The most common top down approaches include the
Successful Schools Model and the Cost Function Model, while the most common
bottom up approaches include the Professional Judgment Model and the Evidence-
Based Model (Taylor, Baker & Vedlitz, 2005). The biggest difference between an
evidence-based approach and a professional judgment approach is that the evidence-
based approach uses consultants and researchers, while the professional judgment
approach uses the knowledge, skills, and experience of the people actually doing the
work (Baker, Taylor & Vedlitz, 2008).
Successful District/Schools Approach
The successful schools approach (SS) was developed by Augenblick in 1997,
about fifteen years after Chambers and Parrish conducted the first school finance

54

studies on adequacy (Chambers & Levin, 2006). According to Odden (2003) and
Picus (2006), the successful district (schools) approach tries to identify and analyze
districts (or schools) that have been successful in achieving high student outcomes
for the students they serve. The adequacy level is then set at the “weighted average
of expenditures per pupil” of those schools or districts. This approach has been used
in Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, and Washington (Odden & Picus, 2008). An advantage
of this approach is that resources are linked to a desired performance level.
However, there are also disadvantages with using this approach to determine
adequate levels of spending. One major concern is that the approach does not
account for variation in student demographics or characteristics (Chambers & Levin,
2006). Once a baseline has been determined, how do educators and policymakers
account for all of the differences (EL, low SES, special education, etc.) we see in
student populations today? While it may look like a great way to conduct
benchmarking, or even provide a model that can be tried or replicated elsewhere, it
appears that each context could produce different recommendations on resource
allocation.
Recently, this approach has been altered and used as part of the beating-the-
odds (BTO) research. In fact, Perez et al. (2007), as part of Getting Down to the
Facts - a comprehensive research project (totaling 21 different studies)
commissioned to provide policymakers, educators, and other stakeholders with
information regarding California’s school finance and governing systems -
conducted a BTO study examining the ways in which these schools allocated

55

resources. In the study, Perez et al. analyzed 61 elementary, seven middle, and 35
high schools that had been identified as high performing, and compared their
resource allocation strategies to 76 elementary, 32 middle, and five high schools that
had been identified as low performing (LP). Using 2004-05 data, Perez et al. (2007)
found that although there was no evidence that BTO or LP schools had different
“quantities” of personnel, they did find differences in the qualifications of personnel
between the two groups. The findings from this study suggest that instead of looking
at adding more personnel, policymakers should consider reexamining which staff
“attributes” are needed to create better schools that lead to improved student
performance.
The Cost Function Approach
The cost function approach (CF), also known as the “econometric approach”
in previous research (Augenblick, Meyers & Anderson, 1997), labels the per pupil
expenditure as the dependent variable and then the student/district characteristics and
desired learning outcome as the independent variable and then uses regression
analysis to determine a per pupil expenditure for the district (Odden, 2003). Other
districts can then use this per pupil expenditure as a baseline and then adjust their
resource allocation strategies based upon the needs of their student population and
regional cost of living expenses. Picus (2006) adds that controlling for student
characteristics such as home language, family income, and other factors that we
know affect student achievement must be considered when using a cost function
approach. While no state currently uses this approach to funding their education

56

system, cost function studies have been conducted in Illinois, New York, Texas and
Wisconsin (Odden & Picus, 2008).
While conducting a review of the literature on cost function studies, Imazeki
(2008) found that although the cost function approach is generally more complex
than other approaches to adequacy, the advantage of this model is that it directly
quantifies the connection between learning outcomes and the costs associated with
these outcomes for a given district. She also argues that this model could be
especially attractive to a state like California that has a diverse student population.
Imazeki adds that a disadvantage to the approach is that it does not provide a strong
rationale for how districts should allocate their resources, and that the model is
limited by the same statistical problems that factor into any statistical study,
including access to good data and errors made in estimation. Although this approach
has been used in numerous studies over the last ten years, Baker, Taylor and Vedlitz
(2008) argue that cost function studies do not provide much guidance regarding the
mix of resources needed to produce these desired outcomes. Furthermore, Chambers
and Levin (2006) state that the approach relies too heavily on a fixed set of
performance measures (usually average district achievement), and can be extremely
challenging to explain to educators, policymakers, and the general public.
Professional Judgment Approach
The professional judgment approach (PJM), also called the resource cost
model (RCM), was developed by Chambers and Parrish in 1994 (Odden & Picus,
2008). This approach was originally used as an input-based approach, but over the

57

last decade has been modified to focus on outputs (Chambers & Levin, 2006). The
PJM model takes a group of educators (experts) and legislators to determine and
recommend the resources needed to provide an adequate education in a number of
what are called “prototype” schools (Baker, Taylor & Vedlitz, 2008; Odden, 2003).
Researchers and experts then “interpolate” with the prototypes to determine the cost
estimates for each district in the state. This model has most recently been used in
adequacy studies in Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,
Oregon, South Carolina and Wyoming (Odden, 2003; Odden & Picus, 2008).
A major advantage of using the PJM to determine educational adequacy is
that it identifies a set of “elements” that could be purchased by each district with a
given amount of money, and then factors in the additional resources needed to
provide for disadvantaged students by an “adjust price factor” (Odden & Picus,
2008). Taylor, Baker and Vedlitz (2005) argue that a major benefit to using a
resource oriented approach (such as PJM) is that it is transparent and easily
understood by policymakers and the general public because they do not involve
complex “statistical modeling.” Chambers and Levin (2006) add that a major
advantage to using a PJM is that it both provides a “total cost estimate” for providing
an adequate education, and it also provides information for how these costs can vary
depending on student need. Furthermore, Chambers and Levin (2006) argue that
when other regional cost studies are incorporated to include central office,
maintenance and operations costs, there is potential to develop state, district, and
even site projections using this approach. A disadvantage of this approach is that it

58

only connects resource levels to student achievement indirectly through staff
development, and does not account for the direct measures of student achievement
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Odden (2003) adds that other than the “expert”
recommendations from the panel, this model has no distinct connection to improving
student performance. In fact, it has been very difficult to find expert panels that can
agree upon the resources needed to provide an adequate education (Odden & Picus,
2008). Taylor, Baker and Vedlitz (2005) argue that the use of expert panels to
determine adequate levels of funding can leave a state or district vulnerable to blind
spots and/or biases found within the group or individual panel members. They add
that if a panel is “poorly drawn” that there can be large variances in opinions, which
could lead to cost estimates that are flawed in one direction or the other.
Evidence-Based Approach
A fourth approach, the evidence-based approach (EB), uses research or other
proven methods/strategies for improving student achievement, identifies the costs
associated with providing these strategies, and then determines the site, district, and
state resources needed to fund this model (Odden & Picus, 2008). Odden (2003)
explains that an EB approach determines a set of “ingredients” that are needed to
provide all students with a high quality rigorous education, and then determines the
costs associated with each ingredient to develop or tabulate the total costs. In
addition, this approach also provides educators and policymakers with a set of
educational strategies that can be used to produce a desired outcome so that districts
and schools can most effectively use these resources to achieve their goals. Baker,

59

Taylor and Vedlitz (2008) explain that an evidence-based approach uses a team of
consultants to determine the resources that are needed based upon a “proven
effective” school reform model.
Over the last ten years, there have been numerous studies conducted using an
EB approach throughout the country. Arkansas, Arizona, California, Kentucky,
Oregon, Washington and Wyoming are just a few of the states that have all been part
of these studies (Baker, Taylor & Vedlitz, 2008; Odden & Picus, 2008). A major
advantage of the EB approach is that it, like the PJM, provides reasonably easy to
understand results (Baker, Taylor & Vedlitz, 2005). In addition, in a time where
increased accountability and standards-reform are all around us, the EB model
provides not only the resources needed to provide an adequate education, but it also
provides recommended instructional strategies, all of which are research-based and
have proven efficacy in improving student achievement, that can be used to obtain
desired educational outcomes (Odden, 2003). This “best practice” approach is at the
heart of all educational reform efforts that have been cited in numerous recent and
current studies and publications on education (DuFour et al., 2006; Elmore, 2002;
Johnson, 2002; Marzano, 2003; Marzano, 2005; Marzano, 2006; Odden, 2009;
Odden & Archibald, 2009; Reeves, 2005; Reeves, 2006).
Chamber and Levin (2006) argue that a disadvantage to using an EB
approach is that the research is cloudy regarding its effectiveness. It appears that
there is contrasting evidence on how specific resources actually impact student
achievement (e.g. teacher certification, pre-service teacher preparation, experience),

60

as well as the impact that factors such as class size can have in improving
performance. Due to the conflicting findings within the research, it is difficult to
make decisions on which ingredients should be included because the findings could
be biased depending on the literature that was used to prescribe certain ingredients.
Imazeki (2008) argues that this approach has not been studied enough to provide the
necessary evidence for its implementation, and adds that further research must be
done in this area.
Adequacy in California
In California, the adequacy movement is relatively new (Chambers & Levin,
2006). However, a few studies have been done on adequacy using various
approaches discussed above (Taylor, Baker & Vedlitz, 2008). To date, the Williams v
California lawsuit is the only school finance case in which the state has defended a
lawsuit that pertained to the resources required to ensure learning. The Williams
case drew attention to the discrepancies in teachers, textbooks, instructional
materials, and facilities between schools and districts. In addition, it highlighted the
imbalance between the allocation of resources and the need to ensure high levels of
learning for students (Chambers & Levin, 2006).
The adequacy of school finance systems can be a daunting task presenting
significantly more challenges than equity (Augenblick, Meyers & Anderson, 1997).
A major reason for these challenges is largely due to the lack of a generally accepted
framework or model that can be used to drive the adequacy effort (Augenblick,
Meyers & Anderson, 1997; Imazeki, 2008; Odden, 2003). Another challenge is that

61

it is difficult for many in education to connect resources to student achievement,
typically a standardized test score, when there are still so many questions about the
validity of high stakes assessments (Picus, 2006). However, even with these
challenges, the pressures to reform public education, largely due to NCLB and the
need to be globally competitive, are increasing each and every year. As a result,
more and more states will be examining how they allocate resources to improve
performance (Taylor, Baker & Vedlitz, 2005).
The Evidence-Based Model: Funding for Adequacy
As discussed in previous sections of this chapter, the Odden and Picus’
(2008) Evidence-Based Model (EBM) provides the theoretical framework for this
study. And while Odden (2003) and Taylor, Baker and Vedlitz (2005) argue that
there is no single approach to adequacy that has been widely accepted in this
country, Odden and Picus (2008) argue that the EBM provides us with the most
“substantively sound methodology” in adequacy research. In addition, the EBM has
identified a set of research-based components - all of which have proven efficacy in
improving student achievement at the school level. Furthermore, this model also
prescribes the resources (amount of funding) needed to provide the components
required to meet a pre-determined set of achievement objectives. In an effort to
provide a more clear understanding of the EBM, the following subsections, as well
as Table 2.6, will provide a detailed explanation of the critical components as well as
recommendations for allocating resources in a prototypical middle school (Odden &

62

Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008). In addition, Figure 2.7 provides a graphic
on the critical and peripheral components of the EBM.
Table 2.6: Evidence-Based Model: Prototypical Middle School
School Element Evidence-Based Model
School Size 6-8; 450 Students
Class Size 25
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for intensive PD training
Administrative Support
Principal 1
School Site Secretary 1.0 Secretary and 1.0 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 18
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers
Instructional Facilitators/Mentors 2.25
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100 poverty students: 2.25
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 teacher for every 100 EL students:.45
Extended Day 1.8
Summer School 1.8
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0 professional teacher positions
Severely disabled students 100% state reimbursement minus federal funds
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes
5% of personnel resources and special education
personnel
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty students: 3.15
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0
Librarians/media specialists 1.0
Resources for gifted students $25 per student
Technology $250 per pupil

63

Table 2.6, Continued
School Element Evidence-Based Model
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil
Student Activities $200 per pupil
Professional Development
$100 per pupil for other PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc. not included above
Source: Odden & Picus (2008)
Figure 2.7: Evidence-Based Model
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

Source: Odden, Picus, Goetz, Mangan & Fermanich (2006)

Core Teachers/Class Size
While class sizes of 15 in grades K-3 have been found to have a positive
impact on student learning, especially for low SES and EL students, it has been
difficult to find empirical data that support staffing students in grades 4-12 at these
same levels (Odden & Picus, 2008). Therefore, class sizes in grades 4-12 have been

64

set at 25 based upon the findings that this is the national average for these grades,
and that all comprehensive school reform efforts use this number in staffing
recommendations.
Specialist Teachers and Planning Preparation Time for Collaboration
Recently, a number of researchers and practitioners in education have been
calling for time, during the school day, for teachers to plan and collaborate on
instruction and student learning (DuFour, 2003; Reeves, 2006; Waters & Marzano,
2006; Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009). Odden and Picus (2008) argue that
teachers need to be involved in collaborative planning, related staff development,
and curriculum planning during the regular instructional day. This planning time
should be at least 45-60 minutes of uninterrupted time, and include such things as
professional development, coaching, and collaboration with a clear focus on
curriculum and instruction. In addition, the EBM recommends that schools include
programs such as art, music, library time, vocational training, and physical
education. The inclusion of these programs, and the need for teachers to plan and
collaborate on curriculum, will require an additional 20 percent allocation of
specialist teachers to accommodate the recommendations of the EBM and still
provide the aforementioned class sizes.
Instructional Facilitators/School-Based Coaches/Mentors
Joyce and Showers (2002) have found that one of the most critical
components to improving instructional practice is the implementation of a strong
coaching and mentoring program. In fact, some studies have found that when

65

teachers have the time to work with an instructional coach/mentor that was
“embedded in the classroom,” teacher practice substantially improved (Joyce &
Calhoun, 1996; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Knight, 2006). The resultant findings show
an effect size increase of 1.68 with regard to the transfer of practice into the
classroom, and effect sizes of 1.25 and 2.71 increases for gains in skill level
objectives and knowledge level objectives respectively. Furthermore, it was found
that these effects were almost nonexistent when coaching was removed from the
professional development. However, Odden and Picus (2008) have found that very
few states provide the explicit necessary resources for schools to hire instructional
coaches, with the exception of Arkansas and Wyoming. In addition to the provision
of instructional coaches, the EBM also recommends providing the funding needed to
provide a half-time technology coordinator. All together, the EBM suggests 2.5 FTE
instructional facilitators/technology coordinators for the prototypical middle school
of approximately 450 students.
Providing Students with Extra Time and Support
Due to the fact that not all students can attain proficiency on standardized
assessments within the core instructional program, schools must find ways to provide
students with the extra time and support necessary to reach the desired performance
goals (DuFour, 2003; DuFour et al., 2006; Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2008). In this

66

section of the EBM, Odden and Picus (2008) have identified and recommended a set
of cost-based support programs for disadvantaged students including:
• Tutoring
• EL instruction
• Extended Day Programs
• Summer School
• A new model for providing special education
Tutoring
Tutoring has been found to be one of the most effective strategies for
improving student achievement (Wasik & Slavin, 1993). In addition, the alignment
of the tutoring program with the instructional program is a key component to its
effectiveness (Brinson & Mellor, 2005). The EBM uses student need to determine
the number of tutors required for a given school, calling for one tutor for every 100
low SES students (Odden & Picus, 2008). The EBM also calls for tutors to be
credentialed teachers, not high school or college students that lack training and
expertise. If we take a closer look at the prototypical middle school, anywhere from
one to four tutors would be needed. Tutoring sessions would last approximately 20
minutes, meaning that a tutor could meet one-on-one with 18 students each day.
This type of recommendation is positively aligned with the recommendations that
many researchers are suggesting for level two and three response to instruction (RtI)
models that have been implemented in thousands of schools across this country.
(Buffum, Mattos & Weber, 2008).

67

EL Instruction
Research suggests that students needing English Language (EL) support
because English is their second language benefit greatly with the combination of
small class sizes and one-on-one tutoring (Odden & Picus, 2008). In a recent study,
Gandara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly and Callahan (2003) found that EL students can
achieve the high performance standards set forth by NCLB and state accountability
systems if schools provide them with a highly qualified teacher that provides a
rigorous curriculum, uses assessments to identify skill gaps, and provides timely
instruction (reteaching) to reduce those gaps. Furthermore, the inclusion of good
instructional materials, and professional development for EL teachers have also been
found to be positively correlated with improved EL achievement results. Due to the
aforementioned factors, Odden and Picus (2008) have included the provision of 1.0
FTE for every 100 EL students in the school.
Extended Day Programs
In addition to the improvement of a school’s core instructional program, and
the additional staff needed to provide for low SES and EL students, there must also
be an allocation of resources to provide students with the extra time needed to
improve achievement. Lauer et al. (2006) found a positive correlation between a
well-designed and implemented after school program and improvements in academic
outcomes. According to Odden and Picus (2008), all school prototypes include the
necessary resources to provide and extended-day program. The EBM recommends
that resources be allocated for 50% of the adjusted free and reduced lunch pupil

68

count, with 1.0 FTE for every 15 qualified students. The model also recommends
paying this staff member at a rate of 25% of the position’s annual salary to offer a
2.5 to 3 hour extended day program five days a week.
Summer School
In an effort to meet the high achievement demands placed on students today,
many students will need additional time and support year round. Therefore, the
EBM also includes the resources needed to provide an effective summer school
program (Odden & Picus, 2008). Previous research has found that students lose a
more than a month’s work of learning over summer break. The impact is ever
greater, as much as one-third, for low SES and EL students, causing them to fall
further behind their more advantaged peers (Cooper et al., 1996). Borman and
Boulay (2004) provide a number of recommendations for improving the impact
summer school has on improving academic achievement. Their findings
recommend:
• Early intervention in elementary school
• Programs that last 6-8 weeks
• Clear focus on the basics of math and reading
• Small group and individual instruction
• Parent inclusion
• Ensuring that the program is implemented to fidelity
• Carefully monitoring student attendance

69

In accordance with the research discussed above, the EBM provides the
resources needed to implement a six-hour, eight-week program with class sizes set at
15. This program would allow for four hours of math and reading instruction, and
still provide students with two hours that could be used to participate in non-
academic activities (Odden & Picus, 2008). The formula used to determine adequate
staffing would be approximately 50% of the free and reduced lunch program,
providing each FTE with 25% of their annual salary.
Special Education
One of the hardest things to do in special education is to provide identified
students with the appropriate services, while trying to contain the costs associated
with such services (Odden & Picus, 2008). And while we are all aware of the
encroachment of special education services on the general fund for most districts, the
EBM argues for implementing a census approach to funding special education. For
the “high incidence and lower cost services” for the learning disabled, adding that
the state should reimburse local districts for 100 percent of the associated costs for
the severely disabled, subtracting the federal funds that have been provided for each
student. The EBM recommends adding 3.0 FTE for the prototypical middle school.
Funding for Additional Staffing and Materials
In addition to all of the recommendations discussed above, there are other
resources needed to provide everything from librarians to maintenance workers.
This section will discuss the EBM allocations for the necessary additional staffing
and materials needed to provide an evidence-based adequate education. While it is

70

difficult to argue that underperforming, low SES, EL and special education students
need more time and support, the EBM also includes funding to enrich the education
of gifted and talented students. According to Odden and Picus (2008), schools
should receive $25 per gifted student to provide an enriched educational experience
that meets their needs by challenging their intellect.
Substitute teachers are also accounted for in the EBM (Odden & Picus,
2008). Due to a number of factors, teachers are absent from school. A good
estimate to use in projecting these absences is approximately 5% of the sum of the
teachers needed in the previous subsections of this section on the EBM. If we were
to use Table 2.6, we would calculate 5% of the total staff needed to fund the model
within a given school, and allocate the funding needed to provide such a figure.
Odden and Picus (2008) also indicate that as student needs increase, due to
poverty, schools must respond with more staffing to support these students
academically, as well as socially and emotionally. Furthermore, the more
disadvantaged a student population is, the more critical and extensive a school’s
response systems need to be. At the elementary level, parent education and outreach
on how parents can help their children be successful can be effective in supporting
students’ needs. At the secondary level, helping parents understand and implement
high expectations at home, in terms of academic standards, navigating the middle
and high school pathways, and placing a strong emphasis on learning are all great
ways to help disadvantaged students perform better (Odden & Picus, 2008). To help
support the aforementioned strategies and outreach programs, the EBM recommends

71

1.0 FTE for every 100 students on free and reduced lunch. In addition, it is
recommended that each prototypical elementary school (432 students) have 1.8 FTE
to provide for guidance counselors, and 2.4 FTE for the prototypical middle school
(450 students) and prototypical high school (600) students (Odden & Picus, 2008).
While numerous different staffing requirements have already been discussed
in this section, other staff members have also been accounted for in the EBM
including: a principal, a secretary, clerical worker(s), librarian, and non-instructional
aides (Odden & Picus, 2008). For the prototypical middle school, the EBM
recommends 1.0 principal, 1.0 office secretary, 1.0 clerical, 1.0 librarian, and 2.0
non-instructional aides.
Successful School Strategies
For the last thirty years, educators have been searching for ways to truly
revamp public education and significantly improve the learning outcomes for all
students (Elmore, 2002; Odden & Archibald, 2009). Reeves (2005) states that
educators can hardly blame the public for their skepticism of education. Adding that
education reform as a whole is more distinguished by waste, than actual results or
improvement. And while the comments above may appear critical or harsh, they are
difficult to dispute, even by those who have spent their entire careers in education.
Thus, if we truly are going to provide students with a “world-class education”
(meaning they can critically think, analyze, problem solve and communicate at high
levels), as President Obama refers to in the newly published report on NCLB, then
we must willingly undergo enormous changes at all levels in education (U.S.

72

Department of Education, 2010; Odden, 2009). In addition to the emotionally
charged comments above, and the current fiscal crisis in California, all stakeholders
must take a closer look at how we allocate resources to attain the lofty goals of set
forth in NCLB (Odden & Archibald, 2009). Meaning, the effective use of resources
and the research-based educational strategies schools and districts employ to
improve educational outcomes must be connected and aligned as we move forward.
In an effort to marry the two, the Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based
Model provides a framework for resource allocation at the site level, as well as a
prescriptive set of educational strategies that schools and districts can employ to
truly use research to drive educational reform and improved student achievement
(Odden, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008; Odden & Archibald, 2009). And while there
are those that are quick to criticize the validity of adequacy, arguing for more and
better research before implementing such a model (Hanushek, 2006, Hanushek &
Lindseth, 2009), numerous studies have been conducted throughout America
examining the need to match resources with student achievement (Baker, Taylor &
Vedlitz, 2008; Odden, 2003; Taylor, Baker & Vedlitz, 2005; Odden & Picus, 2008).
Futhermore, Odden and Picus (2008) argue that the EBM is the an adequacy model
that provides not only a sound and research based approach, but also provides
districts and schools with the flexibility needed to serve various student populations.
Creating a Sense of Urgency and Understanding the Performance Challenge
According to Odden (2009) argue that one of the first strategies that schools
must employ is to create a sense of urgency. During this process, school leaders and

73

teachers try to fully comprehend the performance challenges that lie ahead. Togneri
and Anderson (2003) argue that creating the will to perform is a key component in
initiating change. As a guide for understanding the challenges of improving
performance, Odden (2009) claims that educators must first examine the pressures
related to improvement, take a hard look at their own performance data, and conduct
curriculum audits on what it is that is getting taught/emphasized in classrooms.
The pressure to perform comes from a variety of sources including: NLCB,
state accountability reform, local businesses and politics, the moral purpose to
provide a high quality education to every child in the country, and the pressure from
competition with other schools and districts (Odden, 2009). And while no school is
likely subject to all of the pressures mentioned above, every school feels pressure of
some sort or another to improve student performance. While studying the National
Literacy and Numeracy Strategies in England, one of the most publicized and
acclaimed educational reform efforts, Fullan (2005) found that a key to its success
was a combination of both pressure and support. The reform effort had intense
pressure to improve student performance, but it also included a tremendous amount
of support on how to get there.
A second factor in creating a sense of urgency is to conduct a careful and
honest examination of one’s state assessment data (Odden, 2009). In doing so,
schools and districts are able to determine and acknowledge areas for improvement.
Duke (2006), in a study that examined “turnaround” schools in Virginia, found that
the use of data, including data from high stakes assessments, to make decisions was

74

one of the most valuable practices in improving student achievement. Feldman et al.
(2003) also concluded that the use of data to determine strengths and weaknesses
was a key factor in improving student achievement because it forced people to
challenge their assumptions about student performance. Odden (2009) emphasizes
that schools and districts that conducted careful examination of their own
performance data, across subjects, grade levels and sub-groups are better able to
make gains in achievement because they have been honest with themselves on where
the gaps in student performance lie.
A final piece of creating a sense of urgency requires schools to engage in a
curriculum mapping process (Odden, 2009). In this process, schools compare state,
district, and site content standards and try to align them with state assessments.
Other researchers have also found that the alignment of the curriculum with state
assessments was a critical factor in improving student achievement (Ainsworth,
2003; Duke, 2006; Reeves, 2006). While it may seem like a simple approach, there
are many schools and districts that have a misalignment between the taught and
assessed curriculum. Odden (2009) found that for a number of districts the critical
analysis of their standardized assessment data provided the necessary information to
make these changes.
Goal Setting
Numerous leadership gurus, researchers, and educators agree that setting
goals is a key factor in improving student performance (Datnow, Park & Wohlstetter,
2007; Duke, 2006; Elmore & Burney, 1999; Hallinger & Heck, 2002; Hattie, 2009;

75

Northouse, 2007; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Ripley, 2010; Smylie, 1996; Walters &
Marzano; 2006; Weiss, 2007). In fact, Marzano, Waters and McNulty (2005), in one
of the most widely accepted books on school leadership, add that effective school
leaders and effective schools are able set clear and concrete goals. In addition,
Odden (2009) argues that schools that have made the largest growth in student
achievement have also set very high ambitious achievement goals for their students
as well as themselves.
In a recent study on school-based leadership and its effects on student
outcomes, Robinson (2007) found that goal setting had an effect on student outcomes
because it focused and organized the work of teachers. She adds that goals are
critical to the “influential coordinating mechanisms” of a school and must be
engrained in the school organization, as well as the classroom routines and practices.
Robinson further explains that goals work because they acknowledge that there is a
discrepancy between current levels of performance and desired levels of
performance. In this sense, goals help to focus individuals to put forth more time,
energy and effort than would otherwise be given to a certain problem. Furthermore,
while conducting a meta-analysis of 11 studies on the impact of goal setting on
improving student achievement, Hattie (2009) found that there is a strong
relationship between goal setting and subsequent student performance. Lastly,
Locke and Latham (1990) found that setting high goals and having high self-efficacy
leads to higher performance. The attainment of these goals, as well as the

76

satisfaction gained in attaining them, in turn, leads to greater job satisfaction and
future commitment toward organizational goals.
Changing the Curriculum and Implementing a New Instructional Vision
The curriculum program and instructional vision are at the core of any
educational reform effort. The curriculum program refers to the content that is being
taught, and the instructional vision and strategies are the tools that teachers use to
teach the content. Odden (2009) argues that when most schools move from low to
high performance, there is a major reconstruction of the curriculum and instructional
program. He adds that every school and district that was studied decided to adopt a
new curriculum and revamp their instructional practices and strategies used to
improve student learning. In fact, Odden found that no district that made large
achievement gains decided to simply work harder using the current instructional
program. Instead, they determined that the use of these materials and strategies lead
to the low levels of student performance in the first place.
Another major factor in achieving large gains in student achievement is that
when something works, we all use it in our instruction (Odden, 2009). The
instructional vision and practices were systemic across the school because they had
proven efficacy in improving performance. Waters and Marzano (2006), while
studying the effects of a superintendent’s leadership on improving student
achievement, found that successful superintendents ensure that improved student
achievement and an effective instructional program were non-negotiable. Meaning
that while teachers have some discretion as to which strategies they employ during a

77

certain lesson, those strategies must be grounded in the district’s instructional
framework and/or vision.
Assessment Program and Using Data to Make Decisions
The creation, implementation and monitoring of common formative and
summative assessments is at the heart of improving student achievement. Formative
assessments are those that are diagnostic in nature and are given at multiple times
within a typical nine-week grading period. Summative assessments are less frequent,
contain more content than formative assessments, and are typically given every nine
to twelve weeks (Odden, 2009). This type of evaluation program is also in
alignment with one of the tenets of a professional learning community (PLC), which
asks, how do we know what students’ know (DuFour, 2003; DuFour et al., 2006)?
By closely monitoring what students know, teachers are able to make informed
decisions about what to do next (Darling-Hammond, Alexander & Price, 2002;
Reeves, 2005). In fact, when Hattie (2009) examined the effect of a formative
evaluation program on student achievement, he found that out of 800 meta-analyses
on factors that influence student achievement that the use of data to determine what
to do next had a significant impact (effect size of 0.90) on achievement.
Odden (2009) argues that schools that have doubled performance had two
significant findings regarding the use of assessments and data. First, they
determined that student knowledge had to be monitored frequently and used to
inform practice. Secondly, they learned that “small-grained” assessments helped to
make practice more specific, which leads to greater efficiency and effectiveness.

78

Reeves (2005) reiterates that the use of common formative assessments has been one
of the most important factors in improving performance in the 90/90/90 schools that
he works with throughout the country. And although many in education would argue
that we over test students in school, there are numerous experts that would say that
this belief could not be more wrong (Ainsworth, 2003; DuFour et al., 2006;
Marzano, 2003; Reeves, 2005; Reeves, 2006). It is through the appropriate use of
assessments and data that teachers are able to learn, plan, and re-teach concepts that
were not learned the first time. In doing so, these teachers give students a second
chance at learning the material before they move on to the next topic only to see the
same students fail again (Datnow, Park & Wohlstetter, 2007; DuFour et al., 2006;
Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Reeves, 2005; Reeves, 2006).
Professional Development
When most people in education think about school-wide and instructional
improvement, the concept of professional development for teachers comes to mind
(Marzano 2005). Elmore (2002) argues that school success is critically dependent on
their ability to provide intensive and ongoing professional development for its
principals and teachers. In addition, Joyce and Showers (2002) and Desimone et al.
(2002) both argue that the most successful staff development programs must be
connected to student achievement. Lastly, Odden (2009), in his research on schools
that were able to double student performance, found that each one valued and
provided “widespread, systemic, intensive, and ongoing” professional development.

79

However, one question we must all ask ourselves is what type(s) of staff
development are able to bring about such a dramatic change in adult behavior that
we see significant gains in student achievement? We have all heard of schools that
provide expensive staff development opportunities for their teachers that result in
little or no change(s) in student achievement. Marzano (2003) provides four reasons
why staff development fails to improve student learning: 1) it is not tied to specific
content, 2) it does not allow teachers to “translate” generic practices into specific
content areas, 3) no opportunity for teachers to try or “field test” during the staff
development, and 4) it is often infrequent and disjointed. Furthermore, Reeves
(2006) explains that he has worked with a number of schools that have no strategic
plan or valid reasoning behind their staff development plans. Reeves (2005) adds
that in order for staff development to be effective, it has to have integrity, diligence
and be tied to student achievement, a factor that Hattie (2009) argues is often
unrelated to a school’s professional development strategy or plan.
In his study of school’s that were able to double student achievement, Odden
(2009) argues that there are six features of effective staff development.
1. Staff development must be “focused on the curriculum taught, job-
embedded, and ongoing.” Also, one-day workshops have to become
a past practice in education.
2. Staff development must be ongoing and long-term. Research
suggests that teachers need 100 – 200 hours of professional
development annually.

80

3. Staff development should include collective participation. It should
involve groups of teachers trying to solve a problem or learn
something collectively.
4. Staff development must be focused on the curriculum or content that a
teacher teaches. In addition, it should include common mistakes that
students make when learning a given subject.
5. It should provide opportunities for teachers to be active learners.
Teachers have to engage in the meaningful analysis of teaching,
learning, and the use of data. In addition, the use of instructional
coaches to guide this process is also critical to the success of the staff
development provided.
6. There must be coherence between the professional development
activities and the other factors of a school’s success such as teacher
evaluation, district goals, and performance standards.
While Odden (2009) used the evidence from the effective schools he studied,
it should also be noted that one or more of the six factors above have also been
included in numerous other studies and publications on effective professional
development (Duke, 2006; Elmore, 2002; Elmore & Burney, 1999; Garet et al.,
2001; Guskey, 1986; Hattie, 2009; Joyce & Calhoun, 1996; Joyce & Showers, 2002;
Knapp, Copland & Talbert, 2003; Odden & Archibald, 2009).
Although many in education have known about the factors that lead to
improved professional development, there continues to be a gap between what

81

people know and what they actually do. Table 2.7 provides a great example of what
schools and districts continue to do vs. what they should be doing based upon the
current and most widely accepted research.
Table 2.7: Two Approaches to Providing Professional Development
Popular Professional Development
Approaches
Professional Development Strategies in
Schools that Have Doubled
Performance
• Districts offer a menu of professional
development offerings covering
multiple topics.
• Teachers decide on their own which
ones to take.
• Programs are offered in locations
outside of school.
• Takes the position that most district-
provided professional development
does not meet the needs of the
teachers.
• Often the principal or the district
office has to sign off on each teacher’s
program.
• Focused, systemic, holistic, organic,
aligned, collegial, and ongoing
practice.
• Reflective of the new principles for
professional development established
by the National Staff Development
Council.
• Professional learning in team-based
settings involving teachers in the
school.
• Restructuring the school day to
provide common collaboration time.
• Linking learning directly to the
student’s curriculum.
• Focusing on improved teaching
practice and increased student
learning.
Source: Odden (2009)
In addition to the features of effective professional development discussed above, all
of which are heavily supported by the literature, Odden (2009) suggests that effective
professional development must incorporate a new set of principles. Adult learning
must occur in team-based settings, involve all teachers in the school, include
collaboration, and be directly linked to instruction and student achievement.
Use Instructional Time Efficiently and Effectively
The effective use of instructional time is also a key factor in improving
student outcomes. Simply ask any school age child and they could provide us with

82

strategies or ways to cut certain practices or routines that they find to be a “waste of
time.” In addition, if we walked into most secondary mathematics classrooms with
ten minutes to go in the period, we could arguably find a group of students working
on homework and a teacher either grading papers or answering email. If we truly
value instructional time, shouldn’t all teachers still be teaching, or at least working
with a group of struggling students in the room? Truth be told, educators do not use
instructional time as well as they could, including school leaders.
One of the first factors in using instructional time more effectively includes
lengthening the school year (Odden, 2009). While it is difficult to argue with such a
recommendation, the resources needed to add more school days are simply not
available in California. In fact, due to the current fiscal crisis in California, many
schools are actually cutting the number of school days that students must attend
(EdSource, 2010b). In an effort to meet the mandate of collective bargaining, and
the tremendous need to cut expenditures, local districts are cutting school days and
using furloughs to make the necessary reduction in costs. While it would be better
for students if we simply cut the salaries of everyone in education, it may prove to be
better for staff morale and motivation to use furloughs instead of mandated cuts.
Another recommendation for using instructional time more effectively is to
actually use time more wisely (Odden, 2009). This could include protecting
instructional time from interruptions, trips to the office, and intercom messages. In
addition, we could change the amount of time we give to certain subjects. For
example, since reading is such an important factor in learning at the secondary level,

83

we could provide students with 90 minutes of language arts/reading instruction. We
could also provide more time for struggling learners through afterschool tutoring, a
key factor of the EBM discussed in Odden and Picus (2008). Another strategy could
be to reduce class sizes to the EBM prescribed levels of 15 in K-3 and 25 in 4-12.
This would allow teachers to work with both large and small groups, and better
monitor/identify students that are not making progress. Odden (2009) also includes
two recommendations for secondary schools including the adoption of a six period
day (instead of a seven or eight period day as many schools across the country have
done), and double blocking core periods for some students (two periods of math or
two periods of ELA). Table 2.8 provides a summary of a number of evidence-based
recommendations that school practitioners could use to use instructional time more
effectively.
Table 2.8: Strategies for Improving Instructional Time
Elementary School Strategies for Improving Instructional Time
• Protecting instructional time for core
subjects
• Extending instructional time for some
subjects
• Maximizing the effective use of
instructional time.
• Allotting more time for struggling
students
• Reducing class size to 15 for grades K-
3
• Math and reading time interruption
free
• 90-120 minutes devoted to reading
instruction
• multiage grouping based on ability
• small group/whole group instruction
• small-group tutoring
• more engagement
• Fewer discipline issues

Secondary Strategies for Improving Instructional Time
• Adopting a six period day
• Reducing electives and providing
double periods for core classes
• Increases time for core subjects
• Lowers overall school costs
• Double periods in math and reading

Source: Odden (2009)

84

In addition to the better use of instructional time, Odden (2009) suggests that
schools need to provide more time (during the school day) for teachers to collaborate
on planning and professional development, as they related to improving practice and
student learning. This type of suggestion is also supported by numerous other
researchers and practitioners in education (Darling-Hammond, Alexander & Price,
2002; DuFour, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 2003; Marzano, 2003; Marzano, Waters &
McNulty, 2005; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008; Reeves, 2005;
Reeves, 2006; Wei et al., 2009). Odden (2009) explains that this is one of the most
powerful strategies for improving student outcomes. Furthermore, if you can get
parents involved in the planning process (due to the potential for reduced
instructional minutes on one day or the banking of minutes four days a week for an
early release one day a week), creating this planning time for teachers could cost the
district next to nothing to implement. In today’s fiscal crisis, this type of a strategy
could be a large factor in continuing to improve student achievement.
Extend Learning Time for Struggling Students
While it would be great if all students learned in the same way or in the same
amount of time, the truth is that each student brings with him/her a unique set of
factors that are related to student learning. While some of these challenges involve
things such as home life, others are related to brain chemistry (ADD, ADHD) or
previous educational experiences. Regardless of these factors, we can basically say
that students need different amounts of time and support to be successful (Darling-
Hammond, Alexander & Price, 2002; DuFour et al., 2006). To make up for the

85

different needs of each student, Odden (2009) argues that we must find ways to
provide the extra time and support needed to ensure that all students attain
proficiency of grade level standards. Some of his recommendations include: tutoring
during the instructional day during non-academic periods (electives), extended day
programs, and summer school. It should be noted that these recommendations are in
perfect alignment with the EBM staffing recommendations in these areas, which
provides tremendous support for the implementation of an evidence-based model
approach to adequately funding schools.
Tutoring has long been a factor related to improving student performance due
to its immediacy, alignment to current instruction, and intensiveness (Brinson &
Mellor, 2005; Odden, 2000; Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2000). In addition,
Marzano (2003), during his meta-analysis of effective school practices, found that
there was a strong correlation between tutoring and student achievement (effect size
of 0.50 standard deviation). Furthermore, Lauer et al. (2006) in a meta-analysis of
35 after school programs, found a positive correlation between tutoring and
improved student achievement, especially for at-risk students.
Another way to extend learning time for students is to extend the learning day
by offering an extended day program. These types of programs allow students to
have the extra time and support needed to be successful in school, and can be offered
before school, after school, and even on Saturdays (Odden, 2009). Lauer et al.
(2006) also found that there is a positive correlation between an effective after school
program and improving student achievement. And although there are a number of

86

factors to consider in developing an after school program such as student attendance,
staff qualifications, group size, resources needed, spacing, equipment, student-
teacher ratios, content offered, and frequency, the schools that were able to double
student performance all had some implementation of an extended day program.
The last recommendation for providing extra time and support is through the
provision of summer school (Odden, 2009). And with students losing at least a
month’s worth of knowledge and/or skill during the summer break, even more so for
students at risk, summer school can provide students with an opportunity mediate the
loss of knowledge over summer break (Borman & Dowling, 2006; Odden, 2009).
Cooper et al. (2000) in a meta-analysis of 93 summer school programs found that
students that attended summer school performed higher than similar students that did
not attend summer school. In addition, Hattie (2009) who states that summer school
programs appear to have no significant impact on student learning (effect size of
0.23 standard deviation), also concludes that even these small gains in achievement
may, in fact, be critical to the success of underperforming students that have
historically been marginalized.
Collaborative Culture and Shared Leadership
Odden (2009) found that the schools that were able to double student
performance also created a culture of shared leadership and collaboration. In many
ways, what Odden is referring to is the implementation and development of
professional learning communities (PLC) a concept that is discussed thoroughly in
educational reform and improvement literature (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin,

87

1999; DuFour et al., 2006; 1999; Fullan, 2003; Lee & Smith, 2001; Newman &
Wehlage, 1995; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Reeves, 2005; Reeves 2006; Resnick &
Hall, 1998). In a recent study conducted in Oakland, California, on small school
reform, Vasdueva, Darling-Hammond, Newton and Montgomery (2009) found that
the implementation of PLCs was a key factor in school effectiveness and
productivity. And although PLCs have been around in education for over 20 years
now (DuFour et al., 2006), for many educators the concept remains relatively
unknown.
A major tenet of a PLC is that it organizes a group of teachers that teach the
same subject and provides a venue for them to discuss everything from student
learning to best practice. Odden (2009) explains that schools that were able to
double performance shared the common values of using data to inform practice,
collaboration, high student expectations, and response to intervention (RtI), a
systematic approach to supporting struggling students. Odden (2009) adds that PLCs
created the structure necessary for teams of teachers to work toward improvement,
rather than the historical practice of teacher isolation and individualism. PLCs
helped the schools create a common instructional framework that was school-wide
and systematic. This allowed teachers to observe one another and discuss the
instruction using an agreed upon and common language for what good instruction
looks like.
This type of a collaborative culture also allows teachers to come together to
examine student learning using data. By using data to inform teacher practice, a set

88

of proven practices emerges and can be shared with the group. It brings instruction
out into the open and teachers have the ability to now use data to decide everything
from pacing to sequencing to best practices (the instructional strategies that have
proven efficacy in improving student learning for a given concept). Furthermore, the
implementation and use of data to improve student learning, naturally creates
distributed leadership as principals are engaged in the process of PLCs with the
teachers as they examine data and discuss what to do next in their instruction, as well
as what can be done to help struggling learners (Odden, 2009).
Best Practices
Although the use of best practices has been discussed in numerous other
sections of this literature review, Odden (2009) added it to his ten strategies for
improving student performance because he wanted to draw attention to this often
forgotten or implicit strategy for improving student learning. It should be noted that
none of the schools that were able to double performance did so with the knowledge
and skills that were already within the school. Instead, these schools sought out
evidence from the research, advice from experts and other practitioners, and worked
in teams to produce significant gains in student achievement (Odden, 2009).
Accessing research to implement best practices is a concept that is all too rare
in education, as many within the field believe that their philosophy is better, and the
research out there is flawed or constraining to their creativity (Hattie, 2009; Odden,
2009; Reeves, 2005). However, for some of the most successful schools in this
country, the use of best practices, action research, and data based decision-making

89

are at the cornerstone of their organizations (DuFour et al., 2006; Odden, 2009;
Reeves, 2005). In support of these claims, Marzano (2003) explains that effective
teachers not only use more effective instructional strategies during their instruction,
but also have more instructional strategies to use in their bag of tricks. Table 2.9
provides a synthesis of the literature on instructional best practices.
Table 2.9: Categories of Effective Instructional Practices as they Relate to Student
Achievement
Category Average Effect Size Percentile
Gain
Identifying Similarities and Differences 1.61 45
Summarizing and Note Taking 1.00 34
Reinforcing Effort and Providing
Recognition
0.80 29
Homework and Practice 0.77 28
Nonlinguistic Representations 0.75 27
Cooperative Learning 0.73 27
Setting Objective and Providing
Feedback
0.61 23
Generating and Testing Hypotheses 0.61 23
Questions, Cues and Advanced
Organizers
0.59 22
Source: Marzano (2003)
In addition to the use of research to inform practice, the schools that doubled
student performance also utilized the help of experts in one context or another.
Odden (2009) argues that the use of experts can be a great strategy for framing and
implementing change. This is a strategy that is employed by The Leadership and
Learning Center, the national organization that leads the 90/90/90 research and is
headed by Doug Reeves. The Leadership and Learning Center does not work with
any school or district that is not committed to systemic change, and requires all

90

organizations to agree to long-term commitments to build relationships and access
the Center’s expertise.
Human Capital
While it is difficult to argue that to create systemic and significant change in
education, a school or district must employ a bold set of research-based strategies,
this type of change would be impossible without the right people. Collins (2001)
explains that getting the right people on the bus is critical to the success of any
organization. Furthermore, Odden (2009) argues that in order to truly be successful,
schools have to address the talent or human capital aspect of improvement, as
teacher and leadership talent are critical to bringing about sustainable changes in
student achievement.
One of the most important factors to improving talent in education is doing a
better job of recruiting top talent. In an effort to recruit top talent, districts need to
actively recruit teachers and principals. To do so, districts could go after students
attending some of the top colleges and universities, as well as develop strong
relationships with teacher preparation programs (Odden, 2009). Another strategy
could be to recruit teachers from alternative certification programs such as Teach for
America (TFA) or The New Teacher Project. TFA receives thousands of
applications from students all across the country trying to make a difference in
education. In a study of over 1,000 effective teachers in TFA (as defined by their
ability to get 1.5 yrs growth or more on standardized assessments with most of their
students), Ripley (2010) found that some of the most successful TFA teachers

91

weren’t necessarily the best students, but instead were those that had to overcome
adversity. Using these findings, TFA now assesses a person’s perseverance and rates
teacher effectiveness based upon a person’s determination. In addition to the
aforementioned strategies, districts can also provide capacity building programs, as
well as use various incentives such as stipends and bonuses for positions that are
hard to staff such as math and science (Odden, 2009).
A second factor related to improving human capital within a school or district
is the management or development of this talent. Odden (2009) explains that the
most successful schools and districts not only aggressively recruit top talent, but they
also have a plan and strategy for how to develop that talent. Districts that made
significant gains in student achievement aligned their instructional framework,
professional development programs, and student performance goals. The alignment
of these factors allowed the district to better monitor new teacher progress, and more
appropriately evaluate them based upon the district’s initiatives. The recruitment,
development and retention of top performers should be a key strategy for improving
student achievement. By putting together a comprehensive approach to address all
three, many schools and districts will be better suited to make significant gains in
student performance.
Conclusion
Public education is in an era of fiscal crisis coupled with an intense pressure
to improve accountability and student outcomes (EdSource, 2010b; Hanushek &
Lindseth, 2009). Despite numerous school reform efforts, we continue to have large

92

gaps in student achievement for students that come from low SES, EL, and minority
backgrounds (Johnson, 2002). The inability to improve performance for all students,
has forced legislators, educators and researchers to question the validity of an equity
based education system, and shifted the focus of educational research and school
finance to adequacy (Odden, 2003). And although there are those that question the
relevance of adequacy (Lindseth, 2006; Hanushek, 2006), Odden & Picus (2008)
claim that matching resources to student achievement, especially for those greatest in
need, could dramatically improve student outcomes in America.
As part of the adequacy discussion, four major models have emerged. And
while they all have demonstrated some relevance in future research (Baker, Taylor &
Vedlitz, 2008), Odden & Picus (2008) explain the EBM provides the most
conceptually sound framework for funding public education. The EBM adequacy
model aligns resource use and proven research-based practices in an effort to achieve
high learning outcomes for all students. In addition, the model also provides some
flexibility for schools to provide the necessary resources and programs to meet the
needs of students that come from disadvantaged backgrounds. In the current study,
both Odden & Picus’ (2008) EBM will be used in conjunction with Odden’s (2009)
Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, a resource that provides detailed
examples of how schools that have drastically improved achievement results were
able to make such significant improvements. Furthermore, this study will examine
how some of the top performing schools (as defined by SSR) in Orange County,

93

California allocated school resources and implemented research-based strategies to
drive student performance.

94

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
California is experiencing some of the most difficult financial times in recent
memory (EdSource, 2009a). In fact, recent budget cuts have forced many schools to
cut budgets by over 15%, reducing spending to 2004-05 levels (EdSource, 2009b).
In addition to this fiscal crisis, local districts and schools are feeling increased
pressure to meet the student achievement targets set forth by the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 (EdSource, 2007b; Linn, 2005). And while many in
education have argued that schools have failed to utilize past resources effectively,
and continue to argue that there is evidence that schools are overfunded, the need to
provide every student with a rigorous standards-based curriculum remains
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Hanushek, 2006; Lindseth, 2006; Odden & Archibald,
2009). With all of the attention given to improving student achievement, and the
need for schools and districts to strategically allocate resources in a struggling
economy, it is critical for researchers and practitioners to work together to provide
reliable and consistent recommendations for how resources can responsibly be used
to improve student performance (Odden, 2009).
The purpose of this study was to identify and examine the resource allocation
methods/strategies of six middle/intermediate schools in Orange County, California
with a Similar Schools Ranking (SSR) of 10. These rankings are completed each
year by the California Department of Education (CDE), and are published each May
based upon the previous year’s Academic Performance Index (API). The criteria for

95

determining a site’s SSR are briefly explained in Table 3.1. Although the schools in
this sample are not the highest performing schools in the county or state by any
means, mostly due to the challenging/disadvantaged student populations they serve,
each site is in the top 10% of like schools with similar demographics. Based upon
these rankings, it is reasonable to conclude that these schools are outperforming
schools with similar demographics and provide this study with an abundance of
information that adds to the current research on adequacy in education, and
ultimately be used to inform future research and practice.
Table 3.1: Statewide API Ranks Compared vs. Similar Schools API Ranks
State API Ranks Similar School Ranks
• Calculated separately by school
type (elementary, middle, high
school)
• School’s API compared to all
other schools in the state of the
same type

• Calculated separately by school
type (elementary, middle, high
school)
• School’s API compared to 100
other schools of the same type
with a mix of similar
demographic characteristics

Source: California Department of Education (2009)
Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence Based Model (EBM) on resource
allocation, and Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
(TSDSP) were used as conceptual frameworks for data collection and analysis. Both
the EBM and TSDSP provide legislators, researchers, and practitioners with specific
recommendations for how resources can be used at the site level to bring about
improvements in student outcomes (Odden & Archibald, 2009). In addition, the
EBM and TSDSP were used as frameworks to compare the resource allocation

96

methods and school-wide educational strategies employed at each site to improve
student achievement. This chapter provides an outline of the methodology of the
current study consisting of the research questions, research design, sample,
instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis process.
Research Questions
This study carefully examined six sample schools to determine how resources
were used to implement research-based strategies to drive school improvement. In
addition to this study, numerous other books and studies have been published to
provide policymakers, researchers, and practitioners with recommendations and
evidence on specific strategies that can be used to raise performance (EdSource,
2007b; EdSource, 2008; Marzano, 2003; Hattie, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009).
However, at the current time, there is a gap in the literature for how resources can
best be used to provide all students with an adequate education. And while the
ESEA has done a number of things to improve equity in education, although many
will still debate this issue, more research must be completed to determine how
resources can be allocated more effectively to improve student outcomes (Hanushek
& Lindseth, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008; The Commission on No Child Left Behind,
2007). The research questions that will be used in this study include:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at
the school level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the
school’s instructional improvement plan?

97

3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in
response to the recent budget adjustments including overall funding
reductions and changes in the use of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with
or different from the resources use strategies used in Odden and Picus’
(2008) Evidence-Based Model?
Research Design
Determining how schools allocate resources to drive instructional
improvement, especially in these fiscal times, is critical to the future success of
reform efforts in education. In addition, the need to provide all students with an
adequate education is greater today than ever before (U.S. Department of Education,
2010). This study employed a multiple methods design consisting of both qualitative
and quantitative data. Patton (2002) explains that using a multiple methods approach
can increase the methodological rigor of a study. In addition, triangulation was used
to compensate for the strengths and weaknesses of each method and form of data
collected. Patton (2002) states that triangulation strengthens a study by combining
methods, which allows a researcher to validate and cross-check findings. Case
studies of each site were conducted providing the necessary data analysis needed to
determine how these schools allocated resources to improve student achievement.
The results of this study provides data on how six middle/intermediate schools, all of
which are in the top 10% of their demographic, allocated resources to improve
performance. The use of a multiple methods approach not only provided the

98

necessary data on what schools did to improve performance, but also included
information on the reasoning behind each resource allocation decision or strategy
selected.
Although a great deal was learned by examining each school’s Schools
Accountability Report Card (SARC), demographic data, school budget, and state and
federal accountability results, the qualitative data obtained through interviews with
site principals was invaluable. The quantitative data was collected and input into a
database created by Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. This database system was
created to tabulate and assemble the data in coordination with the EBM discussed in
Odden and Picus (2008). In addition to the use of Odden and Picus’ EBM, Odden’s
(2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance was used for comparison
with the school’s instructional vision and strategies. It is important to understand the
strategies these schools used to outperform schools with similar populations, as this
information could be used to inform future research and practice.
Population and Sample
This study employed a purposeful sample of six middle/intermediate schools
that had a similar schools ranking of 10. Although all of the participants in this study
had a SSR of 10 (California Department of Education, 2010), there are large
variances in API scores. This variance is intentional, as a primary goal of this study
is to determine how the top performing schools within different classifications of the
SSR allocated resources to raise student achievement. All of the schools in this
sample are traditional public schools that have no entrance requirements, with four of

99

the schools serving students in grades 7-8 and two of the schools serving students in
grades 6-8. The schools chosen for this study meet the following criteria: 1) had a
state decile ranking between 6 and 9 (meaning that their API was between 700 and
850), and 2) had a similar schools ranking of 10.
The selection process for this study began by examining the SSR of all
Orange County Middle/Intermediate Schools using the database on the California
Department of Education website (California Department of Education, 2010).
During the selection process, nine schools were identified as having a SSR of 10 and
also met the other criteria discussed above. With the help of colleagues, contact was
made with each site principal, and a final total of six schools agreed to participate in
the study. Once the sample population was determined, an in-depth three-year data
analysis was completed on each school. Table 3.2 shows each school’s API, AYP,
and SSR for the last three years. School demographic data was also collected and
included in Table 3.3 to provide more detail for the challenges each school faced in
working with their student population.

100

Table 3.2: Three Year Comparison of Each School’s API and SSR from 2007-2010
Arroyo
Middle
Goose Creek
Intermediate
Mesa Linda
Intermediate
Mt Woodson
Intermediate
Oak Quarry
Intermediate
Redhawk
Middle
2007-08
# of
Students
Tested
880 752 715 836 916 879
API 782 752 748 779 741 800
State Decile 8 6 6 7 6 8
SSR 10 10 10 10 10 10
2008-09
# of
Students
Tested
882 818 672 812 849 847
API 821 772 774 812 767 821
State Decile 8 6 6 8 6 8
SSR 10 10 10 10 10 10
2009-10
# of
Students
Tested
925 863 636 825 822 862
API 834 765 767 817 773 844
State Decile 8 6 6 8 6 9
SSR 10 10 10 10 10 10
Source: California Department of Education (2010)

101

Table 3.3: Student Demographic Data
Arroyo
Middle
Goose Creek
Intermediate
Mesa Linda
Intermediate
Mt Woodson
Intermediate
Oak Quarry
Intermediate
Redhawk
Middle
Student
Population
821 772 672 812 849 847
White 17 2 8 9 5 34
Hispanic 40 85 74 59 74 43
Asian 39 11 16 28 19 16
African-
American
2 0 1 1 0 2
Fili 1 1 1 2 1 2
Native
American
1 0 0 0 0 0
Pacific
Islander
1 1 1 1 0 1
SED 65 85 73 72 77 37
EL 48 53 44 42 45 24
Source: California Department of Education (2010)

Instrumentation and Data Collection
A purposeful sample of schools was used during this study, and included both
qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis. The EBM
(Odden & Picus, 2008) and Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Achievement were used as a conceptual framework for analyzing the school level
allocation of resources to improve student achievement. The examination of each
school’s allocation methods of school resources, and the analyzing of each school’s
instructional vision and strategies was completed to better understand how schools
that serve diverse and challenging populations used resources to improve student
achievement.

102

This study was conducted in coordination with a thematic dissertation group
at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education, and included
11 other examiners conducting similar studies. In an effort to ensure consistency
throughout the 12 studies, the examiner and fellow researchers attended training on
March 13, 2010 conducted by Lawrence O. Picus at the Fullerton SELPA building in
Fullerton, California. The training included: interview protocols, introduction and
instruction on the Evidence Based Model, data entry into the lpicus.com website,
data analysis techniques, review of previous studies, case study instruction, and
research questions. Further training was provided in November 2010 to discuss and
review the data collection protocol, as well as interview strategies and techniques.
Site principals were contacted via email, including a follow-up phone call, to
introduce the study and determine their willingness to participate in the study. In
addition, future appointments were made for the summer/fall of 2010 to conduct the
onsite principal interviews. The qualitative data collection began in August 2010, as
the examiner conducted site interviews with principals of the sample population. In
addition to the interview, each principal provided the examiner with various
documents on staffing information and ratios, bell schedules, site budgets, Single
School Plans for Student Achievement, Student Accountability Report Cards, current
budget cuts, and district allocation of resources to the sites (i.e. professional
development funded by the district, instructional coaches, EIA funds, ARRA funds,
etc.) These documents were analyzed prior to the interview, and were used to
conduct a more meaningful interview, resulting in richer data.

103

In preparation for this study, a detailed analysis of student achievement and
demographic data was conducted for each site using the California Department of
Education’s database (California Department of Education, 2010). As stated earlier,
each school had a SSR of 10, which identifies each school as a top performing
school compared to schools serving similar populations in the state. The quantitative
data collection included three years of Academic Performance Index (API) and
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Data, school and district budgets, and staffing
ratios.
Interviews with principals were conducted using a standardized protocol (See
Appendix F), and took place over a two-month period. The interviews were one-on-
one and were recorded so that the researcher could review the transcripts at a later
date, and take notes on the non-verbal communication of each participant. These
interviews took two hours to complete, and follow-up interviews were needed in
January after all of each school’s data had been disaggregated and analyzed. Once
the data has been collected, it will be entered into a database developed by Lawrence
O. Picus and Associates.
Data Analysis
The data analysis process for this study involved a number of different
phases. Prior to conducting a site interview with principals, quantitative data on
student demographics, Academic Performance Index, and Similar Schools Rankings
provided information on the types of students each school services, as well as their
comparative performance data on API and SSR, indicating each school’s ability to

104

outperform schools that serve a similar demographic. In addition, the SARC for
each school provided information on staffing ratios, number of staff members, staff
qualification, and the school’s instructional vision for improving student
achievement. Furthermore, the collection of various documents from the school sites
provided more quantitative data on bell schedules, time spent on staff development,
etc. The quantitative data collected was compared to Odden & Picus’ (2008) EBM
and Odden’s (2009) TSDSP. The next phase of the data analysis process reviewed
the data collected from site interviews held with each principal. This data was also
compared to Odden’s (2009) TSDPS, and the EBM discussed in Odden and Picus
(2008). The two frameworks were used to compare each school’s resource use
strategies as well as the educational strategies employed to improve the learning
outcomes for each student.
Once the data was collected, it was input into the database at lpicus.com. The
database organized the information and allowed for a more consistent and systematic
approach to data collection and analysis. In addition to the aforementioned phases, a
case study was written for each site. Each case study provided a mixture of both
quantitative and qualitative data analysis and allowed for a richer and deeper
understanding of the improvement strategies each principal employed, as well as the
resources they used to get there. Triangulation was also used to provide for a richer
data analysis process. Patton (2002) argues that studies using only one method of
data collection are simply more susceptible to errors. In addition, studies that use
multiple data sources provide cross-data validity checks resulting in a stronger

105

research design, and data analysis process. Once each case study was completed,
gaps in each school’s use of resources and improvement strategies were identified,
and all findings were shared out with site principals.
With the reduction in resources at the state level, the next few years could
prove to be some of the most trying times for education for California. The
appropriate and responsible use of school resources will be key to California’s
success in improving educational outcomes. The information gleaned from this
study adds to the literature on the EBM, and provides policymakers, researchers and
practitioners with a better understanding of how resources can be used to influence
educational excellence. The following chapter will provide the details of each case
study, as well as the gaps found during the study on each site.

106

CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
This study was conducted to examine the relationship between instructional
strategies and resource allocation in six intermediate/middle schools that have a
California Department of Education (CDE) Similar Schools Ranking (SSR) of 10.
This section will present the findings that were obtained through the case studies of
six intermediate/middle schools (Appendix H-M) in Southern California. The
following research questions are addressed in this chapter:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at
the school level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the
school’s instructional improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in
response to the recent budget adjustments including overall funding
reductions and changes in the use of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with
or different from the resources use strategies used in Odden and Picus’
(2008) Evidence-Based Model?
This chapter explains the findings of these four research questions for each
intermediate/middle school studied.

107

School Profile
The schools included in this study were selected because of their ability to
perform in the top 10% of schools serving students with similar demographics as
defined by the California Department of Education’s (CDE) Similar Schools
Rankings (SSR). Each of the schools has been identified as a top performing school
according to the SSR criteria. All of the schools were located in Orange County,
California, a suburban area about an hour south of Downtown Los Angeles. The
schools are part of three different districts, two unified (K-12) and one elementary
(K-8). The enrollment of the four districts ranges from slightly below 10,000 to over
48,000 students, and all of the schools are within a ten-mile radius of each other.
Goose Creek, Mesa Linda, Mt Woodson, and Oak Quarry are part of the Eagle Glen
Unified School District, which is the highest performing urban district in California
with an API of 802. Arroyo Middle School is part of the Hidden Valley Elementary
School District, which has an enrollment of 9,688 students, and Redhawk Middle
School is part of the Baker Unified School District, which has an enrollment of
21,682 students.
All of the schools have enrollments greater than Odden and Picus’ (2008)
Evidence Based Model (EBM), which suggests an enrollment of 450 students for the
prototypical middle school. Arroyo Middle School has the largest enrollment with
984 students, and Mesa Linda Intermediate has the smallest enrollment with 697
students. The average for all of the schools in the sample is 856 students,
approximately 1.9 times larger than the prototypical middle school from the EBM.

108

Four of the schools in the study are intermediate schools and serve students in grades
7-8, and two of the schools are middle schools that serve students in grades 6-8.
Table 4.1 provides a summary of each school’s enrollment for the 2009-10 school
year. In addition, the district enrollment and location have been included for
reference.
Table 4.1: School/District Enrollment and Locations of Sample Schools

Arroyo
Goose
Creek
Mesa
Linda
Mt.
Woodson
Oak
Quarry Redhawk
School
Enrollment 984 897 697 852 850 853
School
Location Suburban
Large
Urban
Large
Urban
Large
Urban
Large
Urban Suburban
District
Enrollment 9,688 48,574 48,574 48,574 48,574 21,682
Source: California Department of Education
The student demographic data of the sample schools reveals that five schools
have at least 56% Hispanic population, with Goose Creek Intermediate having the
greatest percentage of Hispanic students at 84%. Arroyo Middle School has the
smallest Hispanic population at 37%. Five of the schools do not have a significant
White population. The percentage of White students attending the six sample
schools ranges from 2% - 26%. Redhawk Middle School is the only school with a
significant White population at 26%. All other schools’ White populations are below
10%. The percentage of Asian students attending each school also varies greatly,
ranging from 9% at Redhawk Middle School to 57% at Arroyo Middle School. Mt
Woodson also has a significant Asian population at 28%, but the rest of the schools
range from 9% to 16% Asian. Other ethnicities such as African-American, Pacific

109

Islander, and Multiple Race were not documented during this study as none of the
schools had significant populations of these ethnicities. Figure 4.1 provides a
summary of the Asian, Hispanic and White students attending each school.
Figure 4.1: Percentage of Asian, Hispanic and White Students Attending Sample
Schools
Source: California Department of Education (2010)

While the percentage of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) and
English Learner (EL) students was not an identified or stated criterion for
participation in this study, there were a number of similarities amongst the sample
schools in these subgroups. Furthermore, all of the schools in this study are
identified as Title I, although (again) it was unintentional. All of the schools had at
least 47% SED and 20% EL student populations. Goose Creek had the greatest
percentage of SED students (77%) and Redhawk MS had the smallest SED
population (47%). The other four schools had SED populations ranging from 66% to
71%. In addition to having the greatest percentage of SED students, Goose Creek

110

also had the greatest percentage of EL students (52%). And similar to SED
percentages, Redhawk also had the smallest percentage of EL students (20%). The
other four schools had EL populations ranging from 38% to 45%. Five of the six
schools had SED populations greater than the EBM’s prototypical middle school
level of 50% with Redhawk MS being the only school with a smaller percentage of
SED students at 47%. All of the schools had a larger EL population than the EBM
prototypical middle school. Figure 4.2 shows the percentage of SED and EL
students attending each of the schools included in this study.
Figure 4.2: Percentage of SED and EL Students Attending Sample Schools
72
39
77
52
69
42
66
38
71
45
47
20
50
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Arroyo Middle
Goose Creek
Mesa Linda
Mt. Woodson
Oak Quarry
Redhawk Middle
EBM School
SE
D
EL

Source: California Department of Education
School Performance
Over the last five years, student achievement has increased at all of the
schools included in this study. However, not all schools have improved at the same
rate during this time. Based upon the results from the 2009-10 school year, the API

111

scores of the six sample schools ranged from 768 to 873. The highest performing
school in the study was Redhawk Middle School, which earned an API of 873. The
lowest performing school in the sample was Goose Creek Intermediate, which had an
API of 768. Arroyo Middle School was the second highest performing school with
an API of 852. Mt. Woodson, Oak Quarry and Mesa Linda all had API scores of
812, 786 and 774 respectively.
In addition to achieving the highest API score in the study, Redhawk MS also
showed the greatest improvement in student achievement from 2006-2010. The
school increased their API score by 116 points improving from an API of 757 in
2006 to an API of 873 in 2010. Arroyo Middle School also showed significant
improvement over the last five years going from an API of 771 in 2006 to an API of
852 in 2010. Although the other four schools in this study have increased
achievement, they have not shown the same level of growth as the two
aforementioned schools. Goose Creek, Mesa Linda, Mt. Woodson, and Oak Quarry
had increases in API scores ranging between 28 and 39 points. The average level of
improvement for the six schools included in this sample was 55.83 API points.
Figure 4.3 shows the growth of each school’s API score over the last five years.

112

Figure 4.3: Change in API of Sample Schools from 2006-2010
Source: California Department of Education

According to the California Department of Education, all of the schools
included in this study had a state decile ranking between 6 and 9. Three of the
schools had a decile ranking of 6 (Goose Creek, Mesa Linda and Oak Quarry), two
of the schools had a decile ranking of 8 (Arroyo and Mt. Woodson), and Redhawk
MS was the only school with a decile ranking of 9. Over the last five years, all
schools have either maintained or improved their state decile rankings. Mesa Linda
and Oak Quarry have maintained their decile ranking between 2006 and 2009, while
Arroyo, Goose Creek, Mt. Woodson, and Redhawk have all improved their state
decile rankings by at least one level.
In addition to receiving a state decile ranking each year, the CDE also assigns
each school a Similar Schools Ranking (SSR). SSRs are rankings that compare each
school’s achievement to that of 100 other intermediate/middle schools in California

113

that serve similar demographics. This ranking allows schools to compare themselves
to other schools that face similar challenges. All of the schools included in this study
have earned a SSR of 10 for at least three of the last five years. In 2009-10, five of
the six schools earned a SSR of 10 and one school earned a ranking of 9. Mesa
Linda had a SSR of 10 in 2008-09, but fell to a SSR of 9 last year. These rankings
clearly indicate that all of the schools included in this study have recently been, or
are currently, in the top 10% of schools serving similar demographics. Table 4.2
shows the state decile and SSR for each school in 2006 and 2010.
Table 4.2: Similar School & Statewide Ranking of the Sample Schools
Arroyo Goose Creek Mesa Linda Mt. Woodson Oak Quarry Redhawk
2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010
Similar
School
Rank-
ing 7 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 9 10 9 10
State-
wide
Rank-
ing 6 8 5 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 7 9
Source: California Department of Education
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
After reviewing the No Child Left Behind data, as indicated by each school’s
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), we find that five of the six schools did not meet
all of their 2009-10 targets. Based upon the 2009-10 AYP requirements, each school
had to score 56.8% proficient or advanced in English Language Arts and 58%
proficient or advanced in math. In addition to meeting these schoolwide proficiency
targets, schools must reach these same levels of proficiency with each of their
significant subgroups. Arroyo MS, the only school that is in Year 5 PI, was also the

114

only school to meet all of their AYP targets in 2009-10. Two of the schools (Oak
Quarry and Redhawk) did not meet all of their AYP targets for the first time in 2009-
10, and have moved into “at-risk” status. This means that they must meet all of the
2010-11 AYP targets to remain out of PI in 2011-12, as schools that fail to meet their
AYP requirements two years in a row, move into PI the following year. The other
three schools are in Year 1 or 2 of PI status. In addition to schools being identified
as PI, districts can also move into PI by not meeting all of their AYP targets.
Currently, all of the districts included in this study are in PI. Eagle Glen Unified is
the only district that is in Year 3 PI, while the other two are in Year 1.
The AYP of the six sample schools reveals that half of the schools met their
schoolwide AYP targets in both math and ELA. Mt. Woodson, Arroyo, and
Redhawk all met their schoolwide targets in ELA and math, while Mesa Linda, Oak
Quarry, and Goose Creek did not. Interestingly enough, Arroyo, Mt. Woodson, and
Redhawk have the lowest percentages of EL, Hispanic and SED student populations.
In addition, these three schools also have the highest percentages of Asian and White
students. The Asian subgroup at all of the sample schools met the AYP targets in
both math and ELA. Two of the six schools (Mt. Woodson and Redhawk) met the
ELA AYP target with their Hispanic population, and five of the six schools met the
math AYP target with their Hispanic population. Goose Creek was the only school
that did not meet their AYP target in math and ELA with their Hispanic population.
Four of the six schools included in this sample met their AYP targets in math and
ELA with their White student population. Goose Creek and Mesa Linda were the

115

only schools that did not accomplish this goal. However, it should be noted that
Redhawk is the only school that has a significant White subgroup. The results from
the other school’s White students have only been included for comparison purposes.
Two of the six schools met the SED ELA AYP target (Arroyo & Redhawk), and five
of the six schools met the SED math AYP target. Arroyo and Redhawk were the
only two schools to meet the AYP target with their EL subgroup in ELA, and Arroyo
was the only school to meet their EL math AYP target.
The AYP data from the six sample schools reveals that each school struggles
with the performance of their Hispanic, SED and EL student populations. And while
some of the schools may have met one or more of their AYP targets in these areas,
many of them did so with the help of Safe Harbour (SH). Safe Harbour was
implemented to help schools making significant progress in student achievement
(increasing the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on the math or
ELA CSTs), but were still unable to reach the AYP performance target(s) for that
year. In short, it is an alternative way to help schools remain out PI. One of the
interesting things to consider is that five of the six schools are performing in the top
10% of schools serving similar demographics, yet they are still unable to meet all of
their AYP targets. Table 4.3 provides the AYP data of each subgroup for each of
the six sample schools.

116

Table 4.3: 2009-10 Adequate Yearly Progress of Sample Schools
Schools Arroyo Goose
Creek
Mesa
Linda
Mt.
Woodson
Oak
Quarry
Redhawk
Yr PI (District) 1 3 3 3 3 1
Yr PI (School) 5 2 2 1 At-Risk At-Risk
# of AYP
Targets Met
21 13 16 17 15 20
# of AYP
Targets
21 21 21 21 21 21
Met Schoolwide
ELA
Yes No No Yes No Yes
Met Schoolwide
Math
Yes No No Yes No Yes
Met Asian ELA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Met Asian Math Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Met Hispanic
ELA
Yes
1
No No No No Yes
Met Hispanic
Math
Yes
1
No Yes
1
Yes
1
Yes
1
Yes
Met White ELA Yes No
2
Yes
2
Yes
2
Yes
2
Yes
Met White Math Yes No
2
No
2
Yes
2
Yes
2
Yes
Met SED ELA Yes No No No No Yes
Met SED Math Yes No Yes
1
Yes Yes
1
Yes
Met EL ELA Yes
1
No No No No Yes
1

Met EL Math Yes No No No No No
Note: 1=Met AYP Target Through Safe Harbour; 2= Not a Significant Subgroup

English Language Arts Performance
As already noted above, three out of the six schools included in this study
met their schoolwide English Language Arts (ELA) AYP target for the 2009-10
school year. A closer look at the data reveals that every school has improved the
percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced over the last five years,
however, there are large variances in how much each school improved. Redhawk
MS showed the greatest level of improvement with an increase of 16.3% in students
scoring proficient or advanced on the ELA CST with Arroyo MS and Oak Quarry
Intermediate both improving by 15.4% and 10.5% respectively. In addition, Mt.

117

Woodson and Mesa Linda both had increases of 7.7% and 7.1%, while Goose Creek
only improved the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced by 3.9%
over five years. Figure 4.4 shows the schoolwide AYP growth of each school over
the last five years.
Figure 4.4: Schoolwide Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced on
the English Language Arts California Standards Test from 2006-2010
Source: California Department of Education
In addition to every school increasing the percentage of students scoring
proficient or advanced on the ELA CST, all schools were also able to increase the
proficiency of their Hispanic subgroup. Three schools were able to increase the
percentage of Hispanics students scoring proficient or advanced by 16% or more
(Arroyo, Oak Quarry, & Redhawk), Mesa Linda and Mt Woodson were able to
increase student proficiency by 8% and 7.8% respectively, and Goose Creek showed
the lowest percentage of growth at 4% over the last five years. Figure 4.5 shows the

118

percentage of Hispanic students scoring proficient or advanced on the ELA CST for
each school over the last five years.
Figure 4.5: Percentage of Hispanic Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the
English Language Arts California Standards Test from 2006-2010
Source: California Department of Education
A look at the performance of each school’s SED subgroup shows a similar
trend in achievement, as all six schools were able to increase the percentage of SED
students scoring proficient or advanced on the ELA CST. Again, Arroyo MS,
Redhawk MS, and Oak Quarry showed the greatest levels of growth with increases
in the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced of 16.3%, 21.9%, and
14.4% respectively. The other three schools had increases in proficiency of less than
10% over the last five years. Figure 4.6 shows the percentage of SED students
scoring proficient or advanced on the ELA CST over the last five years.

119

Figure 4.6: Percentage of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students Scoring
Proficient or Advanced on the English Language Arts California Standards Test
from 2006-2010
Source: California Department of Education
While all schools have shown growth with their schoolwide, Hispanic, and
SED subgroups in ELA, only four of the six schools showed increases in the
percentage of EL students scoring proficient or advanced on the ELA CST. In
addition to the four schools that were able to increase student proficiency, only two
of the four schools were able to increase proficiency by more than 5%. Both Arroyo
MS and Redhawk MS increased the percentage of students scoring proficient or
advanced by 22.3% and 21.2% respectively. Oak Quarry increased EL proficiency
by 3.8% and Mesa Linda increased proficiency by 0.6%. Mt. Woodson and Goose
Creek both showed decreases in the percentage of students scoring proficient or
advanced on the ELA CST over the last five years. Mt Woodson’s EL subgroup fell

120

by 1.4% and Goose Creek’s EL subgroup fell by 5.9%. Both principals reported
concern over the performance of their EL student populations. Figure 4.7 shows the
percentage of EL students scoring proficient or advanced on the ELA CST from
2006-2010.
Figure 4.7: Percentage of English Learner Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced
on the English Language Arts California Standards Test from 2006-2010
Source: California Department of Education
Mathematics Performance
While all schools showed an increase in the schoolwide percentage of
students scoring proficient or advanced on the ELA CST, only five of the six schools
were able to increase their schoolwide percentage of students scoring proficient or
advanced on the Math CST. Arroyo MS (23.8%) and Redhawk MS (25.8%) both
had significant schoolwide increases in proficiency. Mesa Linda, Mt Woodson and
Oak Quarry all had increases in the percentage of students scoring proficient or

121

advanced of 9.6%, 8.7%, and 4.9% respectively. Goose Creek was the only school
that was not able to increase their schoolwide proficiency in math falling from 44.2%
proficient or advanced in 2006 to 39.3% in 2010. Figure 4.8 shows the schoolwide
percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on the Math CST over the last
five years.
Figure 4.8: Schoolwide Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced on
the Mathematics California Standards Test from 2006-2010
Source: California Department of Education
A closer look at the math performance of each school’s Hispanic subgroup
reveals that five of the six schools were able to increase the percentage of students
scoring proficient or advanced. Again, Arroyo MS and Redhawk MS showed the
greatest growth in proficiency with increases of 26.5% and 28.2% respectively. In
addition, Mesa Linda (10.1%), Mt Woodson (10.3%) and Oak Quarry (8.8%) all
showed strong gains as well. Goose Creek was the only school whose Hispanic

122

subgroup dropped, going from 39.3% proficient or advanced to 34.8% proficient or
advanced over the last five years, a decrease of 4.1%. Figure 4.9 shows each
school’s percentage of Hispanic students scoring proficient or advanced on the Math
CST over the last five years.
Figure 4.9: Percentage of Hispanic Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced on the
Mathematics California Standards Test from 2006-2010
Source: California Department of Education
A look at the performance of each school’s SED subgroup shows a similar
trend in improvement, as five of the six schools were able to increase the percentage
of SED students scoring proficient or advanced on the Math CST. Goose Creek was
the only school that was not able to increase the percentage of SED students scoring
proficient or advanced over the last five years. And again, Arroyo MS and Redhawk
MS both showed the greatest increases in proficiency with gains of 24% and 30%
respectively. With SED students presenting some of the greatest performance

123

challenges for schools, this type of growth is simply remarkable. Mesa Linda, Mt
Woodson and Oak Quarry all showed respectable gains in the percentage of students
scoring proficient or advanced with increases of 10.6%, 9.3% and 9.1% respectively.
Figure 4.10 shows the percentage of each school’s SED students scoring proficient
or advanced on the Math CST from 2006-2010.
Figure 4.10: Percentage of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students Scoring
Proficient or Advanced on the Mathematics California Standards Test from 2006-
2010
Source: California Department of Education
Figure 4.11 shows each school’s percentage of EL students scoring proficient
or advanced on the Math CST from 2006-2010. Based upon this figure, it is clearly
evident that there were large variances in the performance of each school’s EL
subgroup. The greatest gains in proficiency were attained by Arroyo and Redhawk
Middle Schools. Arroyo’s EL subgroup increased by 32.4%, and Redhawk’s EL

124

subgroup increased by 27.4%. Again, both of these schools have shown incredible
growth in math achievement over the last five years. Mt Woodson Intermediate
increased the percentage of EL students scoring proficient or advanced on the Math
CST by 4.2% and Mesa Linda Intermediate’s EL subgroup increased by 1.5%. Both
Oak Quarry’s and Goose Creek’s EL subgroup failed to make any growth over the
last five years. In fact, both schools EL proficiency actually dropped. Oak Quarry’s
EL subgroups proficiency fell by 2.7% and Goose Creek’s EL subgroup fell by
10.6%. While EL student populations present educators with significant
performance challenges, the principals from Goose Creek, Mesa Linda, Mt
Woodson, and Oak Quarry all expressed concern over the performance of their EL
student populations on the Math CST.
Figure 4.11: Percentage of English Learner Students Scoring Proficient or
Advanced on the Mathematics California Standards Test from 2006-2010

Source: California Department of Education

125

Figures 4.1 to 4.11 and Tables 4.1 to 4.3 show the enrollment, demographic,
Academic Performance Index, Adequate Yearly Progress, and growth in English
Language Arts and math achievement for six intermediate/middle schools in
Southern California. While all of the schools have been recognized with a Similar
Schools Ranking (SSR) of 10, and all schools have made gains in student
achievement, not all schools have been able to improve achievement at the same rate.
The remaining sections of this chapter will discuss the findings as they relate to the
four research questions used to guide this study. The next section will discuss the
first two research questions regarding school improvement and resource allocation
strategies. The remaining sections will examine how recent budget cuts have altered
resource allocations and how the use of resources at these six schools compares to
the recommendations stated in Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence Based Model
(EBM).
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Improving student achievement can be one of the most daunting challenges
any school decides to undertake (Reeves, 2005). However, there is growing
evidence, often striking, that schools today have much more control over their
performance issues/problems than many believe (Darling-Hammond, 1997,
Marzano, 2003, Odden & Archibald, 2009). In fact, Odden and Archibald (2009)
argue that there are very specific strategies that schools can employ to drastically
improve student achievement, regardless of demographics or challenges. Odden
(2009) have created a set of ten strategies that schools can use to significantly

126

improve the learning outcomes for students. In addition to the framework and
strategies described by Odden (2009), Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based
Model (EBM) of resource allocation will be utilized to carefully examine the
alignment between school goals, strategies employed, and resources used to improve
performance at six intermediate/middle schools across Southern California.
1) Creating a Sense of Urgency and Understanding the Performance Challenge
According to Odden (2009), one of the first strategies that schools must
employ is to create a sense of urgency. During this process, school leaders and
teachers try to fully comprehend the performance challenges that lie ahead. Togneri
and Anderson (2003) argue that creating the will to perform is a key component in
initiating change. All six of the schools included in this study use the English
Language Arts (ELA) and Math California Standards Test data to drive school
reform efforts. In addition, every principal indicated that CST data is used on a
regular basis to: make decisions about the Master Schedule and student scheduling,
modify curriculum, select appropriate professional development, and prepare for
student interventions. Arroyo Middle School (MS) and Redhawk MS both reported
that CST data is also used to modify site assessments, pacing guides, and even
teacher assignments. The principal of Arroyo MS indicated that CST data has also
been used to alter the bell schedule to meet the students’ instructional needs.
Furthermore, all principals indicated that improving student achievement on the
CSTs is critical to the school’s mission of providing students with better
opportunities in high school.

127

While CST data and Academic Performance Index (API) data have helped to
drive school reform, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, has also done
wonders for improving student achievement over the last ten years, especially for
student populations that have been historically underserved (African-American,
Hispanic, EL & SED). All of the schools reported NCLB as a significant driving
force in improving student achievement. With four of the six schools currently in PI,
and two of the schools being identified as “at-risk” there is an urgency at each school
to meet their AYP targets for each of their significant subgroups.
When school starts each fall, all principals indicated that they share the CST,
API and AYP data with their staffs. Additionally, all schools reported that the data is
given to department and grade level teams to be further disaggregated. During the
data analysis process, strengths and weaknesses are identified, goals are determined,
and improvement plans are articulated and included in each school’s Single School
Plan for Achievement (SSPA). Moreover, all principals have also created Master
Schedules that reflect the needs of their student populations. Each school provides
an appropriate grade level curriculum, and responds to student needs based upon the
previous year’s CST scores in ELA and math. For example, students that are not
proficient in ELA and/or math in 7
th
grade are not simply left alone in 8
th
grade to
play “catch-up”. Instead, non-proficient students are placed in an ELA and/or math
support class that provides them with the necessary time and attention needed to
attain proficiency. If a student is proficient in both, they have more flexibility in
their schedule and are able to take electives such as music or art. These types of

128

changes clearly illustrate each school’s understanding that student achievement must
be the priority. The principal from Mt Woodson stated that middle school is like a
triage center. We have to do everything we possibly can to get these students ready
for high school. And, we never get a second chance if we allow a student to go
unsupported at this critical time in their education.
2) Goal Setting
Numerous leadership researchers and educators agree that setting goals is a
key factor in improving student performance (Datnow, Park & Wohlstetter, 2007;
Duke, 2006; Elmore & Burney, 1999; Hallinger & Heck, 2002; Hattie, 2009;
Northouse, 2007; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Ripley, 2010; Smylie, 1996; Walters &
Marzano; 2006; Weiss, 2007). In fact, Marzano, Waters and McNulty (2005), in one
of the most widely accepted books on school leadership, add that effective school
leaders and effective schools are able to set clear and concrete goals. Robinson
(2007) explains that goals work because they acknowledge that there is a
discrepancy between current levels of performance and desired levels of
performance. Each of the six schools studied have set ambitious goals in an effort to
improve performance. And while two of the six schools have increased achievement
at a significantly greater rate than the other four schools over the last five years, all
of the schools have been recognized with a SSR of 10 (multiple times over the last
five years) by the CDE and outperform schools with similar demographics. This
type of performance would not be possible without each school setting ambitious

129

goals. In fact, each of the six principals interviewed during this study indicated that
improving student achievement is their primary goal.
In addition to setting ambitious goals, all six schools have put resources into
improving the future options for the students they serve. For example, all of the
sample schools require 100% of their 8
th
grade students to take Algebra I. Rather
than lowering their curricular standards by allowing 8
th
grade students to take pre-
algebra, they have set the bar higher than most of the neighboring districts, many of
who are more affluent and serve students with significantly fewer disadvantages.
Four of the six schools studied have set goals that are related to the future
opportunities of their students (Goose Creek, Mesa Linda, Mt Woodson, & Oak
Quarry). These four schools have put an enormous amount of resources into
providing each student with an intermediate school program prepares them to begin
high school on the University of California (UC) and California State University
(CSU) A-G track. The UC/CSU A-G program articulates the minimum requirements
for UC and CSU entrance upon high school graduation. The principal of Oak Quarry
reported that over the last five years, A-G completion rates at the feeder high school
have gone up by over 20%. This figure represents hundreds of students that can now
gain acceptance into California’s UC and CSU schools because of the work that has
been initiated at the intermediate school and continued at the high school level.
While all of the schools studied write goals in some form or another, all six
principals reported that the continuously increasing NCLB targets in math and ELA
have helped to set the achievement bar higher each year. With all six of the schools,

130

and all three districts, either currently in PI or “at-risk” of moving into PI next year,
it is easy to see why NCLB would create such intense pressures for these schools.
And while NCLB has arguably done more to improve the learning outcomes for
disadvantaged students than any prior reform initiative, all of the five of the six
principals stated that they really hoped NCLB would change to a growth model
instead of a criterion-based model.
3) Changing the Curriculum and Implementing a New Instructional Vision
The curriculum program and the instructional vision are at the core of any
educational reform effort. The curriculum program refers to the content that is being
taught, and the instructional vision and strategies are the tools that teachers use to
teach the content. Odden (2009) argues that when most schools move from low to
high performance, there is a major reconstruction of the curriculum and instructional
program. All of the six schools included in this study have changed their curriculum
program, identified essential standards and aligned their Master Schedule to better
meet the needs of their student populations and improve achievement.
Over the last five years, all six schools have adopted new textbooks in math,
science and social studies. And while each of the principals indicated a desire for a
new ELA adoption, the State’s current fiscal crisis has prevented them from moving
forward in this area. Four of the six schools (Goose Creek, Mesa Linda, Mt
Woodson, & Oak Quarry) have purchased new ELA teacher kits that are aligned to
their current (outdated) ELA textbook. In addition to the new adoptions, each of the
six schools uses district adopted curriculum/pacing guides to drive classroom

131

instruction. The principals of Goose Creek, Mesa Linda, Mt Woodson, and Oak
Quarry all reported that their curriculum guides do not allow for a tremendous
amount of flexibility, while the principals at Arroyo MS and Redhawk MS both
stated that there is a lot of flexibility, which allows teachers and PLC teams to make
decisions that are more relevant to their student populations.
While the curriculum/content can play a role in improving student
achievement, research (as well as common sense) suggests that the daily instruction
each teacher provides his/her students plays a more significant role (Hattie, 2009;
Marzano, 2003). All six schools reported that improving instruction was at the core
of their improvement strategies. The principals of Goose Creek, Mesa Linda, Mt
Woodson, and Oak Quarry all reported that the implementation of The Gradual
Release of Responsibility (GRR) instructional framework (Fisher & Frey, 2009) has
played a key role in improving instruction over the last few years. The principal at
Mesa Linda added that the GRR model has provided his teachers with a common
definition of good instruction. And while he reported that there is obviously room
for improvement, teachers are much more open to discussing instruction, observing
each other, and working with site and district coaches. While the implementation of
the GRR has helped improve instruction at the four intermediate schools mentioned
above, the principals of the Arroyo and Redhawk MS have gone about improving
instruction in a different way. The principals at these two schools have used data
from common assessments and collaboration to drive instructional improvement. It
is not to say that the other four schools are not using these strategies as well, it is that

132

the principals at Arroyo and Redhawk suggested that the regular use of data and
weekly teacher collaboration have been their primary strategies for instructional
improvement.
All of the six schools in this study have significantly altered their master
schedules to provide more time and instruction in math and ELA during the normal
school day. Each principal reported that they dropped a large number of traditional
electives (woodshop, metal shop, home economics), and replaced them with
academic electives such as AVID, Academy, and double-blocked math and ELA
support courses. This shift has allowed students to get the necessary time, support,
additional instruction, and attention needed to attain proficiency. While this may
seem like an obvious way to provide students with additional resources in math and
ELA during the instructional day, there are still a number of schools across the
County and State that still allow non-proficient students to take non-academic
electives like woodshop and home economics.
4) Assessment Program and Using Data to Make Decisions
The creation, implementation and monitoring of common formative and
summative assessments is at the heart of improving student achievement. Formative
assessments are those that are diagnostic in nature and are given at multiple times
within typical nine-week grading periods. Summative assessments are less frequent,
contain more content than formative assessments, and are typically given every nine
to twelve weeks (Odden, 2009). This type of evaluation program is also in
alignment with one of the tenets of a professional learning community (PLC), which

133

asks, how do we know what students’ know (DuFour, 2003; DuFour et al., 2006)?
By closely monitoring what students know, teachers are able to make informed
decisions about what to do next (Darling-Hammond, Alexander & Price, 2002;
Reeves, 2005). In fact, when Hattie (2009) examined the effect of a formative
evaluation program on student achievement, he found that out of 800 meta-analyses
on factors that influence student achievement that the use of data to determine what
to do next had a significant impact (effect size of 0.90) on achievement.
All of the six schools included in this study use data from the Math and ELA
CSTs to drive school reform. The principal at Mesa Linda reported that the CSTs
are like the California High School Exit Exam for his school. He later added that
teachers know that student performance on that test is critical for each student’s
future. As stated above in an earlier section, all principals reported sharing CST data
with their teachers upon their return from summer break. Grade level and
department teams get together to discuss the prior year’s strengths and weaknesses,
set future performance goals, and revise site curriculum/pacing guides and
assessments.
In addition to the use of CST data to drive improvement, all principals
reported using district benchmarks to make instructional decisions throughout the
school year. Arroyo and Redhawk MS have district benchmarks in the four core
areas that are administered three times per year, while Goose Creek, Mesa Linda, Mt
Woodson and Oak Quarry have district benchmarks in the core subjects that are
administered four times per year (every nine weeks). The district benchmarks are

134

progress-monitoring assessments that are aligned to the CST Blueprints and district
curriculum guides. Data from the benchmarks are used to plan future instruction,
determine strategies for improvement, and re-teach concepts that were not learned
the first time. In addition, two principals (Goose Creek & Mesa Linda) reported
using benchmark data to reschedule students that may have been inappropriately
placed earlier in the school year.
All of the six principals reported using common site assessments in the core
content areas. Additionally, each principal described using PLC time to discuss the
results from site assessments. However, the principals at Goose Creek, Mesa Linda,
Mt Woodson and Oak Quarry indicated that their common site assessments are not
currently in a data management system, which makes it challenging to organize and
disaggregate the data. While their core teachers may be administering the same
assessments, the lack of accessible data hinders the progress that could be made after
administering these assessments. The principals at Arroyo and Redhawk MS both
reported using common site assessments (input into their data management system)
to drive teacher collaboration and future instruction. The principal at Redhawk
requires each content/grade level PLC team (i.e. 7
th
grade ELA) to submit a common
assessment calendar each year that articulates when certain standards will be taught,
how they will be assessed, when the team will meet to discuss the data, and when the
ensuing interventions will start to support students that did not score proficient.
Furthermore, she requires each team to submit the data from each common
assessment to her so that she can better monitor the progress each teacher is making

135

with their students. Common assessments at Redhawk are administered every two to
three weeks. This frequent use of data has helped Redhawk MS improve its API
score by 116 points in five years.
5) Professional Development
Elmore (2002) argues that a school’s success is critically dependent on its
ability to provide intensive and ongoing professional development for its principals
and teachers. In addition, Joyce and Showers (2002) and Desimone et al. (2002)
both argue that the most successful staff development programs must be connected
to student achievement. Lastly, Odden (2009), in his research on schools that were
able to double student performance, found that each one valued and provided
“widespread, systemic, intensive, and ongoing” professional development. Reeves
(2005) adds that in order for staff development to be effective, it has to have
integrity, diligence and be tied to student achievement, a factor that Hattie (2010)
argues is often unrelated to a school’s professional development strategy or plan.
All of the principals described professional development (PD) as a key part
of their reform effort. However, the findings of this study reveal that the each
school’s PD plan is largely dependent upon their district’s PD philosophy. For
example, Goose Creek, Mesa Linda, Mt Woodson and Oak Quarry are all in the
same highly centralized district (Eagle Glen Unified School District -EGUSD) and
their PD opportunities are significantly different than the other two schools and
districts. The EGUSD has a comprehensive PD office that has created a PD calendar
(all targeting specific district initiatives that are aligned to student achievement) that

136

principals can utilize throughout the school year depending on their teachers’ needs.
Some of these PD opportunities include trainings on: the GRR instructional
framework, systematic ELD instruction, student engagement, student motivation,
Thinking Maps, and Depth and Complexity Icons.
In addition, EGUSD has implemented a PD summer institute program that
allows teachers to try new strategies and work with an instructional coach during
summer school. Summer school in EGUSD runs for two weeks providing two hours
of instruction for students each day. Teachers participating in the summer institute
work with students for the first two hours and then work with an instructional coach
for the second two hours. Principals at all four of the aforementioned schools
reported that the summer institute is a great way to help struggling teachers improve
instruction. One interesting aspect to this finding is that some of the teachers used
during summer school are not necessarily the strongest teachers in the school and/or
district. Instead of using the best teachers to provide additional instruction to those
students that are greatest in need during summer school, it appears that EGUSD is
using summer school as some kind of PD training ground for below average
teachers. In addition to the summer institute, each school in the EGUSD has a 0.2
FTE instructional coach that is on campus one day per week. Teachers can request
coaching sessions when they want to improve in something, and each of the four
principals indicated that they have recommended teachers for coaching numerous
times over the last five years.

137

Arroyo Middle School has a little more control over their staff development
than the aforementioned schools, but they do make PD decisions with the help and
guidance of the district. Over the last five years, Arroyo MS has participated in the
Developing Communities of Math Inquiry (DCMI) program that provided numerous
trainings for the school’s math department, which has helped to bring a great deal of
instructional consistency in that content area. Additionally, the school used Action
Learning to help improve instruction in all content areas. Furthermore, the teachers
have also been trained in Thinking Maps, Cornell Notes, and AVID strategies.
Arroyo MS, like all schools included in this study, has also implemented PLCs.
Teachers have been trained in collaboration and data conversations.
Redhawk Middle School’s contracted PD days are controlled by the District.
The principal has responded by releasing teachers to participate in additional PD
opportunities that are more specific to their needs. The principal reported that the
PLC trainings over the last few years have been instrumental in improving student
achievement. All teachers have also been trained in Cornell Notes, a well-known
system for organizing lectures and information, and Marzano’s instructional
strategies (2003). Since all teachers deliver content in a similar format, it is easier
for students to organize their own studying efforts.
6) Use Instructional Time More Effectively and Efficiently
One of the first factors in using instructional time more effectively includes
lengthening the school year. In addition, using time more wisely during the regular
school day can also help raise achievement (Odden, 2009). This could include

138

protecting instructional time from interruptions, trips to the office, and intercom
messages, or even changing the amount of time given to certain subjects. All of the
schools included in this study have changed the way they use instructional time
during the school day. Each principal reported reducing the number of non-
academic electives in the master schedule as a major change that helped provide
many students with extra time and support. Furthermore, all of the schools have a
large percentage of students participating in a double math and/or ELA blocks.
The principal at Redhawk MS added that the only way we can make
significant gains in student learning is to provide them with more instructional time
in the core areas. The principal at Oak Quarry reported that creating more time for
ELA and math instruction was one of the easiest decisions she ever made as a
principal. She added that students get so much math and ELA instruction in
elementary school, and then when they come to intermediate school we expect them
to learn more challenging content with less instructional time. She also commented,
“Is it any wonder that middle and high schools do not perform as well as elementary
schools?” Four of the six principals indicated that they are huge advocates for a
longer school day saying that 6 hours is simply not enough time, and three principals
reported that lengthening the school year would drastically help improve student
achievement at their schools.
7) Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students
Darling-Hammond, Alexander and Price (2002) as well as DuFour et al.
(2006) all argue that students need different amounts of time and support to be

139

successful in school. To make up for the different needs of each student, Odden
(2009) argues that schools must find ways to provide the extra time and support
needed to ensure that all students attain proficiency of grade level standards. This
extra time and support can be in the form of tutoring, academic and non-academic
extended day programs, and summer school.
All of the schools included in this study provide an after school intervention
program for struggling students. However, none of the principals reported that their
after school intervention program was significantly helping to improve student
achievement on a large scale. Instead, each principal indicated that getting students
to attend and participate on a regular basis was challenging, and stated that
interventions were markedly more successful when they were offered during the
regular instructional day. Nevertheless, each principal continues to offer an after
school intervention program for students that are willing to put more time and energy
into their education. Furthermore, all six principals reported that many of their
teachers have students stay after school on a regular basis to work with small groups
of students for no additional pay. While these small tutoring sessions may not
impact achievement on a large scale, the willingness of the teachers to stay and work
with students after school says a lot about the culture and motivation to help students
learn and be successful.
Five of the six schools have formed relationships with the Boys and Girls
Club (BGC) to offer students a place to go after school. This program is monitored,
funded and staffed by the BGC and is not aligned to the school’s curricular program.

140

Instead, it is simply a destination where students can find a safe place to go when
school ends each day. The staff at the BGC consists almost entirely of college
students that work part-time while they go to school. In addition, there is no
requirement for students to complete homework or study. And while each of the five
principals expressed positive feelings toward the BGC, none of them believed that
the program did much to impact student learning or achievement. One of the six
schools (Redhawk) is part of the 21
st
Century Grant that provides an after school
program for over 100 students. This program is not an instructional program, but
does require students to spend at least one hour a day studying and doing homework.
College students supervise this program and students can get homework help at any
time.
All six of the sample schools have an AVID program in place that provides
students (typically disadvantaged) with a rigorous curriculum program that is
combined with the necessary support to help them get to college after high school.
AVID’s sole mission is to help close the achievement gap and increase the number
of disadvantaged students attending college. In addition to getting support in a
rigorous program during the normal school day, AVID students also get support after
school from AVID tutors. AVID students are required to be on campus for at least
one hour after school ends.
Five of the six schools reported that they offer a summer school program to
students in need. Redhawk was the only school that did not offer a summer school
program. Their district only provides a summer school program for high school

141

students that have failed a required course. Four of the schools (Goose Creek, Mesa
Linda, Mt Woodson & Oak Quarry) offer students a two-week summer program for
two hours a day. This program is offered to both students that have failed classes, as
well as non-proficient students. However, the duration of the program is
significantly lower than the time periods suggested by Odden and Picus’ EBM
(2008). Arroyo MS also offers summer school to students that have failed math
and/or ELA, but they do not currently target non-proficient students that have passed
their math and/or ELA classes. Last summer, Arroyo implemented a “JumpStart”
summer program for their EL students that focused on writing. The principal
indicated that he was hoping this program would help many of Arroyo’s EL
population perform better on the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT) that is part of the state required assessment program for second language
learners.
8) Collaborative Culture
Odden (2009) found that the schools that were able to double student
performance also created a culture of shared leadership and collaboration. In many
ways, what Odden is referring to is the implementation and development of
professional learning communities (PLC) a concept that is discussed thoroughly in
educational reform and improvement literature (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin,
1999; DuFour et al., 2006; 1999; Fullan, 2003; Lee & Smith, 2001; Newman &
Wehlage, 1995; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Reeves, 2005; Reeves 2006; Resnick &
Hall, 1998). All six of the schools included in this study have implemented

142

professional learning communities over the last five to seven years. Additionally, all
of the schools have implemented district benchmarks that allow each PLC team to
engage in data conversations regarding student learning and progress. Two of the
schools in the study (Arroyo and Redhawk MS) have weekly collaboration time
made possible by either a late start or early release bell schedule. The other four
schools (Goose Creek, Mesa Linda, Mt Woodson & Oak Quarry) have PLC time
once every two weeks through a modified bell schedule. Redhawk is the only school
that has an extensive common site assessment program that utilizes a data
management system to organize and disaggregate the data. And while all of the
principals indicated that PLCs were a key part of their recent improvement efforts, it
appears that Redhawk MS has implemented PLCs at a significantly different level
than the other five schools.
9) Shared Leadership and Decision Making
All six schools included in this study have some form of leadership team that
guides all major reform initiatives that are studied and/or implemented at each
school. Redhawk MS uses a leadership team consisting of the principal, AP,
counselors, department chairs and grade level representatives. This team meets
twice a month for two to three hours at a time to discuss staff concerns, strategies for
improvement, PD, instruction, data from assessments, and PLC needs. The principal
at Redhawk reported that she has some outstanding teacher leaders that have been
key catalysts in their improvement efforts. Arroyo MS also has a leadership team
consisting of many of the same people as Redhawk’s leadership team. The principal

143

at Arroyo indicated that he has puts a great deal of faith in his teacher leaders, and
uses them to solve many of the issues/problems facing the school.
Goose Creek, Mesa Linda, Mt Woodson and Oak Quarry also have
leadership teams consisting of the administration as well as department chairs. The
leadership team at each of the schools is used to help drive improvement efforts,
especially as they relate to student achievement and instruction. In fact, the
department chairs at the four schools have also been trained as instructional coaches
and are released to work with teachers in a co-plan/co-teach model. In addition to
helping the administration make better-informed decisions, all of the principals
reported that they use their teacher leader group to plant seeds with certain
departments or teachers. The principals of Redhawk and Oak Quarry both talked
extensively about using their teacher leaders to plant seeds with their fellow teachers
regarding future initiatives.
10) Best Practices
Accessing research to implement best practices is a concept that is all too rare
in education, as many within the field believe that their philosophy is better, and the
research out there is flawed or constraining to their creativity (Hattie, 2009; Odden,
2009; Reeves, 2005). However, for some of the most successful schools in this
country, the use of best practices, action research, and data based decision-making
are at the cornerstone of their organizations (DuFour et al., 2006; Odden, 2009;
Reeves, 2005). All of the schools included in this study believe in the use of
research and best practices in improving student achievement. This is evident by the

144

use of PLCs, formative and summative assessments, ambitious goal setting, PD,
interventions, double-blocked periods of math and ELA, leadership teams, Thinking
Maps, Cornell Notes, the GRR instructional framework, Similar Schools Rankings.
The principals at each school reported that teachers are expected to share successful
strategies with one another, and the belief that improving student achievement is
everybody’s concern, regardless of what they teach.
Every school in this study has increased student achievement over the last
five years, however, there are large variances in the API gains made by each school.
And while each of the six schools has arguably implemented each of Odden’s (2009)
10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (to at least to some extent), the level
and/or depth of implementation of each of the ten strategies appears to be related to
the increases made by each school. Table 4.4 provides a list of Odden’s (2009) 10
strategies, as well as a summary of the level of implementation at each of the six
sample schools.
Table 4.4: Implementation of Odden’s 10 Strategies at the Six Sample Schools
School Odden’s Strategies
Arroyo
MS
Goose
Creek
Mesa
Linda
Mt
Woodson
Oak
Quarry
Redhawk
1) Creating a Sense of
Urgency 1 1 1 1 1 1
2) Goal Setting
1 1 1 1 1 1
3) Changing the Curriculum
and Implementing a New
Instructional Vision 1 1 1 1 1 1
4) Assessment Program and
Using Data to Make
Decisions 2 2 2 2 2 1

145

Table 4.4, Continued
Odden’s Strategies School

Arroyo
MS
Goose
Creek
Mesa
Linda
Mt
Woodson
Oak
Quarry
Redhawk
6) using instructional time
more efficiently 1 1 1 1 1 1
7) providing extra help for
struggling students 2 3 3 3 3 3
8) creating professional and
collaborative school cultures 1 2 2 2 2 1
9) using research-based and
proven strategies 1 1 1 1 1 1
10) best practices 1 1 1 1 1 1
Note: 1 – High Implementation; 2 – Average Implementation; 3 – Weak
Implementation

Resource Allocation
Although employing the correct strategies is a critical factor to any school
improvement effort, schools must also strongly consider the allocation and alignment
of school resources to their reform goals and strategies. While the last section
focused on each school’s alignment to Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance, this section will focus on each school’s resource allocation
strategies over the last five years. Table 4.5 (below) provides a summary of each
school’s resource allocation strategies and will be referenced throughout this section.
All of the schools included in this study have enrollments greater than the
Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence Based Model (EBM) prototypical middle school
suggestion of 450 students. The six schools included in this study had enrollments
ranging from 697 to 984, a variance of 1.55 to 2.2 times that of the EBM. In
addition, each of the six schools had class sizes greater than the EBM

146

recommendation of 25 students. The average class size of the sample schools ranged
from 26 (Mesa Linda) to 27.7 (Oak Quarry). Table 4.6 shows a summary of each
school’s average class size. While these numbers are not significantly different than
the EBM, there were many class sizes at each of the schools that were in excess of
35 students.
Based upon the figures shown in Figure 4.5, there are obviously large
discrepancies between the EBM and the actual resources at each of the six sample
schools. One of the biggest variances is in the number of core teachers assigned to
each school. For most of the schools there is a difference of 10 and 15 core teachers
between the EBM and the actual number of core teachers employed at each school.
Goose Creek had the largest discrepancy with the EBM recommending 36 core
teachers and the school only having 20.6 core teachers. Interestingly, there are not
large variances between the number of specialist teachers (health, PE, Art, Music,
etc.) in the EBM, and the number of specialist teachers at each school. In fact, only
one of the schools (Goose Creek) had fewer specialist teachers than the EBM
suggested. However, it should be noted that it was only 0.1 FTE less. Furthermore,
all six schools are significantly under staffed in special education. The largest
variance is at Goose Creek where staffing is less than 60% of the EBM.
Four of the six schools still use instructional coaches at the site. The four
schools from the EGUSD all have a 0.2 FTE instructional coach that work with
teachers on improving instruction. This figure represents one day of coaching per
week for each of the four sites. The principal at Arroyo MS reported that they used

147

to have a Student Achievement Teacher (SAT) that worked with teachers to improve
instruction, however that position was cut two years ago due to budget cuts. The
principal at Redhawk reported a desire to have an instructional coach, but stated that
the budget did not allow for it at this time.
All of the six schools use tutors in some form or another. The principals all
reported teachers tutoring their students individually after school or at lunch to help
improve student learning. However, the use of certificated teachers to tutor students
for additional pay was relatively non-existent. Instead, schools use college age tutors
to work with students in specific programs. Furthermore, all of the schools in this
study have some form of an after school intervention program that is taught by a
certificated teacher. These programs are flexible and are usually taught two days per
week for 45-50 minutes. These intervention classes are not classified as tutoring as
teachers have their own curriculum to teach, and do not focus on helping students
with the work of their normal instructional day. Principals reported that a lack of
funds to do not allow for certificated teachers to tutor students.
Providing students with additional time during the summer has proven to be a
great way to help poor and second language students keep pace with their more
affluent peers (Odden & Archibald, 2009). Five of the six schools use funds to
provide a summer school program. However, as noted in the section on the Odden’s
(2009) ten strategies the duration of summer school is not anywhere near the
recommended levels. Once again, principals indicated that a lack of resources as the
primary reason for the shortened summer school program. Four of the six schools

148

(Goose Creek, Mesa Linda, Mt Woodson, & Oak Quarry) have their teachers
participate in the district’s summer school program, which is a hybrid program
providing 2 hours of instruction for students and 2 hours of PD for teachers for a two
week period of time. Students attend summer school for 2 hours, while teachers
attend for four hours. The first two hours are allocated to instruction, and the second
two hours are allocated to PD and instructional coaching. All four principals
reported that the summer program has been a great way to get sub-par teachers get
the extra PD they need to become quality teachers.
In addition to the differences discussed above, there are also large variances
between the EBM and the allocation of resources for GATE students, technology,
professional development, student activities and substitutes. Professional
development expenditures at the six school sites is approximately 5% to 20% that of
the EBM. The variances are even greater when we factor in technology,
instructional materials and student activities. Based upon the data in Table 4.5,
resources in these areas are significantly lower than that of the EBM. And while the
schools included in this study have arguably performed as well as, or better, than
schools that serve a similar demographic, It is reasonable to assert that additional
resources in these areas would help these schools significantly raise achievement.

149

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

Arroyo
MS
Goose
Creek
Mesa
Linda
Mt
Woodson
Oak
Quarry
Redhawk
MS
School Element

EBM/
Act

EBM/
Act

EBM/
Act

EBM/
Act

EBM/
Act

EBM/
Act
Enrollment
450/
984
450/
897
450/
697
450/
852
450/
850
450/
853
Core Teachers
39.4/
23.65
36/
20.6
27.9/
17.25
34.2/
19.4
34.2/
17.8
34.2/
24.5
Specialist
teachers
7.9/
8.2
7.2/
7.1
5.6/
6.1
6.8/
10.2
6.8/
7.3
6.8/
8.3
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
4.9/
0
4.5/
0.2
3.5/
0.2
4.3/
0.2
4.3/
0.2
4.3/
0.0
Tutors
7.1/
1.0
7.8/
1.2
5.37/
0.8
6.8/
0.9
6.8/
1.0
6.8/
0.33
Teachers for EL
3.84/
3.0
4.7/
2.0
2.93/
1.2
3.6
1.4
3.6/
2.2
3.6/
1.5
Extended day
FTE
3.9/
1.0
3.6/
1.0
2.8/
0.6
3.4/
1.0
3.4/
0.6
3.4/
0.7
Summer School
FTE
3.9/
2.0
3.6/
2.0
2.8/
2.0
3.4/
2.0
3.4/
2.0
3.4/
0.0
Learning
Disabled student
FTE
6.6/
4.0
6/
3.1
4.65/
3.0
5.7/
3.6
5.7/
3.2
5.7/
4.0
GATE student
$25/
$0
per
student
$25/
$0
per
student
$25/
$0
per
student
$25/
$0
per
student
$25/
$0
per
student
$25/
$0
per
student
Substitutes
$49,680/
$4,410
$45,360/
$6,405
$35,154/
$6,140
43,092/
$7,350
$43,092/
$9,775
$43,092
$10,233
Pupil Support
7.1/
3.7
7.8/
4.2
5.37/
2.6
6.8/
4.75
6.8/
2.9
6.8/
3.2
Non-
instructional
aides
4.4/
0.0
4.0/
0.0
3.1/
0.0
3.8/
0.0
3.8/
0.0
3.8/
0.0
Librarian/
Media specialist
2.2/
0.5
2.0/
0.5
1.55/
0.5
1.9/
0.5
1.9/
0.5
1.9/
1.0

150

Table 4.5, Continued

Arroyo
MS
Goose
Creek
Mesa
Linda
Mt
Woodson
Oak
Quarry
Redhawk
MS
School Element

EBM/
Act

EBM/
Act

EBM/
Act

EBM/
Act

EBM/
Act

EBM/
Act
Principal
2.2/
2.0
2.0/
2.0
1.55/
2.0
1.9/
2.0
1.9/
2.0
1.9/
2.0
School site
Secretary
4.4/
3.0
4.0/
3.5
3.1/
3.4
3.8/
4.0
3.8/
3.5
3.8/
3.2
Professional
Development
EBM PD
1
/
$4,500
EBM PD
1
/
$9,034
EBM PD
1
/
$8,325
EBM PD
1
/
$7,686
EBM PD
1
/
$5,130

EBM PD
1
/
$7,500
Technology
$/ pupil
$250/
$5.08
per pupil
$250/
$0
per pupil
$250/
$19
per pupil
$250/
$0
per pupil
$250/
$17.70
per pupil
$250/
$58.36
per pupil
Instructional
materials
$/ pupil
$140/
$20.55
per pupil
$140/
$8.47
per pupil
$140/
$10.53
per pupil
$140/
$23
per pupil
$140/
$10.85
per pupil
$140/
$47.03
per pupil
Student activities
$/ pupil
$200/
$0
per pupil
$200/
$0
per pupil
$200/
$0
per pupil
$200/
$0
per pupil
$200/
$0
per pupil
$200/
$0
per pupil

Table 4.6: Class Sizes in Sample School vs. EBM School
EBM
Mt.
Woodson
Mesa
Linda
Oak
Quarry Arroyo Redhawk
Goose
Creek
Class
Size
25 26.1 26 27.7 27.2 27.4 27
Source: California Department of Education

Changes in Response to the Budget Crisis
All six of the principals reported that the recent budget crisis in California has
put a strain on the resources they control at the site level. In fact, every school has
furloughs scheduled for the 2010-11 school year. Furlough days are negotiated
(bargained between LEA and district) “dead days” where all employees take a day
off and receive no pay. They have allowed districts to endure the current state fiscal
crisis. Goose Creek, Mesa Linda, Mt Woodson, and Oak Quarry have four furlough
days scheduled for the current school year, all of which are instructional days. The

151

scheduled furlough days resulted in a decreased number of instructional days at all
four of the aforementioned schools. Redhawk Middle School has negotiated nine
furlough days for the current school year. Four of the days are student-free days
used for professional development and five of the days are instructional days
reducing the number of instructional days to 175. Arroyo Middle School has the
greatest number of furlough days (10), five of which are student-free days used for
professional development and five of which are instructional. Two principals
(Arroyo MS and Redhawk MS) reported that the loss of instructional days (due to
furloughs) is not as bad as the loss of professional development opportunities. The
other four principals indicated that student-free days in their district have never been
used for professional development, and instead have been used for teacher planning.
Each principal added that the furlough days would not impact his or her professional
development plans for the current year.
All six of the schools included in this study have raised class size for the
2010-11 school year, which resulted in an overall reduction in certificated staffing on
campus. Principals reported that the increase in class sizes and the reduction in staff
have made it more challenging to meet the educational needs of their student
populations. To make things more challenging, each principal also reported a
reduction in classified staffing. Most of these cuts have resulted in a reduced number
of instructional aides (IA).
In addition to the reductions in staffing, all six principals stated that they have
experienced significant cuts to their discretionary and categorical site budgets.

152

Principals reported that they have seen reductions in their discretionary, ELAP, SIP,
EIA, and Title I budgets. For a majority of the principals, the budgets listed above
are used to pay for tutors, extra certificated staffing, professional development, after
school interventions, substitutes, instructional materials and technology. Even with
all of the previously discussed cuts and reductions, all six principals reported that
teacher collaboration has remained in tact. This can be attributed to the fact that
each of the six sample schools has built collaboration into their bell schedule with an
early release or late start. However, a major question in everyone’s mind is, Will the
reduction site-based resources and the loss of instructional days result in decreases in
student achievement? Table 4.7 provides a summary of how each school has been
impacted by the recent budget cuts for the 2010-11 school year.
Table 4.7: 2010-11 Budget Cuts Due to Fiscal Crisis in California’s State Budget
School Budget Cuts
Arroyo
MS
Goose
Creek
Mesa
Linda
Mt
Woodson
Oak
Quarry
Redhawk
Number of Negotiated
Furlough Days 10 4 4 4 4 9
Raised Class Size/Lost
Certificated Staffing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cut Classified Staffing
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cut Discretionary Budget
Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cut SIP Budget
Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cut Professional
Development Yes No No No No Yes
Cut Interventions
Yes No No No No Yes
Reduced Collaboration
No No No No No No
Cut Instructional
Materials Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

153

Conclusion
The sample schools included in this study were intermediate/middle schools
that were identified by the California Department of Education with a Similar
Schools Ranking of 10 during the 2008-09 school year. All of the schools were able
to keep a SSR of 10 for the 2009-10 school year, except for Mesa Linda
Intermediate, which fell to a SSR of nine. Although there was no intent to study
schools with high SED, EL, and Hispanic populations, all of the schools included in
this study are Title I schools with SED populations ranging from 47% (Redhawk
MS) to 77% (Goose Creek). EL populations at the six schools ranged from 20%
(Redhawk - the highest performing school in the study) to 52% (Goose Creek - the
lowest performing school in the study). In addition, the Hispanic populations at the
six schools ranged from 37% (Arroyo MS) to 84% Hispanic (Goose Creek). Student
enrollment numbers at the six sample schools indicate a difference of 1.55 to 2.2
times greater than the prototypical middle school in the EBM.
All of the schools included in this study have demonstrated increases in
student achievement, and outperformed schools with similar demographics, all in the
face of devastating budget cuts and dwindling resources. Additionally, each of the
six schools included in this study had significant differences between the actual
resources used at the site and the prototypical middle school found in the Evidence
Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). Redhawk Middle School made the greatest
gains in student achievement with an API increase of 116 points over the last five
years. Redhawk MS is followed by: Arroyo MS, Mesa Linda, Oak Quarry, Mt

154

Woodson, and Goose Creek with API increases of 81, 39, 38, 33, and 28 points
respectively.
Each of the six schools employed all 10 of Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for
Doubling Student Achievement. However, the depth of implementation for each
strategy differed between the six schools. All of the six schools have a high
implementation of the following strategies: creating a sense of urgency, setting
ambitious goals, changing the curriculum and implementing a new instructional
vision, professional development, using time more effectively, research based
strategies and use of best practices. Redhawk and Arroyo Middle Schools appear to
have deeper levels of PLC implementation and more frequent collaboration than the
other four schools. Redhawk MS had the most impressive site assessment program,
which teachers used to modify instruction, plan interventions and drive personal and
department/grade level improvement. These findings, along with the significant
increases in achievement at Redhawk and Arroyo Middle Schools (compared to the
to other four schools) suggest that collaboration and regular use of assessment data
are more strongly related to improving student achievement than some of the other
10 strategies. And while there is obviously more research needed in this area, the
increased achievement at these two schools is simply remarkable.
In addition to the findings above, none of the schools provided students with
any significant levels of additional instruction after school. While each school had
programs in place that provided students with additional support after school, most
of these programs simply provided students with a place to do homework or receive

155

some level of tutoring from college students. Furthermore, none of the schools
included in this study were able to provide a significant summer school program that
specifically targeted students that were not proficient. Each of the principals
reported that budget cuts have caused them to reduce either the length of summer
school or caused it to be cut completely. This lack of resources becomes even more
troubling when we factor in how EL and SED student achievement is impacted
during the summer months when school is not in session.
Average class sizes at the six sample schools ranged from 26 to 27.7 students.
While these figures are obviously close to the recommended EBM levels, each of the
schools included in this study had some core classes above 35 students, and were
extremely deficient in the actual number of core teachers at the site. This result was
found with tutors, special education, EL teachers, extended day and summer school
staffing, instructional coaches/facilitators, library/media personnel, and pupil support
staffing. However, each of the schools had staffing ratios that were very close to the
EBM recommendations for specialist teachers, administrators, and office/clerical
staffing.
Research into each school’s budget shows that all six schools are
significantly underfunded compared to Odden and Picus’ (2008) EBM. In fact, none
of the schools received any site resources for student activities or GATE
expenditures, and only four schools received any funding specifically allocated for
technology. Funding in the areas of substitutes, professional development, and

156

instructional materials were also found to be lacking. In most cases, funding in these
areas ranged from 5-20% of the allocation levels in the EBM.
Although the comparison between the resource allocation strategies in the
EBM differed greatly from the actual resources found at each school, California’s
current fiscal crisis has caused each of the sample schools to make further
reductions. The most devastating cuts have been made to the number of instructional
days (furloughs) for the current year. All six principals reported additional cuts have
been made to certificated and classified personnel, as well as instructional materials.
While most schools in California, including the six sample schools, have made it
through these tough economic times, it will be interesting to see if future
achievement is impacted in any way as schools are forced to do away with programs
(interventions, tutors, summer school) that provide valuable time and resources to
some of the neediest students.
Each of the six schools selected for this study has been ranked among the top
achieving schools in the state, according to the SSRs published each year by the
CDE. Although this level of performance is commendable and deserving of such
recognition, none of the schools have been able to maintain pace with the
achievement targets set forth by NCLB. In addition, the achievement gaps (even at
these SSR 10 schools) still mirror those found at other lower performing/ranking
schools. For example, the three highest performing schools in the study are also the
ones that have the most Asian and Caucasian students, and the fewest number of
SED and EL students, except for Arroyo, which has a significant SED population.

157

However, it should be noted that Arroyo’s EL and SED students are predominantly
Asian, not Hispanic. This finding suggests that even schools that employ a strong set
of research-based improvement strategies, such as Odden’s (2009) ten strategies for
improving student achievement, still struggle to educate second language learners
from disadvantaged families. And while there are those out there that continue to
complain about wasted educational dollars (Hanushek, 1997; Hanushek & Lindseth,
2009), students that could benefit from additional resources continue to go without
valuable support programs such as summer school, after school interventions,
instructional materials, smaller class sizes, and more pupil support services, all of
which could provide them with the additional resources and opportunities needed to
reach proficiency.

158

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Over the last few decades, public education has faced a tremendous amount
of criticism regarding failed reform attempts to produce high levels of learning for all
students in America (Elmore, 2002; Reeves, 2005). As part of this reform effort,
there have been numerous changes in educational policies, curricula, funding,
strategies, leadership, organizational structure, and instructional practices. However
even with this massive effort, it is still difficult for many schools across this country
to improve the learning outcomes for students, specifically in urban impoverished
communities where large numbers of minorities reside (Johnson, 2002; Marzano,
2003). The failure to improve student achievement brought about the passing and
implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, an accountability
mandate that requires all schools receiving federal funding in America to reach
100% proficiency by the year 2014 (California Department of Education, 2009).
With the passing of NCLB, the Federal government instituted an accountability
system unlike anything that had been seen in previous administrations (Archibald,
2006).
With the increasing demands to improve student achievement across this
country, some argue that there must also be greater accountability in how schools
spend money, especially as it relates to improving student performance (Hanushek,
1997; Hanushek, & Lindseth, 2009). Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) argue that
although funding has increased greatly over the last 35 years, twelfth grade students

159

in 2004 performed about the same on the NAEP test as students who took the test 35
years earlier. This argument, along with others on resource allocation, equity and
adequacy (Karoly, 2001; Hanushek, 1997; Odden & Picus, 2008), have caused many
state legislators to reconsider how money is allocated and used by local schools and
districts to drive improvements in student performance. And while it is clear that
just simply adding money to the pot will not help every student reach proficiency by
2014, as required by NCLB, there is growing evidence that the proper allocation of
money and resources can improve student achievement, even in urban areas where
students have historically underachieved (Baker, 2005; Odden 2009; Odden &
Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008).
Summary of Findings
This study uses Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based Model (EBM) for
resource allocation and Odden’s (2009) Ten Steps for Doubling Student Performance
as frameworks for analyzing school resource allocation and school improvement
strategies employed at six intermediate/middle schools serving students with varying
ethnic backgrounds and varying socioeconomic statuses. Using the Similar Schools
Ranking (SSR) of 10 as the primary criterion for participation in this study (as
defined by the CDE), schools with various levels of achievement (state decile
ranking 6 - 9) were selected. Due to the populations they serve, all of the schools are
funded at different levels, but can be analyzed using the EBM (Odden & Picus,
2008) for resource allocation. How and where these resources were allocated helped
to provide evidence for future resource allocation decisions. In support of this claim,

160

EdSource (2007a) found that although many schools receive relatively the same
amount of funding, achievement varies greatly between these schools. And while
the evidence and research regarding improving student achievement has improved
greatly over the last 10 years, and more and more educators are looking to the
literature to make decisions, there continues to be a need to examine how resources
can be better used to improve student performance, especially in California where
the funding levels have been cut significantly over the last two years (EdSource,
2010a; Marzano, 2003; Odden & Picus, 2008; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden,
2009).
Instructional Vision and Improvement Strategies At the School Level?
All of the schools included in this study have been able to improve student
achievement over the last five years. In addition, all six schools have been
recognized with a Similar Schools Ranking (SSR) of 10 by the California
Department of Education numerous times during this same time period. Only one
intermediate school (Mesa Verde) lost its 10 SSR when they fell to a nine in 2010.
To earn a SSR of 10, schools (arguably) have to employ a successful set of strategies
to continuously outperform schools that serve a similar demographic of students.
Upon analysis of principal interviews, it was evident that each school has a
strong sense of urgency, as well as a strong understanding of the performance
problems and challenges facing their school. This finding is based upon the fact that
the performance of each school over the last five years clearly shows their ability to
outperform schools with similar populations. In addition, each principal reported

161

that CST data is used to on a regular basis to drive improvement, set new goals,
revise curricula and assessments, and allocate resources. Based upon the six
principal interviews, it is clear that every principal unequivocally believes that their
students can achieve at higher levels each year, and that it is their personal
responsibility to ensure that improving student achievement is central to the school’s
mission.
All six principals reported that setting ambitious goals and creating a new
instructional vision that included a reloaded curriculum were also critical factors to
their improvement efforts. Each principal reported that the Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) targets, which increase by about 11% each year until 2014 (when
schools are expected to achieve 100% proficiency on the CSTs in ELA and Math),
have been used each year. Additionally, each school adopted new textbooks and
wrote new curriculum maps/pacing guides over the last five years. Four of the six
schools implemented a new instructional framework (Gradual Release of
Responsibility), which has helped to create a common definition of good instruction.
While the implementation of an instructional framework is important and discussed
in detail in the literature (Fisher & Frey, 2009; Marzano, 2003; Odden & Archibald,
2009), it is interesting that the two schools that did not implement an instructional
framework had the highest gains in student achievement. Instead, these two schools
focused much more on weekly collaboration and teacher accountability.
Other common areas among the six sample schools included targeted
professional development, using instructional time effectively, and using research-

162

based practices to improve student achievement. Every school reported that
professional development (PD) was an important part of improving instruction,
which Hattie (2009) argues is one of the most important factors to increasing student
performance. Furthermore, each principal has provided PD that has a proven record
of success in improving learning outcomes. Some of these PD opportunities include:
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), student motivation, a common
instructional framework, using data to improve instruction, and the UCI Math
Project. With regard to using instructional time more effectively, each principal has
created a Master Schedule that provides non-proficient students with more
instruction in ELA and math by double-blocking these periods. This change in
student scheduling is one of the easiest ways to determine whether or not a school
has created a culture that believes that every student can reach proficiency on the
CSTs in math and ELA as it truly aligns resources (teachers) with school goals and
priorities. Moreover, each school uses data and research to drive all reform
initiatives. All six principals indicated that teachers have become much more
dependent upon research to make decisions. When something works, principals
make sure that everyone knows about it and there is an expectation for it to be
implemented in the classroom.
While every school has implemented all ten of Odden’s (2009) strategies for
improving student achievement, the level and fidelity of certain strategies differed
between the six sample schools. And while variances in some of the strategies did
not result in large differences in achievement between the six schools (instructional

163

framework, implementation of summer school), it appears that the level of
implementation of two strategies has potentially created large variances in increasing
achievement. Based upon the last five years of achievement data, and site principal
interviews, it is evident that the regular and frequent use of assessment data, weekly
collaboration, and increased teacher accountability all have a significant impact on
improving student achievement. Although all six schools have implemented PLCs
and common assessments, the two schools (Redhawk and Arroyo) that had weekly
collaboration had larger gains (116 and 81 API points respectively) in achievement
than the other four schools which had gains ranging from 28 to 39 API points over
the last five years. The school with the greatest gains (Redhawk) also had the
strongest implementation of PLCs, teacher accountability, and frequent assessment
data. These findings suggest that the frequent use of assessment data and
implementation of weekly collaboration may be one of the most important strategies
schools employ to improve achievement. It should also be noted that this finding is
in no way refutes the findings that professional development and the implementation
of a common instructional model are both important. Instead, this finding suggests
that frequency (how often) of teachers using data to drive future instruction may help
schools improve achievement at a higher level. These findings are also strongly
supported by the literature (Ainsworth, 2003; DuFour, 2006; Johnson, 2002; Reeves,
2005).
A common weakness among the six sample schools related to providing
students with extra help and time. Five of the six schools reported the

164

implementation of a summer school program. However, four of the six schools had
a two-week, two-hour per day summer school program, which is significantly less
than the recommendations found in the literature (Odden, 2009). These schools must
reconsider the length of their summer program if they truly want it to be effective.
One school, Arroyo, has a month long summer program, but it is only for students
that have failed a math and/or ELA class during the regular school year. The
inclusion of non-proficient students that did pass their math and ELA classes could
be a great way to help these student reach proficiency the following year. One
school (Redhawk) does not offer summer school at all due to budget cuts. While
they were the school that made the largest gains in student achievement, it is
interesting to consider how many more students could have reached proficiency had
they been able to participate in a rigorous summer school program.
Site Level Resource Allocation Strategies for Improving Student Performance
While the implementation of Odden’s (2009) strategies for improving
achievement alone will help almost any school improve achievement, there is
growing evidence that the way schools spend money can also greatly impact student
learning (Baker 2005; Odden 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus,
2008). And while Hanushek & Lindseth (2009) argue that schools have been failing
and wasting money for decades, Odden and Picus (2008) and Odden (2009) suggest
that the proper allocation of resources can greatly impact student achievement,
especially when they are tied to a specific set of research-based improvement
strategies. For most schools, a majority of their revenues are tied up in people.

165

EdSource (2010b) reports that approximately 80-85% of a district’ money is used to
pay for the salaries and benefits of employees. The remaining 15-20% is used to pay
for everything else needed to run a school and/or district. With that said, most of the
decisions that site administrators make regarding resource allocation and improving
achievement relate to buying more people and/or using people more effectively.
Based upon data collected from principal interviews, it is clear that the
schools included in this study have a strong sense of how to improve student
achievement. All six of the principals have created master schedules (teacher
assignments) that are aligned to improving student achievement. To implement this
type of a master schedule, principals had to let go of teachers that taught many of the
traditional electives (woodshop, metal shop, home economics). In addition, they
were able to screen and hire new math and ELA teachers who are more easily
influenced by the principal’s vision. Furthermore, the releasing of non-academic
teachers symbolically communicates to the entire staff that s/he is willing to make
tough decisions and do whatever it takes to improve performance.
Principals have also spent a majority of their site funds on increasing
collaboration, providing professional development, creating new curriculum/pacing
guides, and providing extra time and support for students in need. Every principal
reported that focused professional development and increased teacher collaboration
have led to increased performance. Additionally, each principal has been able to
create an after school intervention program that includes both certificated and non-
certificated personnel. Each school reported that they provide after school

166

instruction from a certificated teacher for non-proficient students in both math and
ELA. Moreover, each school also provides after school tutors (non-certificated) that
work with students to improve classroom performance. However, it should be noted
that the use of tutors and certificated intervention teachers at all of the schools is
moderate at best, meaning that a majority of the after school programs are one or two
days per week for approximately an hour. Principals indicated that a lack of funds
has prevented them from creating and implementing a more comprehensive after
school program that utilizes certificated personnel more appropriately to increase
student support, and ultimately achievement. The findings from this study clearly
indicate an alignment between resources and research-based improvement strategies.
And while there is obvious room for improvement, it is absolutely remarkable that
schools in California continue to raise achievement for disadvantaged students with
such a lack of site level resources at their disposal.
Impact of California’s Current Fiscal Crisis on School Resources
Due to the recent budget shortfalls at the state level in California, K-12
educators have been forced to make difficult financial decisions over the last two
years. In response to this fiscal crisis, most schools have had to cut administrators,
classified personnel, and teachers as personnel makes up a significant portion of any
district’s budget. In addition to the significant reductions in staffing, the sample
schools have also cut meaningful programs, teacher salaries, site budgets, summer
school, and even the school year. In addition, each of the sample schools reported
the implementation of furlough days, and increasing class size as the primary

167

strategies for dealing with the current budget woes in 2010-11. All of the principals
interviewed also reported that the recent budget cuts have made it significantly more
challenging to educate students. The 2010-11 school year will be an interesting year
to see if reductions in instructional days, staffing, interventions, and resources cause
any major decreases in CST scores this spring.
Resource Alignment with the Evidence-Based Model
Based upon California’s school finance formulas, and the recent economic
downturn and fiscal crisis, it is not surprising that there are large discrepancies
between the prototypical middle school referenced in the EBM and the resources
available at each of the six sample schools in this study. The three areas that were
most closely aligned with the EBM were the number of specialist teachers,
administrators, and office/clerical staffing. In fact, for all but one of the schools there
were more specialist teachers than the EBM suggested. With regard to
administrators and office staffing, there were also very small discrepancies between
the EBM and actual site personnel. However, there were major discrepancies in
almost every other area.
All of the schools included in this study had larger student populations, and
significantly less core teachers, instructional coaches, tutors, extended day and
summer school personnel, and EL and pupil support staff members. In addition,
there were extremely large discrepancies between site funds for GATE, technology,
instructional materials, student activities, substitutes and professional development
and the EBM. During interviews with site principals, each one commented on how

168

much more they could do with additional resources. Interestingly, all six reported
that they would use the funds in ways supported by research such as instructional
coaches, an extended school day, extended school year, increased collaboration, and
reduced class sizes.
Based upon the data collected during this study, it is clear that schools can
employ a number of strategies to improve achievement, many of which cost
relatively nothing. However, if education is truly ever going to provide a high level
rigorous education that guarantees proficiency for every student, legislators and
educators will have to work together to provide the additional resources and
programs needed give every student an adequate education. And while the six
schools included in this study have arguably employed strategies that are proven to
improve student performance, and each has been recognized as performing in the top
10% of schools that serve similar demographics, there are still hundreds of students
at each of these schools that do not score proficient or advanced on the ELA and/or
Math CSTs each spring.
Limitations of the Study
As with any research, there are limitations to this study. The study was
conducted in six middle/intermediate schools in southern California that had all been
identified as a 10 by the CDE’s similar schools ranking criteria. Data were collected
between August and December 2010. And while an effort was made to include a
variety of schools in the sample, the study was limited to these schools. The schools
were not chosen in a random manner; therefore, the data that was obtained cannot be

169

generalized to other settings. The choice of schools to be studied is 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 site principals. The limitation of the first instrument was that
only those documents that schools were willing to provide could be analyzed. The
limitation of the second instrument was based on the memory of interviewee
(principal) and how thoroughly s/he revealed all pertinent information.
Nevertheless, the study highlights some effective resource allocation strategies being
implemented at these schools.
Recommendations for Future Research
Schools across this nation are struggling to meet the demands of NCLB. In
fact, the number of schools being identified as PI schools is increasing at an alarming
rate (EdSource, 2010a; Linn, 2005). As the NCLB proficiency targets increase each
year, everyone from teachers to district office administrators to researchers and
policy makers are looking for ways to improve student achievement. While much of
our past has focused on improving equity and access in education, it is becoming
very clear that we must take a different approach moving forward. A major part of
this conversation, especially for our most struggling student populations, includes the
proper allocation of resources to meet the demands of NCLB. Research on how

170

resources can be used systematically at the district and site level is desperately
needed to attain the rigorous targets of NCLB.
This study adds to the research on how schools allocate resources to improve
student performance. The sample population included six intermediate/middle
schools that have been recognized by the California Department of Education with a
Similar Schools Ranking of 10, and are thus in the top 10% of schools serving
similar demographics. While it was clear that successful schools employ a variety of
research-based strategies to improve achievement, more research is needed to clearly
understand which strategies have the greatest impact on improving achievement.
Due to California’s recent budget cuts, and incredibly inconsistent funding model,
there is a tremendous need to provide policymakers and educators with guidance
during decision-making process. For example when resources are limited, should a
site provide after school interventions with a certificated teacher, after school tutors,
or a comprehensive summer school program? Would it be better to reduce class size,
or would it be better to hire instructional coaches to work with teachers on a weekly
basis? Do weekly collaboration and the frequent use of assessment data, produce
greater gains in achievement than an intensive focused professional development
plan? In addition, a study that examines a process for implementing Odden’s (2009)
ten strategies could help less experienced administrators better understand how
effective leaders improve achievement, as well as delineate which strategies are most
important to implement first. Answers to these questions would help future

171

practitioners make better-informed decisions about how resources can be used to
improve student performance.
Conclusions
California is experiencing some of the most difficult financial times in recent
memory (EdSource, 2009a). In fact, recent budget cuts have forced many schools to
cut resources by over 15%, reducing spending to 2004-05 levels (EdSource, 2009b).
In addition to this fiscal crisis, local districts and schools are feeling increased
pressure to meet the student achievement targets set forth NCLB (EdSource, 2007b;
Linn, 2005). And while many in education have argued that schools have failed to
utilize past resources effectively, and continue to argue that schools are overfunded,
the need to provide every student with a rigorous standards-based education remains
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Hanushek, 2006; Lindseth, 2006; Odden & Archibald,
2009).
While the implementation of Odden’s (2009) ten strategies for increasing
student performance, and Odden & Picus’ (2008) provide school leaders with a
promising set of tactics for increasing student achievement, California’s current
fiscal crisis appears to have prevented schools from being able to implement all of
Odden’s (2009) strategies (with fidelity) or allocate resources anywhere near the
levels in the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008). Instead, school leaders have had to make
difficult decisions about which strategies should be implemented, or receive
continued funding, and which strategies should be cut, or remain underfunded.

172

The findings from this study suggest that SSR 10 schools employ a variety of
research-based strategies to improve achievement. In addition, the findings also
suggest that weekly teacher collaboration, frequent use of assessment data, and
increased levels of teacher accountability are among the top strategies that
practitioners should consider implementing and/or funding during these difficult
economic times. Furthermore, the regular use of data provides both teachers and
school leaders with a more accurate picture of student achievement problems/gaps,
which should allow school leaders to make resource allocation decisions that better
target the needs of their student population, resulting in higher levels of student
achievement. And while increases in school revenues and resources could arguably
help many of our most disadvantaged schools provide more students with an
adequate education, policymakers, researchers and school leaders must continue to
find ways to increase achievement with lower levels of funding.

173

REFERENCES
Anfara, V. A., Jr., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on
stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher,
31(7), 28-38.

Ainsworth, L. (2003). Power Standards: Identifying the Standards that Matter the
Most. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.

Archibald, S. J. (2006). Narrowing in on educational resources that do affect student
achievement. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(4), 23-42.

Augenblick, J. G., Myers, J. L., & Anderson, A. B. (1997). Equity and adequacy in
school funding. The Future of Children, 7(3), 63-78.

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

Baker, B. D., Taylor, L. L., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Adequacy estimates and the
implications of common standards for the cost of instruction. Washington,
DC: National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.

Bhatt, M. P., & Wraight, S. E. (2009). A summary of research and resources related
to state school funding formulas. Naperville, IL: Regional Educational
Laboratory Midwest at Learning Point Associates.

Bitter, C., & O'Day, J. (2006). California's accountability system. In PACE (Ed.),
Crucial issues in California education 2006: Rekindling reform (pp. 51-74).
Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.

Borman, G. D., Boulay, M. (2004). Summer Learning Research, Policies, and
Programs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2006). The longitudinal achievement effects of
multi-year summer school: Evidence from the Teach Baltimore randomized
field trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 25-48.

Brinson, V. R., & Mellor, L. (2005). How are high-performing schools spending
their money? A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Education Finance Association, Louisville, KY.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). (Brown I)

174

Buffum, A., Mattos, M., Weber, C. (2009). Pyramid Response to Intervention: RTI,
Professional Learning Communities, and How to Respond When Kids Don't
Learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

California Department of Education. (2009). Communicating with parents and
guardians about 2009 STAR program tests: Resources for use by school
district and school staff. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/resources.asp

California Department of Education. (2009). Parent and guardian guide to
California's 2008-2009 accountability progress reporting system.
Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/index.asp

California Department of Education. (2009). Program improvement. Sacramento,
CA: Author. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/programimprov.asp

Chambers, J., & Levin, J. (2006). Funding California's schools, Part II: Resource
adequacy and efficiency. In PACE (Ed.), Crucial issues in California
education 2006: Rekindling reform (pp. 27-50). Berkeley, CA: Policy
Analysis for California Education.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).

Clune, W. H. (1994). The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance.
Educational Policy, 8(4), 376-394.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others
Don’t. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J. C., Muhlenbruck, L., Borman, G.D. (2000).
Making the Most of Summer School: A Meta-Analytic and Narrative Review.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 65(1), 1-127.

Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects
of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-
analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 227.

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

175

Darling-Hammond, L., Alexander, M., & Price, D. (2002). Redesigning high
schools: What matters and what works. 10 features of good small schools.
Stanford, CA: School Redesign Network, Stanford University.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (1999). Investing in teaching
as a learning profession: Policy problems and prospects. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wholstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-
performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary
students. Los Angeles, CA: Center on Educational Governance, University of
Southern California.

Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002).
Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a
three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
24(2), 81-112.

DuFour, R. (2003). Building a professional learning community. School
Administrator, 60(5), 13-18.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.

Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don't know about improving low-performing
schools. The Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 728-734.

Ed-Data. (2010). Glossary terms. Author. Retrieved April 17, 2010, from
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/glossary.asp

EdSource. (2000). Understanding school finance: California's complex K-12 system.
Mountain View, CA: Author.

EdSource. (2007a). Keeping California school districts fiscally healthy: Current
practices and ongoing challenges. Mountain View, CA: Author.

EdSource. (2007b). Trends and comparisons in California school finance. Mountain
View, CA: Author.

EdSource. (2008). How California compares: Demographics, resources, and student
achievement. Mountain View, CA: Author.

176

EdSource. (2009a). The basics of California's school finance system. Mountain
View, CA: Author.

EdSource. (2009b). Local revenues for schools: Limits and options in California.
Mountain View, CA: Author.

EdSource. (2009c). The new federal education policies: California's challenge.
Mountain View, CA: Author.

EdSource. (2009d). Resource cards on California schools. Mountain View, CA:
Author.

EdSource. (2009e). School finance 2008-2009: Fiscal crisis meets political gridlock.
Mountain View, CA: Author.

EdSource. (2010a). Resource cards on California schools. Mountain View, CA:
Author.

EdSource. (2010b). School finance 2009-10: Budget cataclysm and its aftermath.
Mountain View, CA: Author.

EdSource. (2010c). School finance basics. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_basics.html

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

Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development
and instructional improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.),
Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp.
263-291). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Feldman, J., Lucey, G., Goodrich, S., & Frazee, D. (2003). Developing an inquiry-
minded district. Educational Leadership, 60(5). Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx

Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

177

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/

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

Governor's Committee on Education Excellence. (2007). Students first: Renewing
hope for California's future. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change.
Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role
of vision, mission, and goals in school leadership and improvement. In K.
Leithwood, P. Hallinger & Colleagues (Eds.), The handbook of educational
leadership and administration (2nd ed., pp. 9-40). Dordrecht, South Africa:
Kluwer.

Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student
performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2),
141-164.

Hanushek, E. A. (2006a). Courting failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit
judges’ good intentions and harm our children. Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Hanushek, E. A. (2006b). Science violated: Spending projections and the "costing
out" of an adequate education. In E. Hanushek (Ed.), Courting failure: How
school finance lawsuits exploit judges' good intentions and harm our children
(pp. 257-312). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and
statehouses : solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America's public
schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hatami, H. (2006). Rules and resources: The evolving contect for school reform. In
PACE (Ed.), Crucial issues in California education 2006: Rekindling reform
(pp. 1-14). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating
to Student Achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.

178

Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability.
USC UrbanEd, Spring-Summer, 17-19.

Imazeki, J. (2008). Assessing the costs of adequacy in California public schools: A
cost function approach. Education Finance and Policy, 3(1), 90-108.

Johnson, R. S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure
equity in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Joyce, B., & Calhoun, E. (1996). Learning experiences in school renewal: An
exploration of five successful programs. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Educational Management.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development
(3rd ed.). Alexandira, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum
Development.

Karoly, L. (2001). Investing in the future: Reducing poverty through human capital
investments. In S. H. Danziger & R. H. Haveman (Eds.), Understanding
Poverty (pp. 314-356). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kirst, M. (2006). Evolution of California state school finance with implications from
other states. Palo Alto, CA: Institute for Research on Education Policy and
Practice, Stanford University.

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 of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.

Knight, J. (2006). Intructional coaching: Eight factors for realizing better classroom
teaching through support, feedback, and intensive, individual professional
learning. The School Administrator, 63(4), 36-40.

Koret Task Force. (2006). Funding for performance. In E. Hanushek (Ed.), Courting
failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges' good intentions and
harm our children (pp. 329-356). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt:
Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7),
3-12.

179

Lauer, P. A., Motoko, A., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., Martin-Glenn.
M. L. (2006). Out-of School-Time Programs: A Meta-Analysis of Effects for
At-Risk Students. Review of Educational Researcher, 76(2), 275-313.

Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (2001). Restructuring high schools for equity and
excellence: What works. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Lindseth, A. A. (2006). The legal backdrop to adequacy. In E. Hanushek (Ed.),
Courting failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges' good intentions
and harm our children (pp. 33-78). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Linn, R.L. (2005). Fixing the NCLB Accountability System. Los Angeles: University
of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). Work Motivation and Satisfaction: Light at the
End of the Tunnel. Psychology Science, 1(4), 240-246.

Loeb, S., Bryk, A., & Hanushek, E. (2007). Getting down to facts: A research
project examining California’s school governance and finance systems.
Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice,
Stanford University.

Loeb, S., Grissom, J., & Strunk, K. (2007). District dollars: Painting a picture of
revenues and expenditures in California’s school districts. Stanford, CA:
Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating reseach into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy
instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133-152.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Highlights from TIMSS 2007:
Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eigth-grade
students in an international context. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.

180

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The condition of education:
Glossary. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/glossary/

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). NAEP overview. U.S. Department
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation's report card:
Mathematics 2009. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation's report card: Reading
2009. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office.

Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Madison, WI:
Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.

No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

Odden, A. R. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta
Kappan, 85(2), 120-125.

Odden, A. R. (2009). 10 strategies for doubling student performance. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. J. (2000). Investing in learning: How schools can
reallocate resources to support student achievment. School Spending.
Retrieved from http://www.asbj.com/

Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. J. (2009). Doubling student performance:... and
finding the resources to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2008). School finance : A policy perspective (4th ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

181

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

Perez, M., Parish, T., Anand, P., Speroni, C., Esra, P., Socias, M., et al. (2007).
Schools, resources, and efficiency. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on
Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.

Peterson, W., Rothstein, R. (2010). Let’s Do the Numbers: Department of
Education’s “Race to the Top” Program Offers Only a Muddled Path to the
Finish Line. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved May 11, 2010 from
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/BP263/

Picus, L. O. (2006). Funding California's schools, Part I: Past, present, and future? In
PACE (Ed.), Crucial issues in California education 2006: Rekindling reform
(pp. 15-26). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.

Policy Analysis for California Education. (2006). Crucial issues in California
education 2006: Rekindling reform. Berkeley, CA: Author, University of
California-Berkeley.

Reeves, D. B. (2005). Accountability in Action: A Blueprint for Learning
Organizations. Englewood, CO: Lead and Learn Press.

Reeves, D. B. (2006). The Learning Leader: How to Focus School Improvement for
Better Results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (1998). Learning organizations for sustainable
education reform. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
127(4), 89-118.

Ripley, A. (2010). What makes a great teacher. The Atlantic Online. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com//doc/201001/good-teaching

Robinson, V. M. J. (2007). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying
What Works and Why. Retrieved from http:www.acel.org.au

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
(Rodriguez v. San Antonio)

Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584 (1971). (Serrano I)

Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal. 3d 728 (1976). (Serrano II)

182

Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal. 3d 25 (1977). (Serrano III)

Smylie, M. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The
importance of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher,
25(9), 9-11.

Taylor, L. L., Baker, B. D., & Vedlitz, A. (2005). Measuring educational adequacy
in public schools. College Station, Texas: George Bush School of
Governement and Public Service, Texas A&M University.

The Commission on No Child Left Behind. (2007). Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the
promise to our nation’s children. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Timar, T. B. (1994). Politics, policy, and categorical aid: New inequities in
California school finance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
16(2), 143-160.

Timar, T. B. (2004). Categorical school finance: Who gains, who loses. Berkeley,
CA: Policy Analysis for California Education, University of California-
Berkeley.

Timar, T. B. (2006). How California Funds K-12 Education. Davis, CA: Institute for
Research on education Policy and Practice, University of California-Davis.

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.

Toppo, G. (2008). 'Nation at Risk': The best thing or the worst thing for education?
USA Today. Retrieved from www.usatoday.com

U.S. Constitution, amend. X.

U.S. Constitution, amend. XIV, § 1.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Comprehensive school reform project.
Author. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/compreform/2pager.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Improving basic programs operated by local
educaiton agencies (Title I, Part A). Author. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html

183

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Race to the top fund. Author. Retrieved
March 19, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html

Vasdueva, A., Darling-Hammond, L., Newton, S., & Montgomery, K. (2009).
Oakland Unified School District new small schools initiative evaluation. Stanford,
CA: School Redesign Network at Stanford University.

Waters, T. J., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School District Leadership that Works: The
Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement. Retrieved May
6, 2010 from http://www.mcrel.org

Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-
one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2),
179-200.

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S.
(2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Stanford, CA:
School Redesign Network, Stanford University.

Weiss, J. (2007). Conditions for student success: The cycle of continuous
instructional improvement. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public
Education, School Finance Redesign Project, University of Washington-
Bothell.

Woody, E., & Henne, M. (2006). Addressing the needs of low-income students. In
PACE (Ed.), Crucial issues in California education 2006: Rekindling reform
(pp. 119-132). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.

184

APPENDIX A
EMAIL INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE
Initial Email:
Dear -----,

My name is Mark Johnson, and I am the Director of Assessment for the Los
Alamitos Unified School District. Currently, I am completing my doctorate at USC's
Rossier School of Education. The reason for this email is to ask you to participate in
my thematic study/dissertation on allocating educational resources to double student
performance. My dissertation chair is Dr. Larry Picus, and we will be conducting a
mixed methods study using both qualitative and quantitative data. We will also be
using Picus and Odden's "Adequacy Model" as well as Odden's 10 Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance as frameworks (both the state of Wyoming and
Washington use Picus and Odden's Evidence-Based Adequacy Model as the
framework for funding their state educational system). In short, adequacy is about
utilizing resources to ensure that all students attain high levels of learning.

Your school was selected as one of six schools that have a Similar Schools Ranking
(SSR) of 10, and serves a diverse student population. I am only studying
middle/intermediate schools that have a similar schools ranking of 10, and I would
greatly appreciate your participation in my study. Every school used will be kept
completely confidential and pseudo-names will be used to adhere to the strict
confidential rules stipulated by USC. Only I will know the actual names of the
schools and principals that participated. Your participation would include: a 10
minute phone call this spring, the completion of a questionnaire on staffing ratios
and budget, and a 1.5 hour interview this fall.

Currently, I'm writing chapters 1-3 of my dissertation and I'm going to have my
qualifying exams on those chapters in the middle of May. Once the qualifying exams
are approved, I will be allowed to collect my data, but as I stated previously this
would take place this fall. Please note that I will not need to interview other staff
members, observe lessons, etc.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Mark Johnson

185

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.

186

4. Consultants (School, District, and State)

Budgeted dollar amount for all other consultants other than professional
development contracted services.

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.

187

APPENDIX C
SCHOOL VISIT/INTERVIEW DATES
School 1 Mt Woodson Intermediate August 27, 2010
School 2 Mesa Linda Intermediate September 1, 2010
School 3 Oak Quarry Intermediate September 2, 2010
School 4 Arroyo Middle School August 13, 2010
School 5 Redhawk Middle School August 10, 2010
School 6 Goose Creek Intermediate October 1, 2010

188

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
8. Mission and Vision statements

189

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

190

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.

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.

191

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
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)

192

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.)
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

193

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, 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),

194

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.

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.

195

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.
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

196

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.
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.

197

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.
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

198

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).
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.

199

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.)
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.)

200

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.

201

APPENDIX F
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.

B. 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?

202

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?

C. 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

203

D. Was the improvement effort centrist (central office orchestrated) or
bottom up?

E. What type of instructional leadership was present?
F. Was there accountability built into this improvement plan? (e.g.
School Board report which helped solidify focus)
G. What additional resources would be needed to continue and expand
your efforts?

204

APPENDIX G
DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
School Profile
School Name School’s
State ID Number

Address

City State CA Zip

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:

205

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:

206

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
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
Length of Social Studies Class
Length of Foreign Language Class
AYP
NOTES:

207

English/Reading/L.A.
History/Soc. Studies
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:

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

208

Dollars:
Other Extra Help Classified Staff
Other Extra Help Classified Staff Funded with
Federal Dollars:
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
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:

209

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 $
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
Clerical staff
Technology Coordinator/ I.T.
Security
Custodians
NOTES:

210

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

211

APPENDIX H
MT. WOODSON INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL
School Background

Mt. Woodson Intermediate is a public school serving students in grades 7-8
in a large urban district in Orange County, California. In 2009-10, Mt. Woodson
reported an enrollment of 852 students. The school is in Year 1 of PI as they only
met 17 of their 21 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets. Based upon the most
recent accountability data, Mt. Woodson’s Hispanic, SED, and EL subgroups did not
meet their AYP targets in ELA, and their EL subgroup did not meet their AYP target
in Math (California Department of Education, 2010). The school is lead by a
principal that is in his 19
th
year in education, and his 7
th
as a principal. Before
coming to Mt. Woodson, he was an assistant principal at another intermediate school
in the district. He began his teaching career at a parochial school in California.
Mt. Woodson is 1 of 64 schools in a highly centralized district serving over
47,000 students. The district consists of 46 elementary schools, 10 intermediate
schools, 6 comprehensive high schools, 2 alternative/continuation high schools, and
serves students from seven surrounding cities. Based upon 2009-10 accountability
data, the district is in Year 3 Program Improvement (PI) status due to their inability
to meet AYP targets with their Students with Disabilities and English Learner
subgroups. However, it should also be noted that it is the only large urban district in
California to achieve an API score over 800. The district has been nationally
recognized as a model urban district in numerous school reform publications,

212

including Odden and Archibald (2009), one of the two frameworks being cited
throughout this study.
Table H1: Mt. Woodson Intermediate School Demographic Comparison
% Asian % Hispanic % White % EL % SED
Mt. Woodson
Intermediate
28 59 9 38 66
District Average 31 53 12 45 66
Orange County Average 44.7 44.7 32.8 27.9 42.3
State Average 49.0 49.0 27.9 24.2 55.7
Source: California Department of Education (2010)

Based upon the information in Table H1 and Figure H1, it is evident that Mt.
Woodson Intermediate School has a larger percentage of Hispanic students (59%)
than the County and State averages of 45% and 49% respectively. In addition, the
school also has a greater percentage of EL (38%) and SED (66%) students than the
County and State averages. Furthermore, Mt. Woodson Intermediate has lower
percentages of both Asian (28%) and White (9%) students than other schools in
California. The school is located in an impoverished area of the County, but is
relatively similar to other schools in the District.

213

Figure H1: Mt. Woodson Intermediate Demographic Data

Source: California Department of Education

Assessment Data
Mt. Woodson Intermediate has experienced a 33-point API gain over the last
five years (California Department of Education, 2010). As we examine each year’s
data more closely, it is evident that the school’s performance has been relatively flat,
except for the 2007-08 year when the school saw a gain of 33 API points in one year.
In fact, the most recent state accountability report shows a 5-point API decrease in
2009-10, falling from its previous high of 817 in 2008-09. Based upon this data, it
is clear that the school has struggled to consistently improve student achievement.
Other than the 2007-08 school year, the school has either remained flat or oscillated
slightly up or down depending on the year. As stated before, Mt. Woodson is in
Year 1 of PI and will be working to get out of PI over the next two years.

214

Figure H2: Mt. Woodson Intermediate Academic Performance Index Data (2006-
2010)
Source: California Department of Education

English Language Arts Performance
As illustrated in Figure H3 below, Mt. Woodson Intermediate has shown
some improvement in all subgroups over the last five years, except with their EL
population. The school’s greatest improvements over the last five years were made
with their Hispanic (8%), Asian (7%), White (11%), and SED (9%) student
populations. However, the performance of their EL population in ELA is concerning
as it has dropped by 1.5% over the last five years. Although the school has made
progress with many of their significant subgroups, the school’s Hispanic, SED and
EL populations did not meet their 2008-09 or 2009-10 AYP targets causing the
school to fall into Year 1 PI. It should also be noted that the school’s greatest
improvements over the last five years have been made with the White subgroup.

215

And while this subgroup only makes up 9% of the school’s total population, the
achievement gap between Whites and Hispanics has increased.
Figure H3: Mt. Woodson Intermediate English Language Arts Percent Proficient or
Above
Source: California Department of Education
Mathematics Performance
Over the last five years, Math achievement at Mt. Woodson Intermediate has
grown in all subgroups. The schoolwide achievement has grown by 8%, while the
Asian, Hispanic and White subgroups have all grown by 5%, 10%, and 6%
respectively. In addtion, the SED subgroup has improved as well going from 50%
proficient or above in 2006 to 59% proficent or above in 2010, a gain of 9%. This
trend clearly demonstrates a decrease in the achievement gap between White,
Hispanic and Asian students. The performance of the EL subgroup is again
concerning as it has only grown by 4.2% in five years. As a result, the EL subgroup
was the only subgroup that did not make their AYP target during the 2008-09 and

216

2009-10 school years. Figure H4 provides a detailed picture of each subgroups
performance over the last five years.
Figure H4: Mt. Woodson Intermediate Math Percent Proficient or Above
Source: California Department of Education

Educational Improvement Process
Improving student achievement can be one of the most daunting challenges
any school decides to take on (Reeves, 2005). However, there is growing evidence,
often striking, that schools today have much more control over their performance
issues/problems than many believe (Darling-Hammond, 1997, Marzano, 2003,
Odden & Archibald, 2009, Shmoker, 1999). In fact, Odden and Archibald (2009)
argue that there are very specific strategies that schools can employ to drastically
improve student achievement, regardless of demographics or challenges. Odden &
Archibald (2009) have created a set of ten strategies that schools can use to

217

significantly improve the learning outcomes for students. In addition to the
framework and strategies described by Odden and Archibald, the Evidence-Based
Model (EBM) of resource allocation will be utilized to carefully examine the
alignment between school goals, strategies employed, and resources used to improve
performance at Mt. Woodson Intermediate School.
Understanding the Performance Problem
Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that in order for any school to
significantly improve, they must carefully examine their current reality as it relates to
student achievement. In addition, schools should conduct curriculum audits to
determine what is being emphasized in classrooms. As indicated by the current site
principal, a sense of urgency was created by the outside pressures of NCLB, and the
internal pressures to the improve performance of their EL, Hispanic, and SED
student populations. As the school began to examine and breakdown their CST data
in math and ELA, they realized that an immediate and comprehensive approach must
be employed to raise student performance.
At the onset of the school’s improvement efforts, the principal stated that
both math and ELA were a concern. With only 50% of the students proficient in
math and/or ELA, the school realized that any efforts to improve student
achievement had to involve the entire staff. Therefore, rather than focusing on any
one content area, the school’s leadership team chose to focus on a school-wide effort
to improve the initial instruction for all students. In doing so, the principal believed
that achievement would improve for all students attending Mt. Woodson, and that

218

Hispanic, EL, and SED students could be targeted through additional intervention
and support strategies.
One of the first steps in moving forward as a school was to create curriculum
guides that articulated the essential standards that were going to be emphasized in
each grade level and content area. The District played a large role in this process as
they facilitated the process and helped create District-wide curriculum guides that
articulated both the scope and sequence for all core content areas. The principal
added that once teachers agreed on what was going to be taught, they were able to
focus on improving the instructional strategies used to enhance and improve
learning.
Set Ambitious Goals
One of the most significant things any school can do is set specific goals to
improve performance. As indicated by the principal, one of the most significant
goals that truly changed the culture of Mt. Woodson was that all students leaving
intermediate school would be prepared to begin their high school careers on the A-G
California University and California State University track. This shift required all
intermediate school students to take Algebra I in 8
th
grade, which would prepare
them to begin a college preparatory track in 9
th
grade. The principal reported that the
District played a key role in facilitating this effort. In addition, the District stopped
offering all high school courses that did not help students meet the A-G
requirements. This shift required Mt Woodson to carefully examine their own
program offerings, and move in a direction that would ultimately result in more

219

students being prepared for college upon high school graduation. Furthermore, the
principal indicated that it was a goal that was easy to get the staff to “buy into”. He
added that many times schools just try and improve test scores by talking about
proficiency and API scores, but they never truly realize the global goal of helping
students have greater and/or better options upon leaving high school. By getting
staff to buy into improving A-G completion, there was a natural progression to
improve the learning outcomes, as measured by test scores, for all students.
Although the intent to improve test scores was always there, it was presented in a
way that allowed for greater staff ownership of both school and district goals.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
The effort to improve the learning outcomes for the students at Mt. Woodson
Intermediate required the school and district to carefully examine the curriculum
guides, assessments administrated, and instructional materials used during
instruction. In addition, there had to be a new vision that all students would
participate in, and be successful in, an intermediate school program that prepared
them for academic success throughout high school. Over the last five years, there
have been numerous new textbook and curriculum adoptions for all of the
intermediate schools in the district. In recent years, the district has adopted new
science, social science, and math textbooks. Although the district desires to adopt
new ELA textbooks, the State’s fiscal crisis has prevented them from moving
forward in this area. Instead of a new adoption, the school has purchased new
teacher resources that are aligned with the current ELA adoption, which has provided

220

opportunities for teachers to take advantage of newly developed lesson ideas and
increased technology pieces.
With the purchase of the newly adopted standards-based materials that are
aligned with the new district created curriculum maps/guides and assessments, the
school also had to create a new instructional vision. The new vision believes that all
students have the ability to go to college. The principal reported that this effort was
critical to the progress the school was making to change the future options for their
students. With the new goal that every student would complete the UC and CSU A-
G requirements, the school also had to add more pre-Algebra and Algebra I sections
into the master schedule. This required moving teachers from one site to another,
asking people to go and get additional certifications, and even releasing some
teachers that taught subjects that were no longer going to be offered at the site such
as woodshop and home economics. Theses course were replaced with extra math
and ELA courses that supported students that were not projected to be, or were not,
successful in the required high school preparatory courses.
In addition to the changes discussed above, the principal reported that there
was still the need to implement an instructional framework that would allow teachers
to discuss and critique instruction. Three years ago, the District implemented Nancy
Fisher and Doug Frey’s (2009) Gradual Release of Responsibility Instructional
Model. The model is a modification of Madeline Hunter’s Seven Step Lesson Plan.
By using a common model of good instruction, teachers could conduct observations

221

of each other, and principals would have a defined framework for discussing
instruction.
Formative Assessments and Data-Based Decision Making
The use of common formative and summative assessments and data-based
decision making are two of the hottest topics in educational research today (DuFour,
2006; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Reeves, 2005; 2009). Mt. Woodson Intermediate
has prescribed to both throughout their recent reform efforts. With regard to the use
of formative assessments, the District developed and implemented four benchmarks
in all core areas in 2006-07. These assessments are administered each quarter and
allow each teacher to compare the performance of their students with the
performance of other teachers throughout the school and District. The benchmarks
are progress-monitoring tests that assess student mastery of grade level standards and
are aligned to the CST Blueprints and District curriculum guides. The principal
indicated that the administration of the district benchmarks and the ensuing
discussions that occur with his teachers on student progress have been instrumental
to the school’s growth.
In addition to the data from the district benchmarks, the school also carefully
examines CST data each year looking for areas of growth and/or decline. CST data
provides the school with the necessary information to review current school goals
and priorities and adjust accordingly. The principal stated that we look at each CST
strand closely to see where we should put time and energy into improving.
Furthermore, the careful disaggregation of each subgroups data is also a large part of

222

the school’s improvement effort. While the school has made progress with each
subgroup over the last five years, the EL subgroup’s flat performance has raised
concerns.
Ongoing Intensive Professional Development
Professional development has been a major priority at Mt. Woodson
Intermediate School. In fact, the District has a comprehensive professional
development department/team that has created a professional development calendar
allowing principals the ability to send teachers to numerous trainings throughout the
year. The principal discussed that the District’s decision to provide all professional
development in-house has been instrumental in improving teacher practice. Instead
of providing teachers with various external professional development opportunities,
the District has conducted extensive research in various areas of professional
development (instruction, assessment, motivation, student engagement, etc…)
prepared internal trainers, hired external experts (Myron Dembo, Nancy Fisher), and
provided the necessary coaching and support to help teachers improve. The principal
indicated that for years teachers would attend training, and never use any of the
strategies or skills learned in the training. By prescribing to a district-wide set of
strategies, it has allowed teachers to attend trainings and receive follow-up coaching
and mentoring from District coaches that have been hired for the sole purpose of
improving instruction. This practice has also proven that the District is not interested
in the newest fad or program, and instead believes in having a laser-like focus on
achievement and improvement.

223

Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
During Mt. Woodson’s recent improvement efforts, they have carefully
examined how they effectively and efficiently use time to improve student learning
and achievement. As stated above, the school began offering more academic
electives such as AVID and companion courses (support courses for math and ELA),
both of which provide students with the additional support and instruction needed to
be successful academically. In addition, the school has changed the amount of time
and instruction given to seventh graders in social studies and science. All seventh
grade students receive one semester of life science and one semester of social
studies. This shift in the master schedule allows students to be enrolled in an
additional support period for both math and ELA (if needed). For example, if a
student was not proficient in math or ELA, they could take pre-algebra with an
additional support class, as well as an on grade level ELA class (heterogeneous) with
an additional support class dependent upon need (homogenous).
The bell schedule at Mt Woodson provides 47 minutes of instruction each
period. For the typical seventh grader, they receive two periods of math, two periods
of ELA, one period of social science/science (semester of each), one period of
Physical Education, and one period of elective (academic or arts related). For the
typical 8
th
grader, they receive one period of ELA if they are proficient, or two
periods of ELA if they are not proficient. In math, students receive one period if
they are proficient, and two periods if they are not proficient. In addition, all
students have a period of PE, science, social studies, and an elective (if they are

224

proficient in math). In addition, the elective offerings are mostly academic (AVID,
Academic Lab, Academy) as the school believes preparing students to begin their A-
G requirements in 9
th
grade is essential to each student’s future. And while some
outside of the school may criticize the school’s overwhelming focus on academics,
the principal believes that students have numerous opportunities to take more
traditional electives in high school, but they never get another chance to begin their
high school academic careers again after “blowing it” in 9
th
grade because their
intermediate school didn’t do their job.
According to the principal, another example of the school using time
effectively is the school’s commitment to prevent classroom interruptions. Students
are never called into the office during core classes, unless a major violation of school
rules has been violated. In addition, there is a bell-to-bell instruction policy that most
teachers believe in and work toward. While the principal admits that everyone is not
perfect, he has noticed that the recent implementation of the GRR instructional
model has resulted in teachers engaging students in content for longer periods of
time than previously noted in classroom observations.
Extending Learning Time for Struggling Students
One of the most critical components to improving the learning outcomes for
struggling students involves the provision of additional time and support. While the
additional time and support noted in the previous section is admirable, the school has
not made significant gains over the last two years, and must begin to examine how
they can provide students with additional time and support, especially for the EL

225

student population. At the current time, the school offers an after school program, in
coordination with the Boys’ and Girls’ Club, that provides students with “a place to
go” and get support in their classes. In addition, the school is able to offer after
school interventions through the state intervention funds. However, it has found that
getting students to attend has proved challenging and attendance has not been as
good as they had hoped.
The school also offers a summer school program for students that are not
proficient. However, the length of their summer school is only two weeks for two
hours a day and is not mandatory. Therefore, only students that want to participate
in summer school benefit from it. In addition, the length of summer school is not
long enough to make up the deficits that many of their EL, Hispanic and SED
students display during the regular school year. If the school truly wants to make
extended learning opportunities a priority, they have to look at lengthening the time
that these students are engaged in instruction as there is only so much that can be
done for students that are significantly behind during a normal instructional day.
Collaborative and Professional Culture
According to the principal, Mt. Woodson has an extremely professional and
collaborative culture. The school began the implementation of PLCs four years ago,
and collaboration has improved in each subsequent year. Teachers regularly plan
instruction together and have weekly opportunities work with site coaches in a co-
plan co-teach model. In addition, the school has an early release every other
Wednesday for teachers to work together to plan and discuss instruction and student

226

learning. At the current time, teachers use the data from the CST and district
benchmarks to assess the effectiveness of their instruction. The principal reported
that most teachers truly believe that assessment and collaboration are both critical to
the mission of every student being prepared to meet begin their high school careers
in A-G classes. And while the school’s leadership openly admits that there is
significant room for improved collaboration, teachers are collaborating more than
ever before.
The principal reported that the District has also done a great job of improving
collaboration amongst the intermediate schools. The District regularly brings
teachers from each of the intermediate schools together to address specific problems
in each core subject, as well as certain targeted subgroups such as SED or EL
students. In addition, the District uses these opportunities to provide ongoing and
targeted professional development based upon the expressed needs of the teachers
and the data from district benchmarks and CSTs. This model has resulted in an
overall improvement in the attitudes of teachers toward professional development, as
well as better alignment between school goals and staff training.
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
According to the principal, the school has a culture of shared decision-
making and site-based leadership. In addition to the administrative team (principal,
assistant principal, and counselor), the school also has department chairs that provide
input and assistance in leading the school forward. Department chairs also act as
instructional coaches (these teachers have received extensive training in coaching

227

paid for by the district) for the rest of the teachers in the department. This model
exemplifies the school’s commitment to instructional improvement, and ultimately
improved student achievement.
As already mentioned in previous sections, the school has also implemented
PLCs. During PLC time, instruction and student learning are regularly discussed.
As part of these discussions, teachers use data to discuss proven instructional
practices. In addition, the administrative team regularly attends PLC meetings,
resulting in a school-wide culture of shared instructional leadership. The principal
indicated that PLC meetings often result in teachers identifying problems and
coming up with solutions the recognized needs that needs. This culture allows the
principal to respond to teachers by providing the resources needed to solve the
problem.
Professional and Best Practices
While the implementation and regular use of best practices are a key part of
the PLC model, schools also have to respond to staff needs with training from
external experts. Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that exemplary schools use
evidence from research, advice from experts, and work together in teams to
significantly improve performance. Mt. Woodson uses both internal and external
experts on a regular basis. Principals attend regular staff development, provided by
the District, from some of the most widely recognized experts in education. Some of
these experts include: Nancy Fisher and Doug Frey (GRR), Myron Dembo (Student
Motivation), Sandra Kaplan (Depth and Complexity Icons), and Doug Reeves

228

(School Leadership) to name a few. In addition, the principal acknowledged that
most of his teachers have also participated in staff development on instructional
delivery, planning, assessment, student engagement and motivation by the experts
listed above. Furthermore, the District has done a tremendous job of providing each
site with an instructional coach (one-day a week), and trained site coaches
(department chairs), to help facilitate the sharing of best practices and strategies.
Tables H2 and H3 provide summary data of Odden’s (2009) TSFDSP and Odden
and Picus’ (2008) EBM for Mt. Woodson Intermediate School.
Table H2: Mt. Woodson Intermediate and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance
Implementation Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge

X
The school has made progress in
improving learning outcomes, but
growth has been moderate and/or
inconsistent. There is a clear focus on
student achievement
Set ambitious goals
X

More than 90% of students take
Algebra I in 8
th
Grade, and all students
are prepared to begin the District
adopted A-G high school track in 9
th

grade.
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
X
The school has implemented the GRR
instructional framework, and
purchased new materials to support
instruction.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

X
The district has benchmark
assessments in Data Director and the
school has written site assessments
that are administered four times per
year in each core area. Site
assessments are not in Data Director.
Ongoing PD

X
District PD calendar. Schoolwide
strategies to instructional
improvement.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively
X
Student scheduling is need based.
Students that are not proficient are
provided with additional time and
support during the day. Teachers
teach bell to bell.

229

Table H2, Continued
Implementation Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Extended learning
time for struggling
students

X
The school does not have a significant
after school intervention program.
Summer school is two weeks for 2 hrs
per day.
Collaborative,
professional culture
X
Teachers collaborate on instruction
twice per month. They do not have
enough assessment data to drive future
instruction.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
X
Teachers are included in the decision-
making. In addition, department
chairs act as site coaches, helping their
colleagues along the way.
Professional and best
practices
X

The school has implemented a number
of instructional strategies that have
proven efficacy such as Thinking
Maps, Depth and Complexity icons,
GRR, and Cornell Notes

Table H3: Mt. Woodson Intermediate and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use
Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Middle School
Mt. Woodson
Intermediate
Current Resource
Status
Mt. Woodson Based
on Prototypical
Model
School Size 6-8; 450 Students 7-8; 852 1.9%
Class Size 25 26.1 25
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days
for intensive PD
training
180, includes 5 days
for teacher planning
200, includes 10 days
for intensive PD
training
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 2.0 FTE 1.9 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
1.0 FTE Clerical
4.0 FTE 3.8 FTE
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 18.0 FTE 19.4 FTE 34.2 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers
= 3.6 FTE
10.2 FTE 6.8 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.25 FTE 0.2 FTE 4.3 FTE

230

Table H3, Continued
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Middle School
Mt. Woodson
Intermediate
Current Resource
Status
Mt. Woodson Based
on Prototypical
Model
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students; 2.25
0.9 FTE 6.8 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100
EL students
1.4 FTE 3.6 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 1.0 FTE 3.4 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 2.0 FTE 3.4 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
2.6 FTE 5.7 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
1 FTE
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes
5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$7350.00 $36, 115.20
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100
poverty students: 2.25
4.75 FTE 5.6 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0 3.8 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 4.5 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 1.9 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student $0 $21,250
Technology $250 per pupil $0 $212,500
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $19430.00 $119,000
Student Activities $200 per pupil $0 $170,000
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for
other PD expenses -
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc. not
included above
$7686.00 $85,000

231

Summary and Lessons Learned
Mt. Woodson Intermediate School has made progress toward improving the
learning outcomes for students that have historically been underserved. And while
the school has arguably implemented all of Odden’s 10 strategies for doubling
student achievement, the academic achievement of Mt. Woodson Intermediate has
not met the principal’s expectations (33-point API gain in 5 years). Even though
performance has not met expectations, Mt. Woodson remains in the top 10% of
schools with similar demographics and remains committed to improving the learning
outcomes and future options for the students they serve.
• The school sets specific goals that focus on improving the future
opportunities for all students by preparing each student to begin a high
school program on the A-G CSU/UC college track.
• Mt. Woodson Intermediate has adopted and aligned the their core
curriculum with the District created and adopted curriculum. The
district’s curriculum/pacing guide is aligned to the standards and CST
Blueprints in all CST assessed areas.
• The District has an impressive professional development plan that is
clearly aligned with site and district goals. External experts have been
used to launch initiatives in the areas of student engagement and
motivation, instructional planning and delivery, peer coaching, and
collaboration.
• District benchmarks (administered four times each year in all core areas)
provide teachers with the necessary data to respond appropriately to
student learning/progress on grade level standards. In addition, it allows
individual sites the ability to compare their students’ progress with other
schools in the District.
• The school has implemented and participated in a PLC model for bi-
monthly collaboration between teachers. These meetings allow
departments to determine needs and improve internally.
• The principal and district leadership provide the school with a culture of
continuous improvement and professionalism.

232

By implementing these programs Mt. Woodson Intermediate has been able to
perform in the top ten percent of schools with similar demographics and/or
challenges.
Future Considerations
Future considerations for Mt. Woodson Intermediate would include the
opportunity for all teachers to receive regular feedback on instruction through the use
of an instructional coach. While the school has an instructional coach on site one
day a week, the principal indicated that there is a greater need for this resource than
he is able to provide. In addition, the school has implemented District benchmarks
in all core areas and conducts data conversations each quarter after benchmarks are
administered. However, the principal indicated that there was still a need to use data
on a more regular basis through the use of common site assessments that have been
created in Data Director, the school’s data management system.

233

APPENDIX I
MESA LINDA INTERMEDIATE
School Background

Mesa Linda Intermediate is a public school serving students in grades 7-8 in a
large urban district in Orange County, California. In 2009-10, Mesa Linda reported
an enrollment of 697 students. The school serves students from two surrounding
cities. The principal is in his 15
th
year in education, and his second as a principal at
Mesa Linda. He has previously been a teacher, assistant principal, and district
coordinator within the same district. He was assigned to Mesa Linda by the
District’s senior administration after the previous principal resigned at the conclusion
of the 2008-09 school year.
Mesa Linda is 1 of 64 schools in a highly centralized district serving over
48,000 students. The district consists of 46 elementary schools, 10 intermediate
schools, 6 comprehensive high schools, 2 alternative/continuation high schools, and
serves students from seven surrounding cities. Based upon 2009-10 accountability
data, the District is in Year 3 Program Improvement (PI) status due to their inability
to meet the AYP targets with their Student with Disabilities and English Learner
subgroups. However, it should also be noted that it is the only large urban district in
California to achieve an API score over 800. Mesa Linda Intermediate is in Year 2
of PI due to their inability to meet all 21 of their AYP targets. Based upon the most
recent accountability data, Mesa Linda’s Hispanic, SED, and EL subgroups did not

234

meet their AYP targets in ELA, and their EL subgroup did not meet their AYP target
in Math. In addition, the school did not meet their schoolwide AYP target in ELA
(California Department of Education, 2010).
Based upon the information in Table I1 and Figure I1, it is evident that Mesa
Linda Intermediate School has a larger percentage of Hispanic students (74%) than
the County and State averages of 45% and 49% respectively. In addition, the school
also has a greater percentage of EL (42%) and SED (77%) students than the County
and State averages. Mesa Linda also has higher percentages of Hispanic, SED, and
EL students than the District averages in the aforementioned subgroups.
Furthermore, Mesa Linda Intermediate has a higher percentage of Asian students
(16%), and a lower percentage of White students (7%) than other schools in
California. It should be noted that the school is located in an impoverished area of
the County, and faces different challenges than the average school in the County.
Table I1: Mesa Linda Intermediate School Demographic Comparison
% Asian % Hispanic % White % EL % SED
Mesa Linda Intermediate 16 74 7 42 77
District Average 31 53 12 45 66
Orange County Average 14.2 44.7 32.8 27.9 42.3
State Average 8.5 49.0 27.9 24.2 55.7
Source: California Department of Education

235

Figure I1: Mesa Linda Intermediate Demographic Data

Source: California Department of Education

Assessment Data
Mesa Linda Intermediate has experienced a 39-point API gain over the last
five years (California Department of Education, 2010). As we examine each year’s
data more closely, it is evident that the school’s performance has been relatively flat,
except for the 2006-07 and 2007-08 school years when the school saw gains of 13
and 26 API points respectively. The most recent state accountability report shows a
7-point API increase in 2009-10 to an API score of 774, matching the previous high
of 774 in 2007-08. Based upon this data, it is clear that the school has struggled to
consistently improve student achievement. Based upon the school’s latest
performance data, Mesa Linda Intermediate is now in Year 2 of PI and will be
working to get out of PI over the next two years. Figure I2 shows the school’s API
scores over the last five years.

236

Figure I2: Mesa Linda Intermediate Academic Performance Index Data (2006-2010)
Source: California Department of Education

English Language Arts Performance
As illustrated in Figure I3 below, Mesa Linda Intermediate has shown
improvement in all subgroups over the last five years. The school’s greatest
improvements over the last five years were made with their Hispanic (8%), Asian
(7%), White (6%), and SED (6%) student populations. However, the flat
performance of their EL population (0.6% gain in five years) in ELA is concerning.
While one may assume that this type of a drop could be explained by significant
changes in demographics, it appears that this is not the case. In 2006, when EL
performance in ELA was around 44% proficient or above, there were approximately
400 students identified as EL at Mesa Linda. In 2010, this number had dropped to
336 students, a number that is more manageable to educate than the numbers seen in
2006, and potentially should have resulted in higher performance. Although the

237

school has made progress with all of their significant subgroups, the school’s
Hispanic, SED and EL populations did not meet their 2007-08, 2008-09 or 2009-10
AYP targets causing the school to fall into Year 2 PI. In addition, the achievement
gap between the higher performing Whites and Asians has remained constant.
Although the Hispanic subgroup has made progress, Whites and Asians have made
similar progress resulting in the same gap that was found five years ago in 2006.
Figure I3: Mesa Linda Intermediate English Language Arts Percent Proficient or
Above

Source: California Department of Education

Mathematics Performance
Over the last five years, Math achievement at Mesa Linda Intermediate has
increased in all subgroups. The schoolwide achievement has grown by almost 10%,
while the Asian, Hispanic and White subgroups have all grown by 6%, 10%, and 7%
respectively. In addtion, the SED subgroup has improved as well going from 39%
proficient or above in 2006 to 45% proficent or above in 2010, a gain of 6%. This

238

trend clearly demonstrates a decrease in the achievement gap between White and
Hispanic and Asian students. The minor gains in EL math achievement (1.5%) is
again concerning and must be addressed by school and district officials. The EL
subgroup was the only subgroup that did not make their AYP target during the 2008-
09 and 2009-10 school years. Figure I4 provides a detailed picture of each
subgroups performance over the last five years.
Figure I4: Mesa Linda Intermediate Math Percent Proficient or Above
Source: California Department of Education

Educational Improvement Process
Improving student achievement can be one of the most daunting challenges
any school decides to take on (Reeves, 2005). However, there is growing evidence,
often striking, that schools today have much more control over their performance
issues/problems than many believe (Darling-Hammond, 1997, Marzano, 2003,
Odden & Archibald, 2009, Shmoker, 1999). In fact, Odden and Archibald (2009)

239

argue that there are very specific strategies that schools can employ to drastically
improve student achievement, regardless of demographics or challenges. Odden &
Archibald (2009) have created a set of ten strategies that schools can use to
significantly improve the learning outcomes for students. In addition to the
framework and strategies described by Odden and Archibald, the Evidence-Based
Model (EBM) of resource allocation will be utilized to carefully examine the
alignment between school goals, strategies employed, and resources used to improve
performance at Mesa Linda Intermediate School.
Understanding the Performance Problem
Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that in order for any school to
significantly improve, they must carefully examine their current reality as it relates to
student achievement. As indicated by the current site principal, a sense of urgency
was created by the outside pressures of NCLB, the school is in year 2 of PI status,
and the internal pressures to improve performance for their EL, Hispanic, and SED
student populations. According to the principal, the school has consistently made a
conscious effort to improve the learning outcomes for the students they serve.
During an interview, the principal reported that the CST data has become like the
California High School Exit Examination Mesa Linda, and teachers use this data to
drive improvement. Each year, teachers from each grade level and department
examine the data, and make recommendations for future curriculum and/or
instructional goals. Based upon this data, the principal openly acknowledged the
need to improve student achievement, specifically for their EL student population.

240

At the onset of Mesa Linda’s improvement efforts, the principal stated that
rather than just looking at math and ELA, the school realized that they needed to
improve instruction in what he called the “core four” (math, science, history, and
ELA). With slightly under 50% of the students proficient in ELA and 45% of the
students proficient in math, he realized that any improvement efforts had to involve
the entire staff. Therefore, rather than focusing on any one content area, the school’s
leadership team chose to focus on a school-wide reform effort that focused on
improving the initial instruction for all students. In doing so, the principal believed
that achievement would improve for all subgroups, and that Hispanic, EL, and SED
students could be targeted through companion classes and/or additional
intervention/support strategies.
One of the first steps in moving forward was to create curriculum guides that
articulated essential standards. The District played a large role in this process as they
facilitated the process of creating District-wide curriculum guides. The principal
added that once teachers agreed on what was going to be taught, they were able to
focus on improving their instructional practice.
Set Ambitious Goals
One of the most significant things any school can do is set specific goals to
improve performance. As indicated by the principal, one of the most significant
goals that changed the culture of not only Mesa Linda, but of all intermediate schools
in the entire district, was that all students will begin high school on the California
University and California State University A-G track. This shift required all 8
th

241

graders to take Algebra I. The principal reported that the District played a key role
in facilitating this effort as the new goal required additional time and support for
hundreds of students that were not currently ready to start the A-G college track.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
The effort to improve the learning outcomes for the students at Mesa Linda
required the school and District to carefully examine the curriculum guides,
assessments, and instructional materials being used at each site. Over the last five
years, there have been numerous new textbook adoptions at all of the intermediate
schools in the district. In recent years, the District has adopted new science, social
science, and math textbooks. Although the District wanted to adopt new ELA
textbooks, the State’s fiscal crisis has prevented them from moving forward in this
area. Instead of a new adoption, the school has purchased new teacher resources that
are aligned to the current ELA adoption, which provided teachers with new resources
that are better aligned to the state standards and CST blueprints.
With the purchase of newly adopted materials, the school also implemented a
new instructional vision. The new vision stated that all students have the ability to
go to college. The principal reported that this belief was critical to the reform efforts
the school was implementing, as it was an easy goal to get teachers to buy into. The
new UC/CSU A-G goal for every student required Mesa Linda to add more pre-
Algebra and Algebra I sections to the master schedule. Additionally, the principal
had to add numerous companion and support math classes to help all students be
successful. This required moving teachers from one site to another, asking people to

242

go and get additional certifications, and even releasing some teachers that taught
subjects that were no longer going to be offered at the site such as woodshop and
home economics. These courses were replaced with the math and ELA support
courses mentioned above.
In addition to the changes already discussed, the principal reported that there
was still the need to implement an instructional framework that provided teachers
with a common vocabulary to discuss and criticize instruction. Five years ago, the
District implemented Nancy Fisher and Doug Frey’s (2009) Gradual Release of
Responsibility Instructional Model. The model is a modification of Madeline
Hunter’s Seven Step Lesson Plan. By using a common model of good instruction,
teachers could conduct observations of each other, and principals now had a
framework to discuss observations and evaluations. And while the principal believes
that they are still in the implementation and support phase of the GRR framework, he
did report that teachers are open to discussing and learning about instructional
strategies that result in higher student achievement.
Formative Assessments and Data-Based Decision Making
The use of common formative/summative assessments and data-based
decision making are two of the hottest topics in educational research today (DuFour,
2006; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Reeves, 2005; 2009). Mesa Linda has
implemented both throughout their recent reform effort. With regards to the use of
formative assessments, the District developed and implemented four benchmarks in
all core areas in 2006-07. These assessments are administered each quarter and

243

allow teachers to compare the performance of their students with the performance of
other teachers throughout the school and District. The benchmarks are progress-
monitoring tests that assess student mastery of grade level standards and are aligned
with the CST Blueprints and District curriculum guides. The principal indicated that
the administration of the district benchmarks and the ensuing discussions that occur
with his teachers on student progress have been an instrumental process to the
school’s growth. In addition, the school uses the district benchmark data to
appropriately place each student in math and ELA classes during the school year.
This practice provides the school with the flexibility needed to regroup students that
were not appropriately placed earlier in the school year.
In addition to the data from the district benchmarks, the school also carefully
examines CST data each year looking for areas of growth and/or decline. CST data
provides the school with the necessary information to review current school
goals/priorities and adjust accordingly. The principal stated that the staff looks at
each CST strand closely to see where they should put additional resources.
Furthermore, the careful disaggregation of each subgroups data is also a large part of
the school’s improvement effort. While the school has made progress with each
subgroup over the last five years, the EL subgroup has not met the principal’s
expectations. This is a concerning trend that has forced the District and school to
work toward improving the performance of this subgroup by providing additional
staff development in this area.

244

Ongoing Intensive Professional Development
Professional development has been a major priority of both Mesa Linda and
the District. In fact, the District has a comprehensive professional development
department/team who has created a professional development calendar that provides
principals with the ability to send teachers to numerous trainings throughout the year,
depending on each teacher’s, grade level’s, and/or department’s needs. The principal
reported that the District’s decision to provide all professional development in-house
has truly improved the capacity of the teachers and administrators throughout the
District. Instead of providing teachers with various external professional
development opportunities, the District has conducted extensive research in various
areas of professional development (instruction, assessment, motivation, student
engagement, etc…) prepared and taught internal trainers, hired external experts
(Myron Dembo, Nancy Fisher), and provided the necessary coaching and support to
help teachers improve. The principal reported that this is one of the most significant
contributions of the District during the school’s reform effort, and has truly improved
the overall capacity of the teachers at Mesa Linda. The principal also stated that he
believes that the District’s practice of matching a reform initiative, such as the GRR
instructional model, with training and follow-up support is unmatched in education.
He added that so many times we in education send teachers to trainings and then
expect them to implement their new learnings with fidelity. He indicated that this
model has proven to be highly ineffective, but we still see numerous schools
spending professional development monies on this model.

245

Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
During Mesa Linda’s recent improvement efforts, they have carefully
examined how they effectively and efficiently use time to improve student learning
and achievement. As stated above, the school began offering more academic
electives such as AVID, companion courses (support courses in math and ELA), and
Academy, all of which provide students with the additional time and support. In
addition, the school has changed the amount of time and instruction given to seventh
graders in social studies and science. All seventh grade students receive one
semester of life science and one semester of social studies. This shift in the master
schedule has allowed students to be enrolled in an additional support period of math
and ELA (if needed). For example, if a 7
th
grade student was not proficient in math,
they could take pre-algebra as well as an additional support class. The principal
reported that this change has helped non-proficient students attain proficiency
because they are getting the resources they need to be successful.
The bell schedule provides 47 minutes of instruction each period. For the
typical seventh grader, they receive two periods of math, two periods of ELA, one
period of social science/science (semester of each), one period of Physical
Education, and one period of elective (academic or arts related). The typical
proficient 8
th
grader receives two periods of ELA and one period of math, science,
social science, PE, and an elective. Non-proficient 8
th
grade students receive two
periods of math and ELA, and a period of social science, science, and PE In
addition, the elective offerings are mostly academic (AVID, Academic Lab) as the

246

school believes preparing students to begin their A-G requirements in 9
th
grade is
essential to each student’s future. And while some outside of the school may
criticize the overwhelming focus on academics, the principal believes that students
have numerous opportunities to take more traditional electives in high school, but
students never get another chance to begin their high school academic careers.
Extending Learning Time for Struggling Students
One of the most critical components to improving the learning outcomes for
struggling students involves the provision of additional time and support. While the
additional time and support noted above in the previous section is admirable, and
arguably perfectly aligned with current RtI research, the school has not made
significant gains in achievement with certain subgroups. At the current time, the
school offers an after school program, in coordination with the Boys’ and Girls’
Club, that provides students with a place get support in their classes. In addition, the
school is able to offer after school interventions, but it has found that regular student
attendance is challenging. Furthermore, the school has used site resources to hire
college tutors to work with students after school. Many of these students are college
students that attended Mesa Linda when they were in intermediate school. The
principal indicated that the use of former students has been a great way to get
students at Mesa Linda to think about their future options including college.
The school also offers a summer school program for students that are not
proficient. However, the length of their summer school is only two weeks for two
hours a day and is not mandatory. Therefore, only students that want to participate

247

in summer school benefit from it. In addition, the length of summer school is not
long enough to make up the deficits that many of the school’s EL, Hispanic and SED
students display during the regular school year. If the school truly wants to make
extended learning opportunities a priority, they have to look at lengthening the time
that these students are engaged in instruction as there is only so much that can be
done for students that are significantly behind during a normal instructional day.
Collaborative Professional Culture
Mesa Linda has an extremely professional and collaborative culture. The
school began the implementation of PLCs four years ago, and collaboration has
improved each year. Teachers regularly plan instruction together and have weekly
opportunities work with site coaches in a co-plan co-teach model. In addition, the
school has an early release every other Wednesday to allow for teacher collaboration.
At the current time, teachers use the data from the CSTs and district benchmarks to
assess the effectiveness of their instruction. The principal reported that most
teachers believe that assessment and collaboration are both critical to the mission of
every student being prepared to meet begin their high school careers in A-G classes.
However, he also admitted that they must implement more common site assessments
that utilize Data Director if they want to continue improving student achievement.
The principal also reported that the District has done a great job of improving
collaboration amongst the 10 intermediate schools. The District regularly brings
teachers from each of the intermediate schools together to address specific problems
in core areas, as well as certain targeted subgroups such as students that are SED or

248

EL. In addition, the District uses these opportunities to provide ongoing and targeted
professional development based upon the expressed needs of the teachers.
Furthermore, the principal reported that the District also supports vertical articulation
between the intermediate and high schools, which provides teachers with the
opportunity to learn about effective strategies and practices from each other.
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
According to the principal, the school has a culture of shared decision-
making and site-based leadership. In addition to the administrative team (principal,
assistant principal and counselor), the school also has department chairs that provide
input and assistance in leading the school forward. Department chairs also act as
instructional coaches (these teachers have received extensive training in coaching
paid for by the district) for the rest of the teachers in their departments.
As already mentioned in previous sections, the school has also implemented
PLCs. During PLC time, instruction and student learning are regularly discussed.
As part of these discussions, teachers use data to discuss proven instructional
practices. In addition, the administrative team regularly attends PLC meetings,
resulting in a school-wide culture of shared instructional leadership. The principal
indicated that PLC meetings often result in teachers identifying problems and
coming up with viable solutions. This culture allows the principal to respond to
teachers by providing the resources needed to solve each problem.

249

Professional and Best Practices
While the implementation and regular use of best practices are a key part of
the PLC model, schools also have to respond to staff needs with training from
external experts. Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that exemplary schools use
evidence from research, advice from experts, and work together in teams to
significantly improve performance. Mesa Linda uses both internal and external
experts on a regular basis. Principals attend regular staff development, provided by
the District, from some of the most widely recognized experts in education. Some of
these experts include: Nancy Fisher and Doug Frey (GRR), Myron Dembo (student
motivation), Sandra Kaplan (Depth and Complexity Icons), and Doug Reeves
(leadership and school reform) to name a few. In addition, the principal
acknowledged that most of his teachers have also participated in staff development
on instructional delivery, planning, assessment, student engagement and motivation
by the experts listed above. Furthermore, the District has done a tremendous job of
providing each site with an instructional coach (one-day a week), and trained site
coaches (department chairs), to help facilitate the sharing of best practices and
strategies. While the principal stated that he wished that there were more
opportunities for instructional coaching, he also understands that many neighboring
districts have cut funding in this area. Tables I2 and I3 provide summary data of
Odden’s (2009) TSFDSP and Odden and Picus’ (2008) EBM for Mesa Linda
Intermediate School.

250

Table I2: Mesa Linda Intermediate and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance
Implementation Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge

X

The school has made progress in
improving learning outcomes. There
is a clear focus on student achievement
Set ambitious goals
X

More than 90% of students take
Algebra I in 8
th
Grade, and all students
are prepared to begin the District
adopted A-G high school track in 9
th

grade.
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
X
The school has implemented the GRR
instructional framework, and
purchased new materials to support
instruction.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

X
The district has benchmark
assessments in Data Director and the
school has written site assessments
that are administered four times per
year in each core area. Site
assessments are not in Data Director.
Ongoing PD

X
District PD calendar. Schoolwide
strategies to instructional
improvement.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively
X
Student scheduling is need based.
Students that are not proficient are
provided with additional time and
support during the day. Teachers
teach bell to bell.
Extended learning
time for struggling
students

X
The school does not have a significant
after school intervention program.
Summer school is two weeks for 2 hrs
per day.
Collaborative,
professional culture
X
Teachers collaborate on instruction
twice per month. They do not have
enough assessment data to drive future
instruction.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
X
Teachers are included in the decision-
making. In addition, department
chairs act as site coaches, helping their
colleagues along the way.
Professional and best
practices
X

The school has implemented a number
of instructional strategies that have
proven efficacy such as Thinking
Maps, Depth and Complexity icons,
GRR, and Cornell Notes

251

Table I3: Mesa Linda Intermediate and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use
Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Middle School
Mesa Linda
Intermediate
Current Resource
Status
Mesa Linda
Intermediate
Based on
Prototypical
Model
School Size 6-8; 450 Students 7-8; 697 Students 1.55% of the EBM
Class Size 25 26 25
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days
for intensive PD
training
185, includes 5 days
for teacher planning
200, includes 10
days for intensive
PD training
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 2.0 FTE 1.55 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
1.0 FTE Clerical
3.4 FTE 3.1 FTE
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 18.0 FTE 17.25 FTE 27.9 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 6.1 FTE 5.6 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.25 FTE 0.2 FTE 3.5 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
0.8 FTE 5.37 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100
EL studentsß
1.2 FTE 2.93 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.6 FTE 2.8 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 2.0 FTE 2.8 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
1.0 FTE 4.65 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
2.0 FTE 100% state
reimbursement
minus federal
funds

252

Table I3, Continued
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Middle School
Mesa Linda
Intermediate
Current Resource
Status
Mesa Linda
Intermediate
Based on
Prototypical
Model
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$6,140 $35,154
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100
poverty students
2.6 FTE 5.37 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.1 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 6.0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE 0.5 FTE 1.55 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per pupil $0 $17,425
Technology $250 per pupil $13,250.00 $172, 250
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $7,340.00 $97,580
Student Activities $200 per pupil $0 $139, 400
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for
other PD expenses -
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc. not
included above
$8,325.00
$69,700

Summary and Lessons Learned
Mesa Linda Intermediate School has made progress toward improving the
learning outcomes for students that have historically been underserved. And while
the school has arguably implemented all of Odden’s 10 strategies for doubling
student achievement, the academic achievement of Mesa Linda Intermediate has not
met the principal’s expectations (39-point API gain in 5 years). Even though
performance has not met expectations, Mesa Linda remains in the top 10% of

253

schools with similar demographics and remains committed to improving the learning
outcomes and future options for the students they serve.
• The school sets specific goals that focus on improving the future
opportunities for all students by preparing each student to begin a high
school program on the A-G CSU/UC college track.
• Mesa Linda Intermediate has adopted and aligned the their core
curriculum with the District created and adopted curriculum. The
district’s curriculum/pacing guide is aligned to the standards and CST
Blueprints in all CST assessed areas.
• The District has an impressive professional development plan that is
clearly aligned with site and district goals. External experts have been
used to launch initiatives in the areas of student engagement and
motivation, instructional planning and delivery, peer coaching, and
collaboration.
• District benchmarks (administered four times each year in all core areas)
provide teachers with the necessary data to respond appropriately to
student learning/progress on grade level standards. In addition, it allows
individual sites the ability to compare their students’ progress with other
schools in the District.
• The school has implemented and participated in a PLC model for monthly
collaboration between teachers. These meetings allow departments to
determine needs and improve internally.
• Students are provided with additional time and support during the
instructional day and students are reassessed every 9 weeks and
appropriately regrouped. Core classes are heterogeneous and support
classes in ELA and math are homogenous.
• All students are provided with a rigorous standards-based curriculum that
is at or above grade level.
• All classes, other than math and ELA, have higher teacher/student ratios
allowing math and ELA classes to be smaller and more closely aligned
with the EBM recommendation of 25:1
• The principal and district leadership provide the school with a culture of
continuous improvement and professionalism.
By implementing these programs Mesa Linda Intermediate has been able to
perform in the top ten percent of schools with similar demographics and/or
challenges.

254

Future Considerations
Future considerations for Mesa Linda Intermediate would include the
opportunity for all teachers to receive regular feedback on instruction through the use
of an instructional coach. While the school has an instructional coach on site one
day a week, the principal indicated that there is a greater need for this resource than
he is able to provide. In addition, the school has implemented District benchmarks
in all core areas and conducts data conversations each quarter after benchmarks are
administered. However, the principal indicated that there was still a need to use data
on a more regular basis through the use of common site assessments that have been
created in Data Director, the school’s data management system. Lastly, additional
resources are needed to lower the teacher-student ratios in classes other than math
and ELA where class sizes can be as high as 35:1.

255

APPENDIX J

OAK QUARRY INTERMEDIATE
School Background

Oak Quarry Intermediate is a public school serving students in grades 7-8 in a
large highly centralized urban district in Orange County, California. In 2009-10,
Oak Quarry reported an enrollment of 850 students. It is one of four schools in the
Eagle Glen Unified School District that is included in this study. The principal is in
her 29
th
year in education, 19
th
year as a site principal, and 8
th
year as the principal of
Oak Quarry Intermediate. She has previously been a teacher, TOSA, assistant
principal, elementary school principal and middle school principal in two different
districts. She was assigned to Oak Quarry by the District’s senior administration in
2002.
Oak Quarry is 1 of 64 schools in a highly centralized district serving over
48,000 students. The District is the highest performing urban school district in
California, according to the California Department of Education, and is the only
urban school district with an API over 800. The district consists of 46 elementary
schools, 10 intermediate schools, 6 comprehensive high schools and 2
alternative/continuation high schools, and serves students from seven surrounding
cities. Based upon 2009-10 accountability data, the district is in Year 3 Program
Improvement (PI) due to their inability to meet AYP targets with their Students with
Disabilities and English Learner student populations. Oak Quarry Intermediate is
not currently in PI, but is at risk of becoming a PI school as they only met 15 of their

256

21 2009-10 AYP targets. Based upon the most recent accountability data, Oak
Quarry ’s Schoolwide, Hispanic, SED, and EL subgroups did not meet their AYP
targets in ELA, and their Schoolwide and EL subgroups did not meet their AYP
targets in Math (California Department of Education, 2010).
Based upon the information in Table J1 and Figure J1, it is evident that Oak
Quarry Intermediate School has a larger percentage of Hispanic students (78%) than
the County and State averages of 45% and 49% respectively. In addition, the school
also has a greater percentage of EL (45%) and SED (80%) students than the County
and State averages. Furthermore, Oak Quarry has higher percentages of Hispanic,
SED, and EL students than the District averages in the aforementioned subgroups.
Oak Quarry Intermediate has a higher percentage of Asian students (16%), but a
significantly lower percentage of White students (4%) than other schools in
California. It should be noted that the school is located in an impoverished area of
the County, and faces different challenges than the average school in the District in
both the County and State.
Table J1: Oak Quarry Intermediate School Demographic Comparison
% Asian % Hispanic % White % EL % SED
Oak Quarry Intermediate 16 78 4 45 71
District Average 31 53 12 45 66
Orange County Average 14.2 44.7 32.8 27.9 42.3
State Average 8.5 49.0 27.9 24.2 55.7
Source: California Department of Education

257

Figure J1: Oak Quarry Intermediate Demographic Data

28
59
9
45
71
0
20
40
60
80
Asian Hispanic White EL Free/ Reduced

Source: California Department of Education
Assessment Data
Oak Quarry Intermediate has experienced a 38-point API gain over the last
five years (California Department of Education, 2010). As we examine each year’s
data more closely, it is evident that the school’s performance has consistently
improved, except for the 2006-07 school year when the school experienced a 7 point
API decline. The most recent state accountability report shows a 13-point API
increase in 2009-10 to an API score of 786, which is the highest API score in school
history. Based upon this data, it is clear that the school has made consistent
improvements in student achievement. And although the school is at risk of falling
into PI status next year, it is one of the only schools serving a population that is
predominantly Hispanic and SED that is not currently in PI status. This
accomplishment should be celebrated as schools across the State and County with
similar demographics are in year 2 and above of PI status (California Department of
Education, 2010).

258

Figure J2: Oak Quarry Intermediate School Academic Performance Index Data
(2006-2010)

Source: California Department of Education

English Language Arts Performance
As illustrated in Figure J3 below, Oak Quarry Intermediate has shown
improvement in all subgroups over the last five years in ELA. The school’s greatest
improvements over the last five years were made with their Hispanic (16%), White
(32%), and SED (14.5%) student populations. However, the performance of their
EL population in ELA is concerning as only 4% more students are scoring proficient
or advanced than in 2006. Although the school has made progress with many of
their significant subgroups, the school’s Hispanic, SED and EL populations did not
meet their 2009-10 AYP targets causing the school become at risk of becoming PI in
2011-12. In addition, the achievement gap between the higher performing Whites
and Asians has remained constant. Although the Hispanic subgroup has made

259

progress, Whites and Asians have made similar progress resulting in the same gap
that was found five years ago in 2006.
Figure J3: Oak Quarry Intermediate English Language Arts Percent Proficient or
Above

Source: California Department of Education

Mathematics Performance
Over the last five years, Math achievement at Oak Quarry Intermediate has
increased in all subgroups, except in their EL student population. The schoolwide
achievement has grown by 5%, while the Asian, Hispanic and White subgroups have
all grown by 2%, 9%, and 33% respectively. It should be noted that the White
subgroup only makes up 4% of the school’s total population and has been added for
comparison purposes only. In addtion, the SED subgroup has improved as well
going from 44% proficient or above in 2006 to 53.8% proficent or above in 2010, a
gain of almost 10%. This trend clearly demonstrates a commitment to the increased
performance of the school’s Hispanic and SED subgroups. The decrease in the

260

performance of the EL subgroup is concerning and must be addressed by school and
district officials. The EL and schoolwide subgroups were the only subgroups that
did not meet their AYP targets during the 2009-10 school year. Figure J4 provides a
detailed picture of each subgroups performance over the last five years.
Figure J4: Oak Quarry Intermediate Math Percent Proficient or Above
Source: California Department of Education

Educational Improvement Process
Improving student achievement can be one of the most daunting challenges
any school decides to take on (Reeves, 2005). However, there is growing evidence,
often striking, that schools today have much more control over their performance
issues/problems than many believe (Darling-Hammond, 1997, Marzano, 2003,
Odden & Archibald, 2009, Shmoker, 1999). In fact, Odden and Archibald (2009)
argue that there are very specific strategies that schools can employ to drastically
improve student achievement, regardless of demographics or challenges. Odden &
Archibald (2009) have created a set of ten strategies that schools can use to

261

significantly improve the learning outcomes for students. In addition to the
framework and strategies described by Odden and Archibald, the Evidence-Based
Model (EBM) of resource allocation will be utilized to carefully examine the
alignment between school goals, strategies employed, and resources used to improve
performance at Oak Quarry Intermediate School.
Understanding the Performance Problem
Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that in order for any school to
significantly improve, they must carefully examine their current reality as it relates to
student achievement. As indicated by the site principal, a sense of urgency was
created by the outside pressures of NCLB, and the internal pressures to improve the
performance of their EL, Hispanic, and SED student populations. According to the
principal at Oak Quarry Intermediate, the school has consistently made a conscious
effort to improve the learning outcomes for the students they serve.
During an interview, the principal stated that the initial improvement effort
began in 2003 when a group of math teachers attended a Rick DuFour conference on
PLCs. The math teachers returned from the conference with a renewed passion and
energy that centered around collaboration and student achievement. The following
year, the principal sent the department chairs, an additional person from each
department, as well as the assistant principal and school counselor. This proved to
be a valuable move, as the school decided to fully implement a PLC model in all
core subjects.

262

Set Ambitious Goals
One of the most significant things any school can do is set specific goals to
improve performance. As indicated by the principal, one of the goals that truly
changed the culture of not only Oak Quarry, but of all intermediate schools in the
entire district, was that all students will begin their high school careers on the A-G
UC and CSU track. This shift would require all intermediate school students to take
Algebra I in 8
th
grade, and to be prepared to begin a college preparatory track in 9
th

grade. The principal reported that the District was a key part of facilitating this
effort as the new goal required additional time and support for all students that were
not currently on the A-G college track. In addition, the District ceased offering any
high school courses that did not meet A-G requirements. This required all
intermediate schools to carefully examine their own program offerings and move in a
direction that would ultimately result in more students being prepared for college
upon high school graduation.
The principal indicated the effort to prepare all students for the A-G track in
high school was instrumental to improving staff buy-in at the intermediate level. She
added that it is hard to get people to get ready for a test (referring to the CSTs), but
improving the future options for all students is something that any teacher wants to
be a part of. This shift proved to be successful in both raising student achievement
and improving the number of students that completed A-G at the feeder high school.
When this initiative started, only 23% of students attending Oak Quarry were

263

completing the A-G requirements in high school. Eight years later, over 54% of Oak
Quarry graduates are completing the A-G requirements in high school.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
The effort to improve the learning outcomes for the students at Oak Quarry
Intermediate required the school and district to carefully examine curriculum guides,
assessments, and the instructional materials being used at each site. Over the last
five years, there have been numerous new textbook and curriculum adoptions for all
of the intermediate schools in the district. In recent years, the District has adopted
new science, social science, and math textbooks. Although the district wants to
adopt new ELA textbooks, the State’s fiscal crisis has prevented them from moving
forward in this subject. Instead of a new adoption, the school has purchased new
teacher resources that are aligned with the current ELA adoption, which has provided
teachers with new resources.
With the purchase of newly adopted materials, all of which are standards-
based and aligned with the new district created curriculum maps/guides and
assessments, the school also implemented a new instructional vision. The new
vision stated that all students will complete the UC/CSU A-G requirements and be
prepared to go to college. To achieve this goal, Oak Quarry had to add more pre-
Algebra and Algebra I sections to the master schedule, as well as “companion” and
support classes to help all students reach proficiency. This required moving teachers
from one site to another, asking people to go and get additional certifications, and
even releasing some teachers that taught subjects that were no longer going to be

264

offered at the site such as woodshop and home economics. The principal reported
that she had to let numerous teachers go over the last seven years as they were either
not needed anymore, or they were not cutting it in the classroom. The traditional
non-academic electives were replaced with math and ELA support courses that
provided students that were not projected to be, or were not, successful in the
required high school preparatory courses without the additional time and instruction.
The principal indicated that this was not difficult a difficult decision for her, as
“student need” will drive any master schedule that she is a part of creating.
In addition to the changes discussed above, the principal reported that there
was still the need to implement an instructional framework that would allow teachers
to discuss and critique instruction. Three years ago, the district began the
implementation of Nancy Fisher’s and Doug Frey’s (2009) Gradual Release of
Responsibility Instructional Model (GRR). The model is a modification of Madeline
Hunter’s Seven Step Lesson Plan. By having a common definition of good
instruction, teachers could conduct observations of each other, and principals could
have more productive conversations with teachers. While the principal believes that
the teaching staff still has a long way to go with instruction, the meta-cognition,
checking for understanding, academic language, and student collaboration
components of the GRR have all been critical to improving student engagement and
achievement.

265

Formative Assessments and Data-Based Decision Making
The use of common formative and summative assessments and data-based
decision making are two of the hottest topics in educational research today (DuFour,
2006; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Reeves, 2005; 2009). Oak Quarry Intermediate has
implemented both throughout their recent reform effort. With regards to the use of
formative assessments, the district developed and implemented four benchmarks in
all core areas in 2006-07. These assessments are administered each quarter and
allow teachers to compare the performance of their students with the performance of
other teachers throughout the school and District. The benchmarks are progress-
monitoring tests that assess student mastery of grade level standards and are aligned
with the CST Blueprints and District curriculum guides. The principal indicated that
the administration of the district benchmarks and the ensuing discussions that occur
with her teachers on student progress have been an instrumental process to the
school’s growth.
In addition to the data from the district benchmarks, the school also carefully
examines CST data each year looking for areas of growth and/or decline. CST data
provides the school with the necessary information to review current school
goals/priorities and adjust accordingly. The principal stated that the staff looks at
each CST strand closely to see where they should put additional resources.
Furthermore, the careful disaggregation of each subgroup’s data is also a large part
of the school’s improvement effort. While the school has made progress with each
subgroup over the last five years, the EL subgroup’s flat performance has raised

266

concerns. The principal indicated that they would spend considerable time looking
at this group’s performance during September and October.
Oak Quarry also uses common site assessments in many of the core areas.
And while the principal reported that the math department is light years ahead of her
other departments, ELA, science and social studies have made progress as well. At
this time, most departments give two common assessments each quarter in
preparation for district benchmarks. She added that she believes that the school’s
site assessments are significantly more rigorous than the district benchmarks as the
students at Oak Quarry typically outperform other intermediate schools in the
district. In fact, she also indicated that the competition between the schools is a great
way to keep people motivated.
Ongoing Intensive Professional Development
Professional development has been a major priority of both Oak Quarry
Intermediate School and the district. The principal indicated that one of the most
influential trainings in changing the behavior of her staff was when she sent groups
of teachers to the DuFour conferences 6 or 7 years ago. The implementation of
PLCs, teacher collaboration, use of common assessments, and the planning of
ensuing interventions have all been critical to the school’s ability to improve
performance. In addition, the District has a comprehensive professional
development department/team that has developed a professional development
calendar, providing principals with the ability to send teachers to numerous trainings

267

throughout the year, depending on each teacher’s, grade level’s, and/or department’s
needs.
The principal reported that one of the most significant contributions made by
the District during the school’s reform effort, has been to build the capacity of the
staff at Oak Quarry. The principal also stated that she believes that the District’s
practice of matching a reform initiative such as the GRR instructional model with
training and follow-up support is unbelievable. And while the principal discussed
the sheer craziness of the number District lead initiatives over the last four years, she
added that the District’s most recent professional development strategies and
practices, have slowed down significantly (meaning that they are not adding any new
staff development initiatives to the current year) resulting in greater buy-in from
teachers.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
During Oak Quarry Intermediate’s recent improvement efforts, they have
carefully examined how they effectively and efficiently use time to improve student
learning and achievement. As stated above, the school began offering more
academic electives such as AVID and companion courses (support courses in math
and ELA), Academy, and Study Lab, all of which provide students with the
additional support and instruction needed to be successful in the school’s core
program. In addition, the school has changed the amount of time and instruction
given to seventh graders in social studies and science. All seventh grade students
receive one semester of life science and one semester of social studies. This shift in

268

the master schedule allows students to be enrolled in an additional support period in
math and ELA if needed. For example, if a student was not proficient in math or
ELA, they could take pre-algebra with an additional support class, as well as an on
grade level ELA class (heterogeneous) with an additional support class dependent
upon need (homogenous). The principal reported that this change has helped non-
proficient students attain proficiency because they are getting the resources they need
to be successful
The bell schedule provides 47 minutes of instruction each period. For the
typical seventh grader, they receive two periods of math, two periods of ELA, one
period of social science/science (semester of each), one period of Physical
Education, and one period of elective (academic or arts related). For the typical 8
th

grader, they receive one period of ELA if they are proficient, or two periods of ELA
if they are not proficient. In math, students receive one period if they are proficient,
and two periods if they are not proficient. In addition, all students have a period PE,
a period of science, a period of social studies, and an elective if they are proficient in
math. In addition, the elective offerings are mostly academic (AVID, Academic
Lab) as the school believes preparing students to begin their A-G requirements in 9
th

grade is essential to the student’s future. And while some outside of the school may
criticize the overwhelming focus on academics, the principal believes that students
have numerous opportunities to take more traditional electives in high school, but
students never get another chance to begin their high school academic careers.

269

Extending Learning Time for Struggling Students
One of the most critical components to improving the learning outcomes for
struggling students involves the provision of additional time and support. At the
current time, the school offers a small after school program, in coordination with the
Boys’ and Girls’ Club, that provides students with a place to go and get help in their
classes. In addition, the school is able to offer after school interventions through
EIA, Title I and ELAP funds. However, it has found that requiring students to attend
has proved challenging and attendance has not been as good as the principal had
hoped. Furthermore, the school has used site resources from EIA funds to hire
college tutors and AVID tutors to work with students after school.
The school also offers a summer school program for students that are not
proficient. However, the length of their summer school is only two weeks for two
hours a day and is not mandatory. Therefore, only students that want to participate
in summer school benefit from it. In addition, the length of summer school is not
long enough to make up the deficits that many of their EL, Hispanic and SED
students display during the regular school year.
Collaborative Professional Culture
According to the principal, Oak Quarry has an extremely professional and
collaborative culture. She openly admitted that this is one of the best staffs that she
has worked with over her 19 years as an administrator. The school began the
implementation of PLCs seven years ago, and collaboration has improved in each
subsequent year. And while the initial PLC movement was only in her math

270

department and required teachers to bank time for collaboration, collaboration in all
departments is the norm today. Teachers regularly plan instruction together and have
weekly opportunities work with site and district coaches in a co-plan co-teach model.
In addition, the school has an early release every other Wednesday for teachers to
work together to plan and discuss instruction and student learning. At the current
time, teachers use the data from the common site assessments, district benchmarks,
and the CSTs to assess the effectiveness of their instruction. The principal reported
that most teachers truly believe that assessment and collaboration are both critical to
the mission of every student being prepared to meet begin their high school careers
in A-G classes.
The principal reported that the District has also done a great job of improving
collaboration amongst the intermediate schools. The District regularly brings
teachers from each of the intermediate schools together to address specific problems
in each core subject, as well as certain targeted subgroups such as SED or EL
students. In addition, the District uses these opportunities to provide ongoing and
targeted professional development based upon the expressed needs of the teachers
and the data from district benchmarks and CSTs. This model has resulted in an
overall improvement in the attitudes of teachers toward professional development, as
well as better alignment between school goals and staff training.
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
According to the principal, the school has a culture of shared decision-
making and site-based leadership. In fact, she added that many times the staff comes

271

to her to initiate programs or strategies that they believe should be implemented. She
reported that this is the best way to drive improvement. Stating that when the ideas
come from them, the time it takes to implement decreases significantly and the
fidelity of implementation increases dramatically. In addition to the administrative
team (principal, assistant principal, and counselor), the school also has department
chairs that provide input and assistance in leading the school forward. Department
chairs also act as instructional coaches (these teachers have received extensive
training in coaching paid for by the district) for the rest of the teachers in the
department. This model exemplifies the school’s commitment to instructional
improvement, and ultimately improved student achievement.
Professional and Best Practices
While the implementation and regular use of best practices are a key part of
the PLC model, schools also have to respond to staff needs with training from
external experts. Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that exemplary schools use
evidence from research, advice from experts, and work together in teams to
significantly improve performance. Oak Quarry uses both internal and external
experts on a regular basis. Principals attend regular staff development, provided by
the district, from some of the most widely recognized experts in education. Some of
these experts include: Nancy Fisher and Doug Frey (GRR), Myron Dembo (student
motivation), Sandra Kaplan (Depth and Complexity Icons), and Doug Reeves
(leadership and school reform) to name a few. In addition, the principal
acknowledged that most of her teachers have also participated in staff development

272

on instructional delivery, planning, assessment, student engagement and motivation
by the experts listed above. Furthermore, the district has done a tremendous job of
providing each site with an instructional coach (one-day a week), and trained site
coaches (department chairs), to help facilitate the sharing of best practices and
strategies.
Table J2: Oak Quarry Intermediate and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance
Implementation Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge

X

The school has made progress in
improving learning outcomes, but
growth has been moderate. There is a
clear focus on student achievement
Set ambitious goals
X

More than 90% of students take
Algebra I in 8
th
Grade, and all students
are prepared to begin the District
adopted A-G high school track in 9
th

grade.
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
X
The school has implemented the GRR
instructional framework, and
purchased new materials to support
instruction.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

X
The district has benchmark
assessments in Data Director and the
school has written site assessments
that are administered four times per
year in each core area. Site
assessments are not in Data Director.
Ongoing PD

X
District PD calendar. Schoolwide
strategies to instructional
improvement.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively
X
Student scheduling is need based.
Students that are not proficient are
provided with additional time and
support during the day. Teachers
teach bell to bell.
Extended learning
time for struggling
students

X
The school does not have a significant
after school intervention program.
Summer school is two weeks for 2 hrs
per day.
Collaborative,
professional culture
X
Teachers collaborate on instruction
twice per month. They do not have
enough assessment data to drive future
instruction.

273

Table J2, Continued
Implementation Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
X
Teachers are included in the decision-
making. In addition, department
chairs act as site coaches, helping their
colleagues along the way.
Professional and best
practices
X

The school has implemented a number
of instructional strategies that have
proven efficacy such as Thinking
Maps, Depth and Complexity icons,
GRR, and Cornell Notes

Table J3: Oak Quarry Intermediate and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use
Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Middle School
Oak Quarry
Intermediate
Current Resource
Status
Oak Quarry
Intermediate Based
on Prototypical
Model
School Size 6-8; 450 Students 7-8; 850 1.9%
Class Size 25 27.7:1 25
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days
for intensive PD
training
185, includes 5
days for teacher
planning
200, includes 10 days
for intensive PD
training
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 2.0 FTE 1.9 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
1.0 FTE Clerical
3.5 FTE 3.8 FTE
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 18.0 FTE 17.8 FTE 34.2 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers =
3.6 FTE
7.3 FTE 6.8 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.25 FTE 0.2 FTE 4.3 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students; 2.25
1.0 FTE 6.8 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100
EL students
2.2 FTE 3.8 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.6 FTE 3.4 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 2.0 FTE 3.4 FTE

274

Table J3, Continued
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Middle School
Oak Quarry
Intermediate
Current Resource
Status
Oak Quarry
Intermediate
Based on
Prototypical
Model
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
1.2 FTE 5.7 FTE
Severely disabled students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
2.0 FTE
100% state
reimbursement
minus federal
funds
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
9,775.00 $43,092
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100
poverty students
2.9 FTE 6.0 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.8 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 10.0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE 0.5 FTE 1.9 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student $0 $21,250
Technology $250 per pupil $15,082.00 $212,500
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $9,245.00 $119,000
Student Activities $200 per pupil $0 $170,000
Professional Development $100 per pupil for
other PD expenses -
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc. not
included above
$5,130.00 $85,000

Summary and Lessons Learned
Oak Quarry Intermediate School has made progress toward improving the
learning outcomes for students that have historically been underserved. The increase
in the number of students that attended Oak Quarry in 7
th
and 8
th
grade and then go

275

on to complete the UC and CSU A-G requirements is admirable. The school has
arguably implemented all of Odden’s 10 strategies for doubling student achievement
(to some extent), and continues to raise achievement. Oak Quarry remains in the top
10% of schools with similar demographics and is committed to improving the
learning outcomes and future options for the students they serve.
• The school sets specific goals that focus on improving the future
opportunities for all students by preparing each student to begin a high
school program on the A-G CSU/UC college track.
• Oak Quarry Intermediate has adopted and aligned the their core
curriculum with the District created and adopted curriculum. The
district’s curriculum/pacing guide is aligned to the standards and CST
Blueprints in all CST assessed areas.
• The District has an impressive professional development plan that is
clearly aligned with site and district goals. External experts have been
used to launch initiatives in the areas of student engagement and
motivation, instructional planning and delivery, peer coaching, and
collaboration
• District benchmarks (administered four times each year in all core areas)
provide teachers with the necessary data to respond appropriately to
student learning/progress on grade level standards. In addition, it allows
individual sites the ability to compare their students’ progress with other
schools in the District.
• The school has developed common site assessments that are reportedly
more rigorous than the district benchmarks and provide teachers with the
necessary information to continue improving instruction.
• The school has implemented and participated in a PLC model for monthly
collaboration between teachers. These meetings allow departments to
determine needs and improve internally.
• Students are provided with additional time and support during the
instructional day and students are reassessed every 9 weeks and
appropriately regrouped. Core classes are heterogeneous and support
classes in ELA and math are homogenous.
• All students are provided with a rigorous standards-based curriculum that
is at or above grade level.
• The principal and district leadership provide the school with a culture of
continuous improvement and professionalism.

276

By implementing these programs Oak Quarry Intermediate has been able to
raise student achievement and perform in the top ten percent of schools with similar
demographics and/or challenges.
Future Considerations
Future considerations for Oak Quarry Intermediate would include additional
resources to lower the teacher-student ratios in classes other than math and ELA
where class sizes can be as high as 35:1. In addition, the lengthening of the
instructional day for students from a 6 hour day to an 8 hour day would provide
students with the additional time needed to meet school and district goals. Another
factor to consider would be the implementation of daily collaboration time for
teachers to plan instruction based upon the previous day’s learning. This would
provide teachers with the necessary time to provide flexible and targeted instruction
to all of the students they serve. These considerations would all require additional
resources to pay people for a longer work day, and to hire more staff to reduce class
sizes.

277

APPENDIX K
ARROYO MIDDLE SCHOOL
School Background

Arroyo Middle School is a public school serving students in grades 6-8 in a
suburban elementary school district (K-8) in Orange County, California. In 2009-10,
Arroyo Middle School reported an enrollment of 984 students. It is the only school
in the Hidden Valley Elementary School District (HVESD) that is included in this
study. The principal is in his 11
th
year in education and his 5
th
year as an
administrator at the site. He was the assistant principal for three years, and is just
starting his second year as the principal. He was assigned to Arroyo Middle School
by the District’s senior administration in 2006.
Arroyo Middle School is 1 of 16 schools in a district serving over 9,500
students. The district consists of 13 elementary and 3 middle schools, and serves
students from two cities. HVESD has an API of 821, an API increase of 23 points in
one year. Although the district is considered high performing by State accountability
measures, it is currently at risk of falling into Program Improvement (PI) status due
to their inability to meet all 38 of their AYP targets. The District failed to meet the
AYP targets with their Hispanic, EL, SED, and SWD subgroups in ELA and with
their Hispanic subgroup in math. Arroyo Middle School is in year 5 of PI, but has
made tremendous progress over the last few years and met all 21 of their 21 AYP
targets last year. If they are able to meet all 21 AYP targets again (two consecutive

278

years), they will move out of PI in 2011-12 (California Department of Education,
2010).
Based upon the information in Table K1 and Figure K1, it is evident that
Arroyo Middle School has higher percentages of Asian, (57%), EL (39%), and SED
(72%) students than the County and State averages. Furthermore, Arroyo has higher
percentages of Asian and SED students, but lower percentages of Hispanic and EL
students than the District averages in the aforementioned subgroups. Arroyo Middle
School also has lower percentages of both Hispanic (37%) and White (4%) students
than other schools in California. It should be noted that the school is located in an
impoverished area of the County, and faces different challenges than the average
school in the District in both the County and State.
Table K1: Arroyo Middle School Demographic Comparison
% Asian % Hispanic % White % EL % SED
Arroyo Middle 57 37 4 39 72
District Average 39 37 15 50 66
Orange County Average 14.2 44.7 32.8 27.9 42.3
State Average 8.5 49.0 27.9 24.2 55.7
Source: California Department of Education

279

Figure K1: Arroyo Middle Demographic Data

Source: California Department of Education

Assessment Data
Arroyo Middle has experienced an 81-point API gain over the last five years
(California Department of Education, 2010). As we examine each year’s data more
closely, it is evident that the school’s performance has consistently improved, with
the greatest increase in API occurring in 2008 when the school experienced a 39-
point API gain. The most recent state accountability report shows an 18-point API
increase in 2009-10 to an API score of 852, the highest API score in school history.
And although the school is in PI year 5, it is one of a handful of PI schools in the
County that met all of their 2009-10 AYP targets. This feat is even more remarkable
as the AYP targets increase by about 11% each year. This accomplishment should
be celebrated as hundreds of schools across the State and County with similar
demographics did not meet their 2009-10 AYP targets (California Department of
Education, 2010).

280

Figure K2: Arroyo Middle School Academic Performance Index Data (2006-2010)

Source: California Department of Education
English Language Arts Performance
As illustrated in Figure K3 below, Arroyo Middle has made significant gains
in student achievement (as measured by the percentage of students scoring proficient
or advanced on the ELA CST) with all of their subgroups over the last five years in
ELA. Schoolwide achievement has grown by 15.4%. The school’s greatest
improvements were made with their Hispanic (21.4%), EL (22.3%), and SED
(16.3%) student populations. Furthermore, the school has made such tremendous
progress with all of their significant subgroups that they met all of their 2009-10
AYP targets in ELA. In addition, the achievement gap between the higher
performing Whites and Asians has been reduced. Over the last five years, the
school’s Asian and White subgroups have increased by 9.5% and 6.2% respectively.
And while these two subgroups are still the two highest performing subgroups in the

281

school, the achievement gap that was once as high as 40% in some areas is now as
low as 10%.
Figure K3: Arroyo Middle English Language Arts Percent Proficient or Above

Source: California Department of Education

Mathematics Performance
Over the last five years, Math achievement (as measured by the percentage of
students scoring proficient or advanced on the Math CSTs) at Arroyo Middle School
has also increased in all subgroups. Schoolwide math achievement has grown by
24%, while the Asian, Hispanic and White subgroups have all grown by 18.5%,
26.5%, and 15.5% respectively. It should be noted that the White subgroup only
makes up 4% of the school’s total population and has been added for comparison
purposes only. In addtion, the SED subgroup has improved, going from 41.5%
proficient or above in 2006 to 65.5% proficent or above in 2010 (a gain of almost
24%). This trend clearly demonstrates a commitment to the increased performance
of the school’s Hispanic and SED subgroups. While the tremendous improvement of
all of the aforementioned subgroups is commendable, the most remarkable increase

282

in math achievement occurred with the school’s EL subgroup. In 2006, 32.6% of the
school’s EL population was proficient or advanced, while in 2010 64.7% of the
school’s EL population scored proficient or advanced, an increase of 32.1% in five
years. Figure K4 provides a summary of each subgroups performance over the last
five years.
Figure K4: Arroyo Middle Math Percent Proficient or Above

Source: California Department of Education

Educational Improvement Process
Improving student achievement can be one of the most daunting challenges
any school decides to take on (Reeves, 2005). However, there is growing evidence,
often striking, that schools today have much more control over their performance
issues/problems than many believe (Darling-Hammond, 1997, Marzano, 2003,
Odden & Archibald, 2009, Shmoker, 1999). In fact, Odden and Archibald (2009)
argue that there are very specific strategies that schools can employ to drastically
improve student achievement, regardless of demographics or challenges. Odden &

283

Archibald (2009) have created a set of ten strategies that schools can use to
significantly improve the learning outcomes for students. In addition to the
framework and strategies described by Odden and Archibald, the Evidence-Based
Model (EBM) of resource allocation will be utilized to carefully examine the
alignment between school goals, strategies employed, and resources used to improve
performance at Arroyo Middle School.
Understanding the Performance Problem
Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that in order for any school to
significantly improve, they must carefully examine their current reality as it relates to
student achievement. As indicated by the site principal, a sense of urgency was
created by the District the outside pressures of NCLB. The school entered Program
Improvement (PI) five years ago, and has teetered on the edge of moving out of PI
each year. If the school is able to meet all their 2010-11 AYP targets, they will move
out of PI in 2011-12. In addition to the external pressures to improve student
achievement, the principal reported that over the last six years teachers have done a
great job in raising their own expectations, which has resulted in higher student
achievement.
During an interview, the principal stated that the initial improvement effort
began in 2004 when the school did not meet their AYP target in their Hispanic
subgroup in math. In fact after looking at the CST data in both math and ELA, the
adminstration knew that they would have to make major changes. This realization
resulted in a major shift in staffing, student scheduling, and math instruction at the

284

school. For the school to improve, they would have to increase the time and support
students received in math during the normal school day. They could not longer do
business as usual. During this time period, the District provided a lot of support by
providing the school with additional staff members (three math teachers paid for
with Title I funds) and additional professional development. The District received
the Developing Communities of Mathematical Inquiry (DCMI) Grant, which
provided the site with additional resources and training for all of their math teachers.
In addition, the school began the implementation of Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs), which has lead to increased teacher collaboration and the
sharing of best practices.
Set Ambitious Goals
One of the most significant things any school can do is set specific goals to
improve performance. During an interview with the site principal, he indicated that
one of the school’s primary goals has been to move out of PI status. For any school
that has been in PI as long as Arroyo, moving out of PI status can be almost
impossible. However, based upon the school’s 2009-10 accountability data, they
have made tremendous progress toward this goal and will actually accomplish it if
they are able to continue to improve student achievement at the same rate as last
year.
Another ambitious goal set by the school was to have every student complete
Algebra I in the 8
th
grade. To accomplish this goal, the staff understood that the
master schedule would have to change in order to offer the additional math support

285

courses that students would need to be successful. In addition, it would require the
hiring of more math teachers as many of the students would have two periods of
math each day. As stated earlier in this case study, the District supported this effort
by providing the funding necessary to hire three more math teachers and the
principal used Title I funds to hire a fourth math teacher. The result of this work is
that more students are scoring proficient or advanced on the CSTs in math, and more
students are leaving Arroyo MS having successfully completed Algebra I in 8
th

grade, which has greatly increased their future options in high school.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
The effort to improve the learning outcomes for the students at Arroyo
Middle required the school and district to carefully examine the curriculum guides,
assessments, and instructional materials being used at the site. Over the last five
years, there have been numerous new textbook and curriculum adoptions for all of
the middle schools in the District. In recent years, the District has adopted new
science, social science, and math textbooks. Although the District wants to adopt
new ELA textbooks, the State’s fiscal crisis has prevented them from moving
forward in this subject. The new instructional materials have provided teachers with
resources that are better aligned to the state standards and CST blueprints.
Furthermore, almost every new adoption comes with numerous resources that
teachers can use for content writing, assessments, standardized practice,
differentiation, English Learners, and technology.

286

With regard to creating a new instructional vision, there has been some work
completed in this area, but the principal reported that there is still much more to do.
To date, the school has increased the number of students completing Algebra I in 8
th

grade, as well as the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on the
ELA CST. Additionally, they have implemented Thinking Maps, a writing program,
Cornell Notes, as well as AVID. In math, all teachers have completed the DCMI
math project, and all teachers have participated in professional development and
coaching through Action Learning. Furthermore, the school has made a tremendous
commitment to provide students with the necessary time and support during the
instructional day. Students that are not proficient in math and/or ELA are offered
support classes that provide the necessary resources these students need to be
successful. This change has lead to a diminished traditional elective program
(Woodshop, Metalshop, Art). However, the school has made a commitment to
improve the learning outcomes for all students, and have placed the students in an
educational program that best suits their individual needs. While all of the
aforementioned changes have resulted in higher achievement, the school has not
implemented, or even discussed, the implementation of an instructional framework
that would allow teachers to have a common definition of the components of “good”
instruction. The principal indicated that bringing Action Learning back to work on
this piece would be considered when the State budget improves.

287

Formative Assessments and Data-Based Decision Making
The use of common formative and summative assessments and data-based
decision making are two of the hottest topics in educational research today (DuFour,
2006; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Reeves, 2005; 2009). Arroyo Middle has
implemented both throughout their recent reform effort. With regards to the use of
formative assessments, the district developed and implemented benchmarks in all
core areas about five years ago. These assessments are administered three times per
year and allow teachers to compare the performance of their students with the
performance of other teachers throughout the school and District. The benchmarks
are progress-monitoring tests that assess student mastery of grade level standards and
are aligned with the CST Blueprints and District curriculum guides. The principal
indicated that the administration of the district benchmarks and the ensuing
discussions that occur have been an instrumental process to the school’s growth.
In addition to the data from the district benchmarks, the school also carefully
examines CST data each year looking for areas of growth and/or decline. CST data
provides the school with the necessary information to review current school
goals/priorities and adjust accordingly. The principal stated that the staff looks at
each CST strand closely to see where they should put additional resources.
Furthermore, the careful disaggregation of each subgroup’s data is also a large part
of the school’s improvement effort. With the school being in year 5 of PI, this work
is critical to the school’s effort to move out of PI.

288

At the current time, most of the data Arroyo uses to measure student learning
comes from the two areas discussed above. The District has used Edusoft (a data
management system) in the past, but according to the principal, recent political shifts
have caused the District to select School City, a different data management vendor.
The principal added that he is hopeful that with the implementation of School City
they will begin to create and administer more site assessments that provide teachers
with data on student learning every two to three weeks.
Ongoing Intensive Professional Development
Professional development has been a major priority of both Arroyo Middle
School and the District. The principal indicated that the DCMI math grant discussed
above has greatly improved math instruction at the school. In addition, the staff
development with Action Learning and the ensuing teacher coaching has also helped
to improve instruction. However, the principal added that the teachers need
additional PD from Action Learning, as the school was trying to implement too
many things three or four years ago, which resulted in a lot of confusion and missed
opportunities. Furthermore, the teachers have also been trained in Thinking Maps,
Cornell Notes, and AVID strategies. In addition to the professional development
discussed above, the school has also implemented PLCs.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
During Arroyo Middle’s recent improvement efforts, they have carefully
examined how they effectively and efficiently use time to improve student learning
and achievement. As stated above, the school began offering more academic

289

electives such as AVID and support courses (extra courses in math and ELA), all of
which provide students with the additional support and instruction needed to be
successful in the school’s core program. In addition, the school has changed the
amount of time given to math and ELA. Four years ago, the school rearranged their
bell schedule and went to a modified block schedule. The new schedule provides all
students with 84 minutes of math and ELA instruction four days a week, and 60
minutes of both one-day a week. Moreover, students that are not proficient in math
and/or ELA are provided with a 13-week rotating intervention covering the
foundational pieces of ELA and math. This change in scheduling truly supported the
math and ELA teachers as they were provided with additional time to cover the
standards.
Extending learning time for struggling students
One of the most critical components to improving the learning outcomes for
struggling students involves the provision of additional time and support. At the
current time, the school offers an after school program, in coordination with the
Boys’ and Girls’ Club, that provides students with a place to go after school. The
school is also able to offer after school interventions with a classroom teacher with
EIA and Title I funds. However, it has found that student attendance is inconsistent
lessening the impact of the intervention.
Arroyo MS also offers summer school to students that have failed math or
ELA. However, the summer program does not currently target non-proficient
students that have passed their math and ELA classes. In addition to the normal

290

summer school program, Arroyo recently implemented a “JumpStart” summer
program for their EL students focusing entirely on writing. The principal indicated
that he was hoping this program would help many of Arroyo’s EL students perform
better on the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) that is
required for all second language learners to be reclassified.
Collaborative Professional Culture
According to the principal, Arroyo has an extremely professional and
collaborative culture. The principal reported that the teachers have done some
amazing things to improve student achievement at Arroyo. He added that he feels
like it their job to solve the performance problems, and it is his job to support them
in this process with additional time and resources. The school began the
implementation of PLCs five years ago, and collaboration has improved each year.
In addition, the school has an early release every week for teachers to work together
to plan and discuss instruction and student learning. At the current time, teachers use
the data from the common site assessments, district benchmarks, and the CSTs to
assess the effectiveness of their instruction.
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
The principal reported that the school has a culture of shared decision-making
and site-based leadership. As stated before, his philosophy is to let teachers solve
the problems and support them in any way that he can. He added that he has an
intelligent and hard working staff and they know what is best for improving
instruction. The principal also reported that many times the staff comes to him to

291

initiate programs and/or strategies that they believe should be implemented. He
claimed that this is the best way to drive improvement. Stating that when the ideas
come from the teachers, they are more apt to use them in the classroom. Many
times principals start too many initiatives and do not listen to what their teachers are
saying. In addition, the principal meets with department chairs on a regular basis to
get input on school issues. This model exemplifies the school’s collaborative
culture, which has helped to improve student achievement.
Professional and Best Practices
While the implementation and regular use of best practices are a key part of
the PLC model, schools also have to respond to staff needs with training from
external experts. Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that exemplary schools use
evidence from research, advice from experts, and work together in teams to
significantly improve performance. Arroyo Middle School uses both internal and
external experts to help improve practice. Teachers have been trained in Thinking
Maps, AVID strategies, Cornell Notes, DCMI Math, PLCs, and Action Learning.
The systematic use of AVID strategies, Cornell Notes, and Thinking Maps in every
classroom has helped students better organize their own learning strategies as they
are not constantly having to learn new ways to succeed in each class. The common
use of math instructional strategies (DCMI) has helped bring about consistency in
that department as well. Lastly, the collaboration and sharing of best practice
amongst teachers within the same PLC team has also helped improve student

292

achievement. Tables K2 and K3 provide summary data of Odden’s (2009) TSFDSP
and Odden and Picus’ (2008) EBM for Arroyo Middle School.
Table K2: Arroyo Middle School and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance
Implementation Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge

X

The school has made progress in
improving learning outcomes. They
have met all 21 of their AYP targets after
being in PI for 5 years.
Set ambitious goals X All students take Algebra I in 8
th
Grade.
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
X
The school has adopted new textbooks,
written new curriculum guides,
participated in the DCMI math grant
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

X
The district has benchmark assessments.
The school spends considerable time
disaggregating CST data. Site
assessments are not in SchoolCity.
Ongoing PD

X
PLCs, DCMI Math, Action Learning,
Cornell Notes, Thinking Maps
Using time
efficiently &
effectively
X
Student scheduling is need based.
Students that are not proficient are
provided with additional time and
support during the day. Modified bell
schedule to support math and ELA
instruction.
Extended learning
time for struggling
students

X
The school has a small after school
intervention program. Summer school is
provided for students that fail classes,
but not students that are not proficient.
AVID Program
Collaborative,
professional culture
X
Teachers have weekly time to
collaborate on instruction.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
X

Teachers are included in the decision-
making. Principal puts a lot of faith in
the teachers to make good decisions
about school reform efforts.
Professional and best
practices
X

The school has implemented a number of
instructional strategies that have proven
efficacy such as Thinking Maps, Cornell
Notes, DCMI, PLCs, Action Learning

293

Table K3: Arroyo Middle School and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use
Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Middle School
Arroyo Middle
School
Current Resource
Status
Arroyo Middle
School Based on
Prototypical
Model
School Size 6-8; 450 Students 6-8; 984 2.19%
Class Size 25 27.2 25
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days
for intensive PD
training
180, includes 4 days
for PD
200, includes 10
days for intensive
PD training
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 2.0 FTE 2.2 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
1.0 FTE Clerical
3.0 FTE 4.4 FTE
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 18.0 FTE 23.65 FTE 39.4 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 8.2 FTE 7.9 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.25 FTE 0.0 FTE 4.9 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students; 2.25
1.0 FTE 7.1 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100
EL students: .45
3.0 FTE 3.84 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 1.0 FTE 3.9 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 2.0 FTE 3.9 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
2.0 FTE 6.6 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
2.0 FTE 100% state
reimbursement
minus federal funds

294

Table K3, Continued
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Middle School
Arroyo Middle
School
Current Resource
Status
Arroyo Middle
School Based on
Prototypical
Model
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$4,410 $43,470
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100
poverty students: 2.25
3.7 FTE 7.1 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 4.4 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 8.5 FTE 0 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE 0.5 FTE 2.2 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student $0 $24,600
Technology $250 per pupil $5,000 $246,000
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $20,231 $137,760
Student Activities $200 per pupil $0 $196,800
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for
other PD expenses -
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc. not
included above
$4,500 $98,400

Summary and Lessons Learned
Arroyo Middle School has made progress toward improving the learning
outcomes for students that have historically been underserved. The school has
increased their API score by 81 points over five years, and has made consistent gains
each year. The school has arguably implemented all of Odden’s 10 strategies for
doubling student achievement (to some extent), and continues to raise achievement.

295

Arroyo MS remains in the top 10% of schools with similar demographics and is
committed to improving the learning outcomes and future options for the students
they serve.
• The school sets specific goals that focus on improving student
achievement.
• Arroyo Middle has adopted and aligned their core curriculum with the
District created and adopted curriculum. The District’s
curriculum/pacing guide is aligned to the standards and CST Blueprints in
all CST assessed areas.
• District benchmarks (administered three times each year in all core areas)
provide teachers with the necessary data to respond appropriately to
student learning/progress on grade level standards. In addition, it allows
individual sites the ability to compare their students’ progress with other
schools in the District.
• The school has implemented and participated in a PLC model for weekly
collaboration between teachers. These meetings allow departments to
determine needs and improve internally.
• Students are provided with additional time and support during the
instructional day. Math and ELA courses have been extended (84 minutes
per day) to ensure students attain proficiency.
• All students are provided with a rigorous standards-based curriculum that
is at or above grade level.
• The principal and district leadership provide the school with a culture of
continuous improvement and professionalism.
By implementing these programs Arroyo Middle has been able to raise
student achievement and perform in the top ten percent of schools with similar
demographics and/or challenges.
Future Considerations
Future considerations for Arroyo MS include additional resources to release
teachers to collaborate more often on instruction and student data. Furthermore, the
creation and implementation of site assessments (in all core areas) will help teachers
become much more prescriptive in their instruction. In addition, the lengthening of

296

the instructional day would provide students with the additional time needed to meet
school and district goals. These considerations would all require additional resources
to pay people for a longer workday, and to use more substitutes to release teachers to
engage in data conversations and best instructional practices.

297

APPENDIX L
REDHAWK MIDDLE SCHOOL
School Background

Redhawk Middle School is a public school serving students in grades 6-8 in a
large suburban district in Orange County, California. In 2009-10, Redhawk Middle
School reported an enrollment of 853 students. It is the only school in the Baker
Unified School District that is included in this study. The principal is in her 19
th
year
in education, her 12
th
year as a site principal, and her 5
th
year as the principal of
Redhawk Middle School. She has previously been a teacher, assistant principal,
elementary school principal and middle school principal in the district. She was
assigned to Redhawk by the District’s senior administration in 2005.
Redhawk Middle School is 1 of 28 schools in a district serving over 21,600
students. The district consists of 18 elementary schools, 5 Middle School schools, 3
comprehensive high schools, 2 alternative/continuation high schools, and serves
students from four surrounding cities. Baker Unified has an API of 850, ranking it
among the top performing school districts in the County. Although the district is
considered high performing, it is currently at risk of falling into Program
Improvement (PI) status due to their inability to meet all 42 of their AYP targets.
The District failed to meet the AYP targets with their Hispanic, EL, and SED
subgroups in both ELA and math. Redhawk Middle School is not currently in PI, but
is at risk of becoming a PI school as they only met 20 of their 21 2009-10 AYP

298

targets. Based upon the most recent accountability data, Redhawk’s EL subgroup
did not meet the AYP targets in math (California Department of Education, 2010).
Based upon the information in Table L1 and Figure L1, it is evident that
Redhawk Middle School has a higher percentage of Hispanic students (56%) than
the County and State averages of 45% and 49% respectively. The school also has a
smaller percentage of EL students (20%), but a higher percentage of SED (47%)
students than the County average. Furthermore, Redhawk has higher percentages of
Hispanic, SED, and EL students than the District averages in the aforementioned
subgroups. Redhawk Middle School also has lower percentages of both Asian (9%)
and White (26%) students than other schools in the County. It should be noted that
the school is located in an impoverished area of the County, and faces different
challenges than the average school in the District in both the County and State.
Table L1: Redhawk Middle School Demographic Comparison
% Asian % Hispanic % White % EL % SED
Redhawk Middle 9 56 26 20 47
District Average 15 42 34 25 36
Orange County Average 14.2 44.7 32.8 27.9 42.3
State Average 8.5 49.0 27.9 24.2 55.7
Source: California Department of Education

299

Figure L1: Redhawk Middle School Demographic Data
Source: California Department of Education

Assessment Data
Redhawk Middle School has experienced a 116-point API gain over the last
five years (California Department of Education, 2010). As we examine each year’s
data more closely, it is evident that the school has consistently made significant
improvements in achievement, with the greatest gains coming during the 2006-07
school year when the school went up 43 API points. The most recent state
accountability report shows a 29-point API increase in 2009-10 resulting in an API
score of 873, the highest mark in school history. Based upon this data, it is clear
that the school has made consistent gains in student achievement. And although the
school is at risk of falling into PI status next year, it is one of the only schools
serving a population that is predominantly Hispanic and SED not currently in PI
status. This accomplishment should be celebrated as schools across the State and
County with similar demographics are in year 2 and above in PI status (California

300

Department of Education, 2010). Figure L2 shows the schools API score over the
last five years.
Figure L2: Redhawk Middle School Academic Performance Index Data (2006-2010)

Source: California Department of Education (2010)

English Language Arts Performance
As illustrated in Figure L3 below, Redhawk Middle School has made
significant gains in student achievement over the last five years on the English
Language Arts (ELA) California Standards Test (CST). Redhawk’s schoolwide
percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced has improved from 55.3%
proficient or advanced in 2006 to 71.6% proficient or advanced in 2010, an
improvement of 16.3%. The school has also made significant progress with every
one of its subgroups. The school has increased the percentage of students scoring
proficient or advanced as follows: Asian (22.2%), EL (21.2%), Hispanic (18.7%),
SED (21.9%), and White (11.4%). This clearly shows the school’s ability to increase
achievement for all student groups, regardless of the challenges they present.

301

Furthermore, it shows a clear commitment to closing the achievement gap between
Asian, White, Hispanic, EL and SED student populations.
Figure L3: Redhawk Middle School’s English Language Arts Percent Proficient or
Above

Source: California Department of Education (2010)

Mathematics Performance
Over the last five years, math achievement at Redhawk Middle School has
also increased. The schoolwide achievement on the Mathematics CST has gone
from 44.5% proficient or advanced in 2006 to 70% proficient or advanced in 2010,
an improvement of 25.5%. In addition, the school has made significant progress in
math with every one of its subgroups. The school has increased the percentage of
students scoring proficient or advanced as follows: Asian (18.2%), EL (27.4%),
Hispanic (28.2%), SED (30.2%), and White (22.8%). Once again, the school has
shown their ability to close the achievement gap. And while the principal reported
that there is still a lot of work to be done, the improvements made with the SED

302

population (30.2% increase in proficiency) and the Hispanic and EL populations
(28.2% and 27.4% increases in proficiency respectively) clearly demonstrate the
school’s ability to change the educational outcomes for all three of these subgroups.
This trend clearly demonstrates a commitment to the increased performance of the
all students entering Redhawk’s doors. Figure L4 provides a detailed picture of each
subgroups performance over the last five years.
Figure L4: Redhawk Middle School’s Math Percent Proficient or Above

Source: California Department of Education (2010)
Educational Improvement Process
Improving student achievement can be one of the most daunting challenges
any school decides to take on (Reeves, 2005). However, there is growing evidence,
often striking, that schools today have much more control over their performance
issues/problems than many believe (Darling-Hammond, 1997, Marzano, 2003,
Odden & Archibald, 2009, Shmoker, 1999). In fact, Odden and Archibald (2009)
argue that there are very specific strategies that schools can employ to drastically

303

improve student achievement, regardless of demographics or challenges. Odden &
Archibald (2009) have created a set of ten strategies that schools can use to
significantly improve the learning outcomes for students. In addition to the
framework and strategies described by Odden and Archibald, the Evidence-Based
Model (EBM) of resource allocation will be utilized to carefully examine the
alignment between school goals, strategies employed, and resources used to improve
performance at Redhawk Middle School.
Understanding the Performance Problem
Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that in order for any school to
significantly improve, they must carefully examine their current reality as it relates to
student achievement. In addition, schools should conduct curriculum audits to
determine what is being emphasized in classrooms. Redhawk’s improvement effort
began with a critical look at the schoolwide CST proficiency scores in ELA and
math, as well as each of their significant subgroups. According to the principal, prior
to her appointment student achievement was dismal and the school was unable to
make the necessary changes toward improving achievement. One of her first steps
as principal was to help people understand that this level of achievement was
unacceptable, and that the staff could actually do something about it.
One of the biggest obstacles for the school was to recognize that the recent
shift in student demographics meant that the school could not do business as usual.
The principal reported that the school’s demographics had changed significantly over
the last ten years, as the EL, Hispanic and SED student population percentages

304

increased in a very short period of time. She added that the staff was unprepared to
service these students with their current program.
Another obstacle for the school was the discrepancy between ELA and math
performance. The principal indicated that math performance was in the “toilet”, and
the school had to take a look at improving in this area first. She added that they put
some resources into ELA, but most of her energy was put into raising student
achievement for all students in math. To do this, the school had to make major
changes in curriculum, instruction, student scheduling, and student support services.
Set Ambitious Goals
One of the most significant things any school can do is set specific goals to
improve performance. According to the school principal, Redhawk has recently set
SMART goals in both ELA and math. SMART goals are Specific, Measurable,
Attainable, Realistic and Timely. The principal indicated that the school wrote
schoolwide SMART goals, as well as SMART goals for each subgroup. For
example, in 2009 the school set goals for each of their subgroups in math and ELA.
The goals were different for each group depending upon the previous year’s
performance and school’s goal to close the achievement gap. In math, the goal for
White students was to increase the percentage of students scoring proficient or
advanced by 4.2% on the Math CST, while the goal for Hispanic students was to
increase student achievement in math by almost 10%. By differentiating each
subgroup’s goal, the principal was aiming to improve student achievement for all

305

students while ensuring that the achievement of the school’s underperforming
subgroups increased at a greater rate.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
The effort to improve the learning outcomes for the students at Redhawk
Middle School included a change in both curriculum and instruction. To begin this
change process, the school carefully examined the curriculum guides, assessments,
and instructional materials being used in each content area. The principal reported
that the District had created curriculum and pacing guides in each core area, but the
teachers at Redhawk were not really using them. The principal added that prior to
her tenure at Redhawk most of the teachers were working in isolation. And even if
the teachers had implemented the District’s guides, there were large discrepancies in
how they were being interpreted and implemented in each classroom. To help
teachers work more closely together, the school implemented a weekly late start to
allow for collaboration and content articulation.
Over the last five years, the school has adopted new social studies, science,
and math textbooks. The principal reported that she would have liked to adopt new
ELA textbooks, but the State’s current fiscal crisis has prevented this from
happening. She did indicate that the current ELA adoption (Holt) is “good” for most
of their students, but that it did not provide the same resources that some of the
newer adoptions included for EL students. The new materials in the other content
areas were extremely helpful for differentiation.

306

One of the first steps in improving teacher curriculum and instruction at
Redhawk was to have the teachers work together to define both how and when
certain standards would be taught. The principal required teachers teaching the same
subject to work together to agree upon the scope and sequence (aligned to the
District curriculum guide) of their curriculum for the school year. This effort
resulted in teachers defining the essential standards, determining the appropriate
timeline for each unit, and working together to ensure that all students received the
same curriculum. By having teachers articulate and agree upon the taught
curriculum, the principal was able to get the teachers to take the next step and write
common assessments in each core area. The assessments could be used to help drive
improvement, as it would provide the teachers with data on student and teacher
performance.
With regards to instruction, the principal indicated that the school was all
over the place, and there was very little discussion on improving instruction.
Instead, all teachers talked about were the significant changes in student
demographics. As the principal looked to improve instruction, her first efforts
targeted the math department. As stated earlier, the school’s CST scores in math
were dismal, and this was clearly an area that needed to improve. Early in 2005, the
principal formed a partnership with the University of California Irvine (UCI), which
had been working with teachers all over Southern California on improving math
instruction. Over the next year, all of the math teachers at Redhawk were trained in
the UCI Math Project. The principal reported that this partnership helped the

307

department make significant progress over the next five years, as they really became
a collaborative group that had a common definition of what “good math instruction
looked like.”
Formative Assessments and Data-Based Decision Making
The use of common formative/summative assessments and data-based
decision making are two of the hottest topics in educational research today (DuFour,
2006; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Reeves, 2005; 2009). Redhawk Middle School has
implemented both throughout their recent reform effort. With regards to the use of
formative assessments, the District developed and implemented benchmarks in all
core areas. These assessments are administered three times per year and allow
teachers to compare the performance of their students with the performance of other
teachers throughout the school and district. The benchmarks are progress-
monitoring tests that assess student mastery of grade level standards and are aligned
with the CST Blueprints and District curriculum guides. The principal indicated that
the administration of the district benchmarks and the ensuing discussions that occur
with her teachers on student progress have been an instrumental process to the
school’s growth.
In addition to the data from the district benchmarks, the school also carefully
examines CST data each year looking for areas of growth and/or decline. CST data
provides the school with the necessary information to review current school
goals/priorities and adjust accordingly. The principal stated that the staff looks at
each CST strand closely to see where they should put additional resources.

308

Furthermore, the careful disaggregation of each subgroups data is also a large part of
the school’s improvement effort.
Redhawk also uses common site assessments in all core areas. Each
department and grade level has created a pacing and assessment calendar that
articulates when each standard will be taught and assessed. These calendars are
modified each year and given to the principal each September. After each
assessment, the teachers get together to discuss the data, make instructional
modifications and plan interventions. The principal holds all content teams (i.e. 7
th

grade ELA) and individual teachers accountable for ensuring that all students learn.
Students that do not reach proficiency on a site assessment are provided additional
time and instruction to ensure that they receive the support needed to be successful.
The principal added that the regular assessment of students and the ensuing changes
made to instruction have resulted in greater student achievement in all core areas
each year. In addition, site assessments have significantly improved teacher
accountability, as teachers know that their students’ data will be discussed at the next
PLC meeting.
Ongoing Intensive Professional Development
Professional development has been a priority at Redhawk Middle School.
The principal reported that the PLC trainings over the last few years has been
instrumental in improving student achievement. The implementation of PLCs,
increase in teacher collaboration, use of common assessments, and the planning of
ensuing interventions have also been critical to the school’s ability to improve

309

performance. Furthermore, the principal’s participation during data conversations
(these meetings take place after every common site assessment) has helped the
teachers become more critical and reflective about their own teaching.
In addition to the PLC training and UCI Math Project trainings that the entire
math department has participated in, the school has also been trained in Positive
Behavior Interventions Systems (PBIS), a schoolwide program for improving student
behavior on campus. This program has helped change the culture of the classroom
as students are more focused and ready to learn resulting in fewer disruptions during
instruction. All teachers have also been trained in Cornell Notes, a well-known
system for organizing lectures and information. Since all teachers deliver content in
a similar format, it is easier for students to organize their own studying efforts.
One of the limitations of professional development at Redhawk MS is that
the District controls all contracted professional development days. The principal
expressed a desire for these days to be controlled at the site level, as some of the
schools in the district have significantly different student populations requiring. In
addition, the principal feels like Redhawk has missed a few great professional
development opportunities (Thinking Maps) because of the centralized control of
these days. Due to the District’s control of professional development, the principal
has used site monies (SIP, Title I, EIA, Discretionary) to pay for teacher release time
to participate in professional development and collaboration. Furthermore, she
occasionally uses staff meetings to share best practices and plant seeds for future
school initiatives.

310

Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
During Redhawk Middle School’s recent improvement efforts, they have
carefully examined how they effectively and efficiently use time to improve student
learning and achievement. The implementation of PLCs, curriculum guides and
calendars, common assessments, and interventions has lead to increased teacher
accountability and better use of instructional time. The principal reported that
teachers know that their students’ data will be shared in their PLC teams, and work
hard to achieve good results. She added that when you know someone is going to
look at your data, you are more apt to provide better instruction.
One of the biggest changes in the master schedule that provided additional
time and support for students included the addition of academic electives such as
AVID, support courses (double-blocked courses in math and ELA). For example if a
7
th
grade student is not proficient in math, they still take pre-algebra, but are
provided with an additional pre-algebra support class. In addition if a student is not
proficient in ELA, they are provided with an additional support class in ELA. The
principal reported that this change has helped non-proficient students attain
proficiency because they are getting the resources they need to be successful.
The bell schedule at Redhawk allows for 44 minutes of instruction each
period. For the typical seventh grader they receive one period of math, two periods
of ELA, one period of social science, science, PE, and one period of and elective
(academic or arts related). If a student is not proficient in math, they substitute their
elective for an additional math class. Additionally, the school has created some three

311

period ELA blocks for students that need greater support and instruction in English.
In fact, many of the school’s EL students are placed into a three period ELA core.
Although some people have criticized the school for not providing enough non-
academic electives, the principal reported that a student’s core instruction is not
something that is negotiable.
Extending Learning Time for Struggling Students
One of the most critical components to improving the learning outcomes for
struggling students involves the provision of additional time and support. At the
current time, the school offers after school intervention programs for students in
need. However, regular student attendance has proven to be challenging. These
interventions are paid for with Title I and EIA funds. In addition to the after school
intervention program, the school is part of the 21
st
Century Grant, which provides
tutoring for students outside of the school day. It should be noted that college
students are the primary tutors and that they provide more of a mentorship than
actual academic support.
With regard to summer school, the District does not currently offer it at the
middle school level. Instead, summer school is reserved for high school students that
need remediation because they did not earn credit in certain classes during the
regular school year. The principal reported that summer school is something that
many students at Redhawk could benefit from, as it would provide extra instruction
for those that are in need. If the school truly wants to make extended learning
opportunities a priority, they have to look at adding a summer program and

312

lengthening the time that these students are engaged in instruction as there is only so
much that can be done for students during a normal instructional day.
Collaborative Professional Culture
According to the principal, Redhawk has an extremely professional and
collaborative culture. She openly admitted that this is one of the best staffs she has
worked with over her administrative career, and that the staff is “ripe” and ready to
go to the next level. She added that Redhawk is truly an exciting place to be! The
school and District began the implementation of PLCs several years ago, and
collaboration has improved over this time period. Teachers at Redhawk meet weekly
to plan instruction, review assessment data, discuss best practices, and plan
interventions. The school has a late start Wednesday that provides teachers with one
hour of weekly collaboration time. In addition to the activities mentioned above, the
school uses this time to meet together periodically (monthly) to participate in
professional development and/or share schoolwide instructional strategies.
During teacher collaboration time at Redhawk, teachers use the data from
various sources such as: common site assessments, district benchmarks, and the
CSTs to assess the effectiveness of their instruction. The principal reported that all
of her core teachers believe that assessment and collaboration are both critical to the
mission of every student being proficient. She added that the curriculum calendars
that each PLC team turns in to her at the beginning of the year have really helped
hold teachers accountable as a PLC team. Furthermore, they have provided the
principal with the ability to truly monitor student learning as she regularly receives

313

assessment data, participates in data conversations, and can follow-up with teachers
and/or teams that are struggling with feedback and support.
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
According to the principal, the school has a culture of shared decision-
making and site-based leadership. In fact, she added that many times the staff comes
to her to initiate programs or strategies that they believe should be implemented. In
addition to the administrative team (principal, assistant principal, and two
counselors), the school also has department chairs that provide input and assistance
in leading the school forward. The principal calls this group her leadership team,
and reported that this group meets regularly (twice a month) to discuss issues related
to the school. And while the principal indicated that she ultimately makes all
decisions, she regularly seeks the counsel and input of this team. This model
exemplifies the school’s commitment to shared decision making, and continuous
improvement.
Professional and Best Practices
While the implementation and regular use of best practices are a key part of
the PLC model, schools also have to respond to staff needs with training from
external experts. Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that exemplary schools use
evidence from research, advice from experts, and work together in teams to
significantly improve performance. Redhawk uses both internal and external experts
for professional development. One of the most widely known experts used by the
school is Rick DuFour. The principal indicated that all of her teachers have

314

participated in PLC training over the last five years. However, it should be noted
that the District controls most of the professional development days (contracted
student-free days) that teachers participate in each year.
With regards to site level professional development, the principal reported
that teachers on her campus provide a great deal of it. She added that she has some
amazing teacher leaders that are truly passionate about instruction, and they are
willing to share whenever asked. In addition, the school’s implementation of weekly
PLC meetings has allowed teachers to critically reflect on student learning and solve
many of the performance issues on their own. She also reported that when someone
finds something that works, they are excited and more than willing to share it with
their colleagues. Based upon the significant improvements made in student
achievement over the last five years, it is clear that the implementation of PLCs,
teacher collaboration, and sharing of best practices has lead to a better education for
the students they serve. Tables L2 and L3 provide summary data of Odden’s (2009)
TSFDSP and Odden and Picus’ (2008) EBM for Redhawk Middle School.

315

Table L2: Redhawk Middle School and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance
Implementation Odden & Archibald’s
Strategies
Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Understanding
performance problem
and challenge

X

The school has made significant progress
in improving student achievement, and
makes changes based upon the previous
year’s achievement results. Laser-like
Focus on Student Achievement and
Learning
Set ambitious goals
X

All students take Algebra I in 8
th
Grade,
and the achievement gap has been closed
over the last four years.
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
X
The school has a curriculum calendar
that articulates the essential standards
and level of rigor for each concept. In
addition, there are schoolwide strategies
for improving achievement
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions
X
The school has a comprehensive
assessment system that provides teachers
with data every 2-3 weeks. Based upon
this data, teachers make decisions
regarding future instruction and
intervention.
Ongoing PD

X
The school provides a lot of in-house
professional development. The District
controls a lot of the contracted PD days.
Not much use of outside experts
Using time efficiently
& effectively
X
Student scheduling is need based.
Students that are not proficient are
provided with additional time and
support during the day. Teachers teach
bell to bell.
Extended learning
time for struggling
students

X
The school does not provide any summer
school opportunities.
Collaborative,
professional culture
X

Teachers collaborate weekly on student
learning and regularly use assessment
data to make decisions.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
X

Teachers are included in the decision-
making. Site leadership team is
regularly consulted to help in school
improvement.
Professional and best
practices
X

The school has implemented a number of
research-based practices such as PLCs,
UCI Math, and Cornell Notes.

316

Table L3: Redhawk Middle School and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use
Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Middle School
Redhawk Middle
School
Current Resource
Status
Redhawk Middle
School Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size 6-8; 450 Students 7-8; 853 1.9%
Class Size 25 27.7:1 25
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days
for intensive PD
training
180, includes 5 days
for teacher planning
and PD
200, includes 10
days for intensive
PD training
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 2.0 FTE 1.9 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
1.0 FTE Clerical
3.2 FTE 3.8 FTE
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 18.0 FTE 24.5 FTE 34.2 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers =
3.6 FTE
8.3 FTE 6.8 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.25 FTE 0.0 FTE 4.3 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
0.33 FTE 6.8 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100
EL students
1.5 FTE 3.6 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.7 FTE 3.4 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.4 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
2.0 FTE 5.7 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
3.0 FTE
100% state
reimbursement
minus federal funds

317

Table L3, Continued
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Middle School
Redhawk Middle
School
Current Resource
Status
Redhawk Middle
School Based on
Prototypical Model
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$10,223 $44,226
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100
poverty students
3.2 FTE 4.0 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.8 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 8.0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.9 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student $0 $21,325
Technology $250 per pupil $49,780 $213,250
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $40,117 $119,420
Student Activities $200 per pupil $0 $170,600
Professional Development $100 per pupil for
other PD expenses -
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc. not
included above
$7,500 $85,300

Summary and Lessons Learned
Redhawk Middle School has made significant progress toward improving
the learning outcomes for students that have historically been underserved. The
school’s increase of 116 API points over four years is inspiring. The school has
arguably implemented all of Odden’s 10 strategies for doubling student achievement,
and continues to raise achievement. Redhawk remains in the top 10% of schools
with similar demographics and is committed to improving the learning outcomes and
future options for the students they serve.

318

• The school sets specific SMART goals that focus on improving student
achievement and closing the achievement gap.
• Redhawk Middle School has adopted and aligned the their core
curriculum with the District created and adopted curriculum. The
district’s curriculum/pacing guide is aligned to the standards and CST
Blueprints in all CST assessed areas.
• The school has used resources to make achievement gains in targeted
areas.
• District benchmarks (administered three times each year in all core areas)
provide teachers with the necessary data to respond appropriately to
student learning/progress on grade level standards. In addition, it allows
individual sites the ability to compare their students’ progress with other
schools in the District. The use of common site assessments on a regular
basis (every 2-3 weeks) has resulted in more timely responses to student
needs.
• The school has implemented and participated in a PLC model for weekly
collaboration between teachers. These meetings allow departments to
determine needs and improve internally.
• Students are provided with additional time and support during the
instructional day. Students that are not proficient are provided with an
additional support class that is supplemental and does not supplant the
normal grade level course. All students are provided with a rigorous
standards-based curriculum that is at or above grade level.
• The principal and district leadership provide the school with a culture of
continuous improvement and professionalism.
By implementing these programs Redhawk Middle School has been able to
consistently raise student achievement and perform in the top ten percent of schools
with similar demographics and/or challenges.
Future Considerations
Future considerations for Redhawk Middle School would include additional
resources to lower the teacher-student ratios in all core classes. In addition, the
lengthening of the instructional day for students from a 6 hour day to an 8 hour day
would provide students with the additional time needed to meet school and district
goals. Another factor to consider would be the implementation of daily collaboration

319

time for teachers to plan instruction based upon the previous day’s learning. This
would provide teachers with the necessary time to provide flexible and targeted
instruction to all of the students they serve. These considerations would all require
additional resources to pay people for a longer workday, and to hire more staff to
reduce class sizes.

320

APPENDIX M
GOOSE CREEK INTERMEDIATE
School Background

Goose Creek Intermediate is a public school serving students in grades 7-8 in
a large urban district in Orange County, California. In 2009-10, Goose Creek
reported an enrollment of 897 students. It is one of four schools in the Eagle Glen
Unified School District that is included in this study. The principal is in his 12
th
year
in education, his 8
th
year as a site principal, and in his 4
th
as the principal of Goose
Creek Intermediate. He has previously been a teacher, assistant principal,
elementary school principal and middle school principal. He was assigned to Goose
Creek by the District’s senior administration in 2006.
Goose Creek is 1 of 64 schools in a highly centralized district serving over
48,000 students. The District is the highest performing urban school district in
California, according to the California Department of Education, and is the only
urban school district with an API over 800. The district consists of 46 elementary
schools, 10 intermediate schools, 6 comprehensive high schools, 2
alternative/continuation high schools, and serves students from seven surrounding
cities. Based upon 2009-10 accountability data, the district is in Year 3 Program
Improvement (PI) status due to their inability to meet AYP targets in special
education and EL. Goose Creek Intermediate is in Year 2 of PI due to their inability
to meet all of their 21 AYP targets. Based upon the most recent accountability data,
Goose Creek’s Hispanic, SED, and EL subgroups did not meet their AYP targets in

321

ELA, and their Hispanic, SED, and EL subgroups did not meet their AYP target in
Math. In addition, the school did not meet their school-wide AYP targets in ELA or
math (California Department of Education, 2010).
Based upon the information in Table M1 and Figure M1, it is evident that
Goose Creek Intermediate School has a larger percentage of Hispanic students (84%)
than the County and State averages of 45% and 49% respectively. In addition, the
school also has a greater percentage of EL (52%) and SED (77%) students than the
County and State averages. Furthermore, Goose Creek has higher percentages of
Hispanic, SED, and EL students than the District averages in the aforementioned
subgroups. Goose Creek Intermediate also has lower percentages of both Asian
(12%) and White (2%) students than other schools in California. It should be noted
that the school is located in an impoverished area of the County, and faces different
challenges than the average school in the District in both the County and State.
Table M1: Goose Creek Intermediate School Demographic Comparison
% Asian % Hispanic % White % EL % SED
Goose Creek Intermediate 12 84 2 52 77
District Average 31 53 12 45 66
Orange County Average 14.2 44.7 32.8 27.9 42.3
State Average 8.5 49.0 27.9 24.2 55.7
Source: California Department of Education

322

Figure M1: Goose Creek Intermediate School Demographic Data

Source: California Department of Education

Assessment Data
Goose Creek Intermediate has experienced a 28-point API gain over the last
five years (California Department of Education, 2010). As we examine each year’s
data more closely, it is evident that the school’s performance has oscillated each
year, and each gain has been followed by a slight decline. The most recent state
accountability report shows a 3-point API increase in 2009-10 to an API score of
768, four points lower than the school’s highest API Score of 772 achieved in 2007-
08. Based upon this data, it is clear that the school has made an overall
improvement in student achievement over the last five years. However, the school’s
inability to meet all 21 of their AYP targets over the last three years has resulted in
the school being placed in Year 2 of PI. And while many other schools with similar
demographics have been in PI for three or more years, the principal reported that it is
humbling to know that we have not met our AYP targets for three years running. It
should be noted that the school has received numerous accolades over the last five

323

years including the Model Title I School Award and the AVID Award for
Excellence.
Figure M2: Goose Creek Intermediate School Academic Performance Index Data
(2006-2010)

Source: California Department of Education

English Language Arts Performance
As illustrated in Figure M3 below, Goose Creek Intermediate has shown
improvements in all subgroups over the last five years in ELA, except with their EL
population. The school’s greatest improvements over the last five years were made
with their Hispanic (4%), Asian (5%),, and SED (4%) student populations.
However, the drop in performance of their EL population in ELA of 5.9% is
concerning. While one may assume that this type of a drop could be explained by
significant changes in demographics, it appears that this is not the case. In 2006,
when EL performance in ELA was around 41% proficient or above, there were
approximately 574 students that were identified as EL at Goose Creek Intermediate.

324

In 2010, this number had dropped to 494 students, a number that is much more
manageable to educate than the numbers seen in 2006, and potentially should have
resulted in higher performance. Although the school has made progress with many
of their significant subgroups, the school’s Hispanic, SED and EL populations did
not meet their 2009-10 AYP targets causing the school remain in PI.
Figure M3: Goose Creek Intermediate English Language Arts Percent Proficient or
Above

Source: California Department of Education

Mathematics Performance

Over the last five years, Math achievement at Goose CreekIntermediate has
decreased in all subgroups. The schoolwide achievement has decreased by 5%, and
the Asian, Hispanic and White subgroups have all decreased by 2%, 4%, and 34%
respectively. It should be noted that the White subgroup only makes up 2% of the
school’s total population and has been added for comparison purposes only. In

325

addtion, the SED subgroup has decreased as well going from 42% proficient or
above in 2006 to 37% proficent or above in 2010, a drop of 5%. This trend is
clearly alarming, but the principal feels that they will be able to change this trend
with all of the new strategies the school and district have implemented over the last
three years. In addition, the decrease in the performance of the EL subgroup is again
concerning and must be addressed by school and district officials. The Hispanic,
SED, EL and schoolwide subgroups did not meet their AYP math targets during the
2009-10 school year. Figure M4 provides a detailed picture of each subgroups
performance over the last five years.
Figure M4: Goose Creek Intermediate Math Percent Proficient or Above
Source: California Department of Education

Educational Improvement Process

Improving student achievement can be one of the most daunting challenges
any school decides to take on (Reeves, 2005). However, there is growing evidence,
often striking, that schools today have much more control over their performance

326

issues/problems than many believe (Darling-Hammond, 1997, Marzano, 2003,
Odden & Archibald, 2009, Shmoker, 1999). In fact, Odden and Archibald (2009)
argue that there are very specific strategies that schools can employ to drastically
improve student achievement, regardless of demographics or challenges. Odden &
Archibald (2009) have created a set of ten strategies that schools can use to
significantly improve the learning outcomes for students. In addition to the
framework and strategies described by Odden and Archibald, the Evidence-Based
Model (EBM) of resource allocation will be utilized to carefully examine the
alignment between school goals, strategies employed, and resources used to improve
performance at Goose Creek Intermediate School.
Understanding the Performance Problem
Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that in order for any school to
significantly improve, they must carefully examine their current reality as it relates to
student achievement. In addition, schools should conduct curriculum audits to
determine what is being emphasized in classrooms. The principal of Goose Creek
reported that a sense of urgency was created by the outside pressures of NCLB (the
school is in Year 2 of PI), and the internal pressures to improve the performance of
their EL, Hispanic, and SED student populations. According to the principal of
Goose Creek, the school community (staff, parents, students) has undergone both a
philosophical and cultural shift over the last few years. This shift has resulted in
teachers adopting a philosophy that all students can achieve at high levels if the
school does what is necessary to get them there. The principal stated that the staff

327

has really bought into the mantra of “Believe, Achieve, Succeed” which has been
one of his key messages during the reform effort.
Another key strategies in creating a sense of urgency has also been to
carefully examine the school’s CST data. While the school has been repeatedly
recognized for its performance, achievement has not met the staff’s expectations. In
addition, the principal reported that being identified as a Year 2 PI school has a way
of motivating you to do better. In a follow-up interview with the principal, he
reported that this year the staff is highly motivated to improve student achievement
and is working harder than ever to improve.
Set Ambitious Goals
One of the most significant things any school can do is set specific goals to
improve performance. As indicated by the principal, one of the most significant
goals that truly changed the culture of not only Goose Creek, but of all intermediate
schools in the entire district, was that all students leaving intermediate school would
be prepared to begin high school on the A-G California University and California
State University track. This shift required all intermediate school students to take
Algebra I in 8
th
grade. The principal reported that the District played a key role in
facilitating this effort. In addition, the District stopped offering any high school
courses that did not help students meet the A-G requirements. This shift required
Goose Creek to carefully examine their own program offerings, and move in a
direction that would ultimately result in more students being prepared for college
upon high school graduation.

328

In addition to the goal of improving A-G completion, the principal reported
that the alignment of resources, professional development, curriculum, instruction
and assessment to meeting other goals has been significant to the school’s reform
effort. He noted that the 7-12 education office at the District has done a tremendous
job of providing schools with not only the ideas for new initiatives, but also with the
support (both for administrators and teachers) resulting in better implementation at
the site level. Current school goals are built on a growth model (taking students
from one performance band on the CSTs to the next), which makes improving
student achievement more realistic and attainable. Therefore, instead of just looking
at the overall proficiency of students each year (which can be misinterpreted based
upon the performance of the students entering the school in 7
th
grade), the District
expects schools to raise each student’s performance by one level a year. In short, if a
student entered 7
th
grade as a Far Below Basic in Math, the District expects the site
to move the student to Below Basic by the end of 7
th
grade. This type of a model
would result in all students that have been in the District for four years scoring at the
proficient level.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
The effort to improve the learning outcomes for the students at Goose Creek
Intermediate required the school and district to carefully examine the curriculum
guides, assessments, and instructional materials being used at the site. Over the last
five years, there have been numerous new textbook and curriculum adoptions for all
of the intermediate schools in the district, including Goose Creek Intermediate. In

329

recent years, the District has adopted new science, social science, and math
textbooks. Although the District desires to adopt new ELA textbooks, the State’s
fiscal crisis has prevented them from moving forward in this area. Instead of a new
adoption, the school has purchased new teacher resources that are aligned with the
current ELA adoption, which has provided opportunities for teachers to take
advantage of newly developed lesson ideas and increased technology pieces.
With the purchase of newly adopted materials, all of which are standards-
based and aligned to the recently created curriculum maps/guides and assessments,
the school has also implemented a new instructional vision. The new vision stated
that all students have the ability to go to college. The principal reported that this
effort was in perfect alignment with the school’s mantra of “Believe, Achieve,
Succeed.” With the District goal of every student will completing the UC and CSU
A-G requirements, Goose Creek had to respond by adding more pre-Algebra and
Algebra I sections in the master schedule, as well as companion and support classes
to help students successfully complete Algebra I in 8
th
grade. The traditional non-
academic electives were replaced with math and ELA support courses that provided
students with additional time and instruction. The principal reported that by
providing students with the necessary support, the school’s vision of all students
achieving became possible.
In addition to the work that is discussed above, the principal reported that
there was still the need to implement an instructional framework that would allow
teachers to discuss and critique instruction. Three years ago, the District began the

330

implementation of Nancy Fisher and Doug Frey’s (2009) Gradual Release of
Responsibility Instructional Model. The model is a modification of Madeline
Hunter’s Seven Step Lesson Plan. By using a common model of core components of
good instruction, teachers could conduct observations of each other, and principals
would have a framework to discuss both observations and evaluations. It provided
the school with a common definition of the core components of good instruction.
And while the principal believes that they still have a long way to go with
instruction, the checking for understanding, constructing meaning, academic
language and student collaboration pieces of the GRR have been critical to
improving student engagement and student achievement. He added that he sees
teachers using the information gained from the previous day’s “tickets out the door”
(a quick checking for understanding strategy that is widely used at Goose Creek) to
plan the next day’s instruction. This shift has resulted in teachers responding more
appropriately to their students’ needs, resulting in higher levels of learning. The
principal also reported that the support of the central office has been a key in the
reform effort of all of the schools in the District. And while district office mandates
often have a negative connotation in education, he feels that the dual approach to
reform (site and district working together) has been a key factor that so many schools
in the District have been identified as a 10 in the Similar Schools Rankings published
each year by the California Department of Education.

331

Formative Assessments and Data-Based Decision Making
The use of common formative and summative assessments and data-based
decision making are two of the hottest topics in educational research today (DuFour,
2006; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Reeves, 2005; 2009). Goose Creek Intermediate
has implemented both throughout their recent reform effort. With regards to the use
of formative assessments, the District has developed and implemented benchmarks
in all core areas in 2006-07. These assessments are administered each quarter and
allow teachers to compare the performance of their students with the performance of
other teachers throughout their school and the District. The benchmarks are
progress-monitoring tests that assess student mastery of grade level standards and are
aligned with the CST Blueprints and District curriculum guides. The principal
indicated that the administration of the district benchmarks and the ensuing
discussions that occur with his teachers on student progress have been an
instrumental process to the school’s growth.
In addition to the data from the district benchmarks, the school also carefully
examines CST data each year looking for areas of growth and/or decline. CST data
provides the school with the necessary information to review current school
goals/priorities and adjust accordingly. The principal stated that the staff looks at
each CST strand closely to see where they should put additional resources.
Furthermore, the careful disaggregation of each subgroup’s data is also a large part
of the school’s improvement effort. While the school has made progress with each
subgroup over the last five years in ELA, the EL subgroup has declined. This is an

332

alarming trend that has forced the District and school to work toward improving the
performance of this subgroup by providing additional staff development in this area.
In addition, the overall decline in CST scores of the schools math program has really
forced the staff at Goose Creek to reevaluate everything that they do with
curriculum, instruction, assessment, and intervention.
Goose Creek also uses common site assessments in all of the core areas.
When the principal took over at Goose Creek four years ago, there were already
Goose Creek benchmarks in place. He added that Goose Creek was one of the first
schools in the District to use common site assessments. Today, Goose Creek
administers common site assessments at the five-week mark of each quarter.
However, these assessments are not in a data management system, and the teachers
do not engage in data conversations after each site assessment. The principal added
that he is hopeful that teachers will use tools like Data Director more often in the
future. He added that he is very hopeful that teachers will respond more effectively
after these assessments are administered.
Ongoing Intensive Professional Development
Professional development has been a major priority at Goose Creek
Intermediate School. In fact, the District has a comprehensive professional
development department/team that has created a professional development calendar
allowing principals the ability to send teachers to numerous trainings throughout the
year. The principal discussed that the District’s decision to provide all professional
development in-house has been instrumental in improving teacher practice. Instead

333

of providing teachers with various external professional development opportunities,
the District has conducted extensive research in various areas of professional
development (instruction, assessment, motivation, student engagement, etc…)
prepared internal trainers, hired external experts (Myron Dembo, Nancy Fisher), and
provided the necessary coaching and support to help teachers improve.
The principal indicated that for years teachers would attend training, and
never use any of the strategies or skills learned in the training. By prescribing to a
district-wide set of strategies, it has allowed teachers to attend trainings and receive
follow-up coaching and mentoring from District coaches that have been hired for the
sole purpose of improving instruction. This practice has also proven that the District
is not interested in the newest fad or program, and instead believes in having a laser-
like focus on achievement and improvement. The principal also reported that one of
the most significant contributions made by the District during the school’s reform
effort, has been to build the capacity of the staff at Goose Creek. In addition, the
principal believes that the District’s practice of matching a reform initiative such as
the GRR instructional model with training and follow-up support is unbelievable.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
During Goose Creek Intermediate’s recent improvement efforts, they have
carefully examined how they effectively and efficiently use time to improve student
learning and achievement. As stated above, the school began offering more
academic electives such as AVID, companion courses (support courses in math and
ELA) and Academy, all of which provide students with the additional support and

334

instruction needed to be successful in the school’s core program. In addition, the
school has changed the amount of time and instruction given to seventh graders in
social studies and science. All seventh grade students receive one semester of life
science and one semester of social studies. This shift in the master schedule allows
students to be enrolled in an additional support period in math and ELA if needed.
For example, if a student was not proficient in math or ELA, they could take pre-
algebra with an additional support class, as well as an on grade level ELA class
(heterogeneous) with an additional support class dependent upon need
(homogenous). The principal reported that this change has helped non-proficient
students attain proficiency because they are getting the resources they need to be
successful
The bell schedule provides 50 minutes of instruction each period. For the
typical seventh grader, they receive two periods of math, two periods of ELA, one
period of social science/science (semester of each), one period of Physical
Education, and one period of elective (academic or arts related). For the typical 8
th

grader, they receive one period of ELA for proficient students and two periods for
non-proficient students, one period of math for proficient students and two periods of
math for non-proficient students, a period PE, a period of science, a period of social
studies, and an elective if they are proficient in math. In addition, the elective
offerings are mostly academic (AVID, Academic Lab) as the school believes
preparing students to begin their A-G requirements in 9
th
grade is essential to each
student’s future. And while some outside of the school may criticize the

335

overwhelming focus on academics, the principal believes that students have
numerous opportunities to take more traditional electives in high school, but students
never get another chance to begin their high school academic careers.
Extending Learning Time for Struggling Students
One of the most critical components to improving the learning outcomes for
struggling students involves the provision of additional time and support. While the
additional time and support noted in the previous section is admirable, the school has
not made significant gains over the last two years, and must begin to examine how
they can provide students with additional time and support, especially for the EL
student population. At the current time, the school offers an after school program, in
coordination with the Boys’ and Girls’ Club, that provides students with “a place to
go” and get support in their classes. In addition, the school is able to offer after
school interventions through the state intervention funds. However, it has found that
getting students to attend has proved challenging and attendance has not been as
good as they had hoped.
The school also offers a summer school program for students that are not
proficient. However, the length of their summer school is only two weeks for two
hours a day and is not mandatory. Therefore, only students that want to participate
in summer school benefit from it. In addition, the length of summer school is not
long enough to make up the deficits that many of their EL, Hispanic and SED
students display during the regular school year. If the school truly wants to make
extended learning opportunities a priority, they have to look at lengthening the time

336

that these students are engaged in instruction as there is only so much that can be
done for students that are significantly behind during a normal instructional day.
Collaborative Professional Culture
According to the principal, Mt. Woodson has an extremely professional and
collaborative culture. The school began the implementation of PLCs four years ago,
and collaboration has improved in each subsequent year. Teachers regularly plan
instruction together and have weekly opportunities work with site coaches in a co-
plan co-teach model. In addition, the school has an early release every other
Wednesday for teachers to work together to plan and discuss instruction and student
learning. At the current time, teachers use the data from the CST and district
benchmarks to assess the effectiveness of their instruction. The principal reported
that most teachers truly believe that assessment and collaboration are both critical to
the mission of every student being prepared to meet begin their high school careers
in A-G classes. And while the school’s leadership openly admits that there is
significant room for improved collaboration, teachers are collaborating more than
ever before.
The principal reported that the District has also done a great job of improving
collaboration amongst the intermediate schools. The District regularly brings
teachers from each of the intermediate schools together to address specific problems
in each core subject, as well as certain targeted subgroups such as SED or EL
students. In addition, the District uses these opportunities to provide ongoing and
targeted professional development based upon the expressed needs of the teachers

337

and the data from district benchmarks and CSTs. This model has resulted in an
overall improvement in the attitudes of teachers toward professional development, as
well as better alignment between school goals and staff training.
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
According to the principal, the school has a culture of shared decision-
making and site-based leadership. In addition to the administrative team (principal,
assistant principal, and counselor), the school also has department chairs that provide
input and assistance in leading the school forward. Department chairs also act as
instructional coaches (these teachers have received extensive training in coaching
paid for by the district) for the rest of the teachers in the department. This model
exemplifies the school’s commitment to instructional improvement, and ultimately
improved student achievement.
As already mentioned in previous sections, the school has also implemented
PLCs. During PLC time, instruction and student learning are regularly discussed.
As part of these discussions, teachers use data to discuss proven instructional
practices. In addition, the administrative team regularly attends PLC meetings,
resulting in a school-wide culture of shared instructional leadership. The principal
indicated that PLC meetings often result in teachers identifying problems and
coming up with solutions the recognized needs that needs. This culture allows the
principal to respond to teachers by providing the resources needed to solve the
problem.

338

Professional and Best Practices
While the implementation and regular use of best practices are a key part of
the PLC model, schools also have to respond to staff needs with training from
external experts. Odden and Archibald (2009) argue that exemplary schools use
evidence from research, advice from experts, and work together in teams to
significantly improve performance. Mt. Woodson uses both internal and external
experts on a regular basis. Principals attend regular staff development, provided by
the District, from some of the most widely recognized experts in education. Some of
these experts include: Nancy Fisher and Doug Frey (GRR), Myron Dembo (Student
Motivation), Sandra Kaplan (Depth and Complexity Icons), and Doug Reeves
(School Leadership) to name a few. In addition, the principal acknowledged that
most of his teachers have also participated in staff development on instructional
delivery, planning, assessment, student engagement and motivation by the experts
listed above. Furthermore, the District has done a tremendous job of providing each
site with an instructional coach (one-day a week), and trained site coaches
(department chairs), to help facilitate the sharing of best practices and strategies.
Tables M.2 and M.3 provide the summary data of Odden’s (2009) TSFDSP and
Odden and Picus’ (2008) EBM for Goose Creek Intermediate School.

339

Table M2: Goose Creek Intermediate and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance
Implementation Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge
X
The school has made progress in
improving learning outcomes, but
growth in ELA has been moderate and
has declined in math. However, there
is a clear focus on student achievement
Set ambitious goals
X

More than 90% of students take
Algebra I in 8
th
Grade, and all students
are prepared to begin the District
adopted A-G high school track in 9
th

grade.
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
X
The school has implemented the GRR
instructional framework, and
purchased new materials to support
instruction.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

X
The district has benchmark
assessments in Data Director and the
school has written site assessments
that are administered four times per
year in each core area. Site
assessments are not in Data Director.
Ongoing PD

X
District PD calendar. Schoolwide
strategies to instructional
improvement.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively
X
Student scheduling is need based.
Students that are not proficient are
provided with additional time and
support during the day. Teachers
teach bell to bell.
Extended learning
time for struggling
students

X
The school does not have a significant
after school intervention program.
Summer school is two weeks for 2 hrs
per day.
Collaborative,
professional culture
X
Teachers collaborate on instruction
twice per month. They do not have
enough assessment data to drive future
instruction.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
X
Teachers are included in the decision-
making. In addition, department
chairs act as site coaches, helping their
colleagues along the way.
Professional and best
practices
X

The school has implemented a number
of instructional strategies that have
proven efficacy such as Thinking
Maps, Depth and Complexity icons,
GRR, and Cornell Notes

340

Table M3: Goose Creek Intermediate and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use
Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Middle School
Goose Creek
Intermediate
Current Resource
Status
Goose Creek
Intermediate
Based on
Prototypical
Model
School Size 6-8; 450 Students 7-8; 897 1.99%
Class Size 25 27 25
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days
for intensive PD
training
185, includes 5 days
for teacher planning
200, includes 10
days for intensive
PD training
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 2.0 FTE 2.0 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
1.0 FTE Clerical
3.5 FTE 4.0 FTE
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 18.0 FTE 20.6 FTE 36 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 7.1 FTE 7.2 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.25 FTE 0.2 FTE 4.5 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students; 2.25
1.2 FTE 7.8 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100
EL students: .45
2.0 FTE 4.7 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 1 FTE 3.6 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 2 FTE 3.6 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
2.1 FTE 6 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
1 FTE 100% state
reimbursement
minus federal funds

341

Table M3, Continued
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Middle School
Goose Creek
Intermediate
Current Resource
Status
Goose Creek
Intermediate
Based on
Prototypical
Model
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$6405.00 $45,360
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100
poverty students: 2.25
4.2 FTE 7.8 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0 FTE 4.0 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 7.6 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE 0 FTE 2.0 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student $0 $22,425
Technology $250 per pupil $0 $224,250
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $7597.00 $125,580
Student Activities $200 per pupil $0 $179,400
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for
other PD expenses -
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc. not
included above
$9,034.00 $89,700

Summary and Lessons Learned
Goose Creek Intermediate School has made significant progress toward
improving the learning outcomes for students that have historically been
underserved. The increase in the number of students that attended Goose Creek in
7
th
and 8
th
grade and then go on to complete the UC and CSU A-G requirements is
simply impressive. The school has arguably implemented all of Odden’s 10
strategies for doubling student achievement, and continueså to raise achievement.

342

Goose Creek remains in the top 10% of schools with similar demographics and
remains committed to improving the learning outcomes and future options for the
students they serve.
• The school sets specific goals that focus on improving the future
opportunities for all students by preparing each student to begin a high
school program on the A-G CSU/UC college track.
• Goose Creek Intermediate has adopted and aligned the their core
curriculum with the District created and adopted curriculum. The
district’s curriculum/pacing guide is aligned to the standards and CST
Blueprints in all CST assessed areas.
• The District has an impressive professional development plan that is
clearly aligned with site and district goals. External experts have been
used to launch initiatives in the areas of student engagement and
motivation, instructional planning and delivery, peer coaching, and
collaboration.
• District benchmarks (administered four times each year in all core areas)
provide teachers with the necessary data to respond appropriately to
student learning/progress on grade level standards. In addition, it allows
individual sites the ability to compare their students’ progress with other
schools in the District.
• The school has implemented and participated in a PLC model for monthly
collaboration between teachers. These meetings allow departments to
determine needs and improve internally.
• Students are provided with additional time and support during the
instructional day and students are reassessed every 9 weeks and
appropriately regrouped. Core classes are heterogeneous and support
classes in ELA and math are homogenous.
• All students are provided with a rigorous standards-based curriculum that
is at or above grade level.
• The principal and district leadership provide the school with a culture of
continuous improvement and professionalism.
By implementing these programs Goose Creek Intermediate has been able to
consistently raise student achievement and perform in the top ten percent of schools
with similar demographics and/or challenges.

343

Future Considerations
Future considerations for Goose Creek Intermediate would include additional
resources to lower the teacher-student ratios in classes other than math and ELA
where class sizes can be as high as 35:1. In addition, the lengthening of the
instructional day for students from a 6 hour day to an 8 hour day would provide
students with the additional time needed to meet school and district goals.
Furthermore, the lengthening of the school year would provide all students with the
time and support needed to attain proficiency. It would also decrease the amount lost
learning that typically occurs with a 12-week summer. Another factor to consider
would be the implementation of daily collaboration time for teachers to plan
instruction based upon the previous day’s learning. This would provide teachers
with the necessary time to provide flexible and targeted instruction to all of the
students they serve. These considerations would all require additional resources to
pay people for a longer workday, additional instructional days, and to hire more staff
to reduce class sizes.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study selected a purposeful sample of six intermediate/middle schools in Southern California with a Similar Schools Ranking of 10, as identified by the California Department of Education. Using a case study approach, principal interviews, student achievement data, and site resources were analyzed to better understand the improvement and resource allocation strategies each school employed over the last five years. Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based Model (EBM) for resource allocation, and Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance were used as frameworks to view and analyze each school’s reform efforts.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

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

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

PDF

Aligning educational resources and strategies to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model

PDF

Allocation of resources and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California Title I Program Improvement middle schools

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 five California schools

PDF

Resource allocation practices in start-up charter schools in relation to identified school reform strategies

PDF

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

PDF

School level resource allocation to improve student performance: A case study of Orange County and Los Angeles County Title I elementary schools

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools

PDF

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

PDF

Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution

PDF

The allocation of resources at the school level to improve learning for struggling readers: What is adequate?

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation practices in relation to identified school reform strategies

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Johnson, Mark Steven (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/22/2011

Defense Date 02/02/2011

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

Tag Academic Achievement,Educational Leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation,school improvement,school reform

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 hbhoops@socal.rr.com,marksjoh@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3692

Unique identifier UC162887

Identifier etd-Johnson-4385 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-453346 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3692 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Johnson-4385.pdf

Dmrecord 453346

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Johnson, Mark Steven

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