University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content ALLOCATION OF EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO
IMPROVE STUDENT LEARNING:
CASE STUDIES OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS
by
Megan Marie Bryant
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2009
Copyright 2009 Megan Marie Bryant
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my precious family and friends. A special feeling of
gratitude to my greatest supporter, my future husband Paul, whose encouragement,
patience and love spurred me on throughout the process. To my parents, Cheryl and
Steve, whose love for and belief in me is always apparent.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. Lawrence O. Picus
Dr. Dennis Hocevar
Dr. John Nelson
Dr. Gib Hentshke
Members of this Thematic Dissertation Group:
Alicia, Sherry, Debbie, Chris and Patricia
My Orange County Cohort, which has always been supportive and encouraging
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication
Acknowledgments
List of Tables
Abstract
Chapter I: Overview of the Study
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Importance of the Study
Methodology
Limitations and Delimitations
Definitions
Chapter II: Literature Review
Educational Adequacy
California School Finance
Resource Use
Best Practices for Improving Performance
Conclusions
Chapter III: Methodology
Problem and Research Questions
Design Summary
Participation and Setting
Instrumentation and Data Collection Methods
Data Analysis and Reporting
Chapter VI: Results
School Resource Indicators
School Resource Use
District Description
Summary of Results
Chapter V: Conclusions
Summary of School Resource Use Results
Summary of Instructional Improvement Strategies
ii
iii
vi
vii
1
1
5
5
6
6
7
8
8
12
12
23
29
43
48
49
49
50
51
54
57
59
59
60
67
70
72
73
75
v
Analysis and Conclusions
Recommendations
Implications for Future Research
Summary
References
Appendices
Appendix A: Open-Ended Data Collection
Protocol
Appendix B: Data Collection Protocol
Appendix C: Data Collection Codebook
Appendix D: Case Studies
Goodison High School
Stamford Bridge High School
White Hart Lane High School
Villa Park High School
Craven Cottage High School
Old Trafford High School
79
83
84
85
87
94
97
107
116
117
139
160
182
203
224
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Evidence-Based Model Recommendations
for Prototypical Schools
Table 2.2: School Expenditure Structure and Resource
Indicators
Table 3.1: Sample School API, Ranks & CST
Proficiency Levels
Table 4.1: Comparison of Sample Schools and Evidence
Based Model Allocations of Core and
Elective/Specialist Teachers (FTEs)
Table 4.2: Average School-Level Resource Use in Full
Time Equivalencies (FTEs)
Table 5.1: Average School-Level Resource Use in Full
Time Equivalencies (FTEs)
20
36
51
63
71
74
vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine how six comprehensive, public high
schools in California utilized resources and implemented instructional strategies to
organize, prioritize and plan for improved student performance. This study applied the
Evidence-Based Model as a framework for collecting school expenditure data and
analyzing what instructional and expenditure improvements schools can make in order to
operate more effectively for students and improve student achievement.
Six high school principals were interviewed and data were collected regarding the
instructional strategies of the school, resource use practices in the school, the degree of
alignment between instructional strategies and resource use and practices that appeared to
be more associated with student academic improvement. Data collected were compared
to the Evidence-Based Model. All data were reviewed and a case study for each school
was written. Data in the case studies were then analyzed and formed the basis for the
conclusions of this study.
Several conclusions were reached in this study. In comparison to the model, all
sample schools are allocating resources below the levels that the Evidence-Based Model
recommends in all staffing categories. It was determined that schools in this study are
still allocating resources in a traditional manner. However, there were definite signs of
each sample school developing specific programs to improve student achievement. Such
programs included more extended day support for struggling students, adjusting the bell
schedule to include support classes and block scheduling and the adoption of specific
curriculum programs designed to improve student achievement in the core areas of
viii
English and Mathematics. Based on the findings, recommendations included providing
adequate funding to increase the number of core and specialist/elective teachers,
developing successful extended day programs with certificated tutors, providing more
professional development opportunities for teachers and administrators and developing
additional support classes for struggling student subgroups.
1
CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Every year, public school districts in California are responsible for providing a
free education to more than six million kindergarten through twelfth grade students. The
media pays close attention to how these students perform and what districts are high
performing and low performing. What seems to rarely garner much attention is the fiscal
health of California school districts in relation to student performance. Now in a time of
financial crisis, schools, state policy makers, administrators, teachers and students are
getting a lot of attention. How are these current inequities in funding going to effect the
quality education that public schools are supposed to provide? It is important for schools
and districts to evaluate what instructional practices, personnel, intervention strategies
and other resources significantly influence student achievement. It is vital for schools to
make every dollar count.
Today’s fiscal crisis is not the first one that California has faced. California’s
finance system has evolved through a combination of various court cases, legislative
actions, voter initiatives and government regulations. During the late 20
th
century and the
early 21
st
century, many stakeholders have continued to debate how to successfully
reform school systems in the United States while still meeting the expectations of equity
and adequacy in each state (Hanushek, 2006). These discussions have focused on public
school financing and it became a common frustration within reform efforts that the
inequities in funding make it difficult for states, districts and schools to provide a quality
education and an equal education to all students. There are numerous court cases that
2
exemplify the dissatisfaction with public school funding over the last forty years and also
illustrate how funding and practices have shifted from equity in education to adequacy in
education.
Serrano v. Priest (1971, 1976, 1977) in California played a significant role in the
revision of school finance by arguing that the financing structure in California was a
violation of equal protection, because under that system, per-pupil expenditures varied
greatly and depended on a school district’s tax base. In Robinson v. Cahill (1973) the
Supreme Court found the school finance system in New Jersey to be in violation of the
state’s educational code relating to an efficient system of education, noting significant
disparities in school funding. Furthermore, ACE v. Hunt (1993) in Alabama found
equality in the spending across the districts, but the majority of students were performing
at the bottom on achievement tests compared to the rest of the United States. This case
brought to the forefront the shift from equity in education to adequacy in education.
Courts now hold that not only must students have an equitable opportunity through
equitable funding, but student performance must also be impacted by the educational
system (adequacy).
Currently, stakeholders are not only facing accountability with educational equity
issues, but are also now being held accountable for student performance. The No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act is federal legislation that requires each state to establish
minimum performance standards all students must achieve by the year 2014. School
accountability is now focused on student performance in relations to becoming proficient
on the performance standards, and as a result, educators, policy makers and stakeholders
3
are seeing a shift from equity models to adequacy models (Clune, 1994). This shift in
thinking and practice is reviewed by Rebell (2007) who analyzes the different adequacy
studies that have been prepared in over thirty states. The common goal of these studies
was to determine objectively the amount of funding needed to provide all students a
meaningful opportunity for an adequate education. Rebell (2007) concludes that these
studies are vast improvements over past equity and adequacy studies, but there is still a
significant need to develop “quality education models” that can be used to determine the
adequate funding needed to educate all students to high performance standards.
Over more recent years, more focus and effort has been given to developing
models of adequacy that schools and districts can use to inform resource allocation and
educational practices. There are currently four models that are used to determine
adequate school funding in relation to student achievement: (1) the successful district
approach, (2) the cost function approach, (3) the professional judgment approach, and (4)
the evidence-based approach (Odden & Picus, 2008). Detailed descriptions and analyses
of each approach will be provided in chapter two.
While some argue that models are not capable of determining what funding and
allocation it would take to educate every student to high performance standards, others
have used adequacy models in several states and have had great success. Specifically, the
evidence-based model identifies the components and funding necessary to provide a
quality education to all students (Odden & Picus, 2008). This approach is based on best
practices that have been identified as successful in most school reform efforts throughout
4
the years (Odden & Picus, 2008). States where this model has been applied and has been
successful include Arkansas, Wyoming, Wisconsin and Washington.
California has yet to apply an adequacy model to aid in reforming current
allocation of educational resources and current instruction practices. What has California
done to improve resource allocation and student achievement? In response to the
landmark report, “A Nation at Risk” California implemented a system of accountability
to measure and rank schools on annual student achievement gains. California now ranks
amongst the highest in terms of the rigorous standards it has developed for students to
achieve per NCLB. Since the implementation of the rigorous standards, California has
focused attention on groups of students who face particular challenges. These groups of
students have made steady achievement gains and there are schools with very diverse
student populations that are making extraordinary gains in student achievement scores.
This progress is positive and consistent, but California schools are still having
trouble educating all students to the highest level. What are the challenges that are still
inhibiting schools from making significant gains in student achievement? Is it a lack of
funding or a complex system that needs reform? It is probably both, especially in light of
the current draconian budget cuts. At the height of this fiscal crisis, California districts
and schools will need to find ways to most effectively and efficiently use their resources
to ensure all students are being educated to proficiency on the rigorous state academic
standards.
5
Statement of the Problem
State, district and school funding is always changing. Policy makers and
educators are challenged to determine what levels of funding lead to an equitable and
adequate education as measured by student performance. Districts and schools continue
to receive state funding and implement new instructional methods and student
intervention programs in an effort to improve student learning. Schools are then held
directly responsible for how these resources are being used and how students are
performing on standardized tests. With the lack of research on what school-level resource
allocation methods are being used and what methods are most effective, schools are left
on their own to figure out what most positively impacts student achievement.
The evidence-based model provides researchers with an effective method to
collect and analyze resource allocation data at the school level (Odden & Picus, 2008).
There is a lack of research on whether or not California schools are using adequacy
models to direct how they allocate their resources. Thus, it is important to research
California schools at the school-site level to help discover if schools are aligning
instructional improvement strategies and resource allocation strategies to foster
significant improvements in student performance. Applying the evidence-based model to
California schools could significantly help inform future practice and improvements in
student achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to provide a school level analysis of resource
allocation practices and/or instructional improvement strategies that are associated with
6
significant gains in student achievement. The specific goals this study strives to
understand include: (1) Developing a better understanding of what resources schools use
to improve learning, and (2) Developing a better understanding of the links between
resources and student performance. In developing these understandings, this study will
ultimately provide school and district administrators with knowledge about research-
based practices concerning how to reallocate resources to make dramatic improvements
in student performance.
Research Questions
This study will address the following research questions:
1. What are the current instructional improvement strategies observed at the
school level?
2. How are the actual resource patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies that are used in the evidence-
based model?
3. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
4. How does the availability of resources affect the development and
implementation of the instructional improvement plan?
Importance of the Study
This study will contribute to the body of research regarding the allocation of
resources at the school level as it relates to significant increases in student performance.
7
This study will provide California policy makers and stakeholders with valuable
information regarding the school-level resources needed to provide an equal, effective
and quality education to all students. This study will also inform district and school
administrators of the support and resources necessary at the school level to improve
student achievement. Furthermore, this study will provide school sites and practitioners
with valuable information regarding what specific research based instructional strategies
improve student achievement and how to allocate resources to implement these types of
successful instructional programs.
Methodology
This is a new knowledge study and will utilize both qualitative and quantitative
methods. Using these approaches, multiple sets of data will be gathered from a
purposeful sample of six comprehensive public high schools from the same district in San
Diego County. With a mixed-methods research approach, the goal is to collect
information that will facilitate understanding the instructional strategy or vision of the
sample schools and the corresponding allocation of resources that support that
instructional vision. Data collection instruments will include interview protocols and
corresponding codebooks that outline the types of qualitative and quantitative data to be
collected.
Qualitative data providing information about the sample school’s instructional
strategies/vision will be collected through in-person interviews and the data will be
processed through written case studies of each sample school. Interviews will be
conducted with the school principal and district administration and will include open-
8
ended questions focusing on understanding each school’s and district’s instructional
vision and how that vision was implemented. Quantitative data associated with school
allocation of current resources and student achievement will be collected to help
determine how personnel and other resources are allocated to support the instructional
improvement strategy/vision. The analysis of the data will help the researcher understand
the links between school resource allocation, school instructional improvement strategies
and student achievement.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study will include only ten comprehensive high schools within the state of
California. Although this study and sample is part of a larger study within California (to
obtain a total of about 100 sample schools), generalizations may be limited to California
and the sample schools participating. Furthermore, California has a unique resource
funding system and average school size is higher compared to most other states. Thus the
results may only be generalizable to California schools of similar demographics and
school size. In addition, the resource data being used is limited to expenditures for the
2007-2008 school year and is also limited to the resource data accessible to sample site
administrators.
Definitions
This section will provide operational definitions as a means to promote clarity and
common understanding of the concepts related to school finance and the concepts related
directly to the methodology, data analysis and summary of this study. More detailed
definitions of the elements relating to this study will be provided in Chapter 2.
9
1. Adequacy: the cost to educate all students to high performance levels.
2. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Under the federal law No Child Left
Behind (2001), schools and districts must report student annual progress
toward proficiency standards in English and Mathematics. Progress is
based on the following measures: annual measurable objective, percent
participation on standardized tests, academic performance index targets,
and graduation rates.
3. Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): Percentage of students whose state
test results classify them as proficient or advanced each year as
determined by NCLB.
4. Average Daily Attendance (ADA): Includes the daily average number of
students attending school and is calculated by dividing the total number of
days of student attendance by the total number of days in the school year.
5. California Standardized Tests (CST): Includes tests in the core content
areas of English/language arts, mathematics, history/social science and/or
science based on the academic content standards in these subject areas for
California. These tests make-up the core of California’s Standardized
Testing and Reporting Program (STAR).
6. Categorical funding: Federal and state funds designated for specific
programs and specific subgroups of students.
7. Certificated employees: Faculty and staff holding specific state
credentials.
10
8. Coaching: Certificated faculty, supporting teachers with ongoing active
learning opportunities.
9. Cost function approach: method used to identify the amount the average
district would need to spend to achieve the identified performance
standards.
10. Effective professional development: Professional development that
improves teachers’ classroom instructional practices, and can be linked to
improvements in student learning.
11. English learner: Designation for students not yet proficient enough to
access and learn from the mainstreamed, regular instructional programs at
a school. English language proficiency is assessed annually.
12. Equity: providing all students with an equal educational program
13. Evidence-based approach: method used to identify the school-level
components necessary to improve student performance levels.
14. Expenditures: money that is spent on educational services.
15. Free and reduced price lunch: program providing meals to low-income
students.
16. General fund: Federal and state funds allocated for general use and not
for specific programs or subgroups of students.
17. No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which in 2001, requires that all
11
students be proficient on state standardized tests, making annual yearly
progress towards school proficiency goals.
18. Professional judgment approach: research method utilizing input from
educational experts in order to identify a set of resources and strategies
that educate students to identified performance levels.
19. Professional learning community: groups of school staff members
working collaboratively around a common vision for student achievement
and improving instruction, using data to inform shared decision making.
20. Successful district approach: method used to identify districts that have
achieved identified standards and estimate the cost of providing the
resources used to achieve those standards
12
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
There are many topics that relate to improving public education and the finances
required to make such improvements. This chapter will provide an overview of the
literature relating to these topics. The review is divided into five sections. These sections
include: (1) educational adequacy, (2) California school finance, (3) resource use, (4) best
practices for improving performance, and (5) conclusions. These topics are all
interrelated to school finance and school improvement. The overarching theme that
connects these ideas focus on the development of a model that helps determine the
adequate amount of money schools need to educate all students to high academic
standards (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Educational Adequacy
The idea of educational adequacy directly relates to the vision of public
education, to provide every child with the knowledge and skills necessary to enter a
higher education institution or the workforce upon graduation from high school. Under
this vision, education policy has continually been concerned with fiscal equity, which
aims to close the “achievement gap” between low income, minority students and all other
students. However, over the past 20 years, this vision has transformed to center around
education policies that focus on standards-based education reform and will continue to do
so under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB seeks to educate all students to high
achievement levels. In order to provide all students with an equitable, standards-based
education schools must allocate specific educational services. Funds used to allocate
these educational services directly relates to school finance (Odden & Picus, 2004). The
13
challenge presented to every state in the United States is how to develop a school finance
system that not only provides an equitable education to every child, but also educates
every child to high levels of achievement. This fundamental shift from fiscal equity to
fiscal adequacy means that school finance today encompasses fiscal inputs and their
linkages to educational services, programs, compensation and student achievement (Ladd
& Hansen, 1999). Adequacy can thus be described as the link between equality and
efficiency (Rice, 2004). By definition, adequacy is the cost of providing educational
programs and services so all children have an equal opportunity to achieve high academic
standards and learning goals (Odden, et al., , 2005; Baker, 2005; Clune, 1994; Rebell,
2007).
Over the past decade, many court decisions have placed mandates on states to use
adequacy studies in order to determine the cost of educating students to high proficiency
standards (Clune, 1994; Hanushek, 2006; Rebell, 2007). Studies of these various school
districts have revealed there are a variety of practices and approaches on how to allocate
funds to deliver a successful educational program (Hanushek, 2006). The inequities and
ineffectiveness of the traditional school finance system used by districts are revealed by
these studies (Hanushek, 2006). Hanushek (2006) discusses numerous studies and court
cases that document the problems with school funding and spending. In some cases,
funds targeted to provide resources to disadvantaged students were distributed elsewhere
and money spent on specific subgroups of students varied from school to school within
the same district (Jennings, 2000). In other cases, there was growing evidence that large,
14
urban districts spent more money on certain schools while shortchanging others (Roza &
Hill, 2006).
Although studies have recognized discrepancies in traditional school finance
methods, Hanushek (2006) discusses promising reforms that have been occurring over
the last decade. Two important factors have changed the traditional approach of
allocating available public funds to schools to allocating funds based on what is adequate
(Odden, 2003). One factor questions whether differences in dollars allocated per pupil
produced significant differences in student achievement or opportunities. States began
seeking evidence that variations in the levels of fiscal resources produced important
changes in student outcomes. The second factor, as mentioned before, focused on the
connection between funding and student learning as a result of the standards-based
education movement (Odden, 2003).
The adequacy component to public school finance has forced policy makers,
educators and other stakeholders to question whether or not revenues are adequate
enough to offer every child an appropriate educational program that will be successful in
educating students to high performance standards (Odden, 2003). Under the adequacy
frame, schools must spend at least an adequate amount. States are thus challenged to
design a school finance system that identifies an adequate expenditure level for the
typical student, adjustments for students with different needs, and how to manage these
resources so all students learn to performance standards (Odden, 2003).
Designing an adequate funding system for education is a challenging task.
Hanushek (2006) maintains that adequacy studies are unreliable due to the impossibility
15
of identifying exactly what specific combinations of resources will improve student
performance. On the other hand, researchers contend that using adequacy models to
determine adequate funding for schools is better than the existing political methods of
funding (Baker, 2005). Adequate systems require states to identify what the adequate
funding level is for the typical student and a typical district and what are the sufficient
adjustments in these funding levels for students with different needs (Odden, 2003).
Furthermore, adequate finance systems requires districts and schools to manage the
appropriate allocation of these identified resources so students can improve academic
performance. There are four different methodologies that attempt to determine adequate
expenditure levels for school resources. These include: (1) the successful district
approach, (2) the cost function approach, (3) the professional judgment approach, and (4)
the evidence-based approach (Guthrie & Rothstein, 1999; Loeb, 2007; Odden & Picus,
2008).
The successful district approach, also referred to as the “beating-the-odds”
approach, strives to identify districts that have achieved identified proficiency standards
and sets the cost of providing those successful services to all other districts in the state.
This approach has been utilized in many states, including Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington and Ohio and
has documented mixed results in terms of student performance (Loeb, 2007). One
shortcoming of this approach is that expenditure levels of large, urban districts are
difficult to relate to expenditure levels of small, rural districts even after making
adjustments for their differences (Odden & Picus, 2008). Another limitation of this
16
approach is that effective schools are not easy to identify since the needs of the school
populations may be difficult to analyze and the populations change annually (Loeb,
2007).
Loeb (2007) contends that in order for this adequacy approach to be effective,
researchers must control and account for all differences across the districts in the state
and also across schools within each district. This is difficult to do, and as a result, most
researchers do not choose to use this approach (Addonizio, 2003). Overall, the primary
strength of the successful district approach is that it identifies costs for resources that are
associated to student achievement levels (Odden & Picus, 2008). However, the primary
weakness of the successful district approach is its failure to determine how to exactly
allocate funds to improve student achievement.
The cost function approach aims to determine costs for achieving performance
standards through analyzing data on district spending and student achievement (Odden &
Picus, 2008). This approach is not currently being used in any of the fifty states however
it has been used in the past to analyze expenditure levels in New York, Wisconsin, Texas
and Illinois (Odden, 2003). Research in these states concluded that there was significant
variation in average adequacy levels due to student and district needs (Loeb, 2007).
Determining how much a school district would need to spend, in relation to the average
district, to ensure student success in achieving the desired performance standards is
essentially what this approach is attempting to do (Rebell, 2007).
The difficulty in doing this is that it requires analysts to collect a significant
amount of data on expenditures per pupil, district characteristics and student achievement
17
(Verstegen, 2007; Rebell, 2007). The primary weakness of the cost function approach is
that it provides district-level results and not school-level results and is generally difficult
for stakeholders to understand due to the variation in the cost estimates produced (Loeb,
2007). Both the successful district and cost function approach attempt to connect school
spending to student achievement, but both fail to indicate what specific educational
strategies generate those achievement levels.
The professional judgment approach is widely used and utilizes input from a
panel of educational experts (through panels and/or surveys) regarding the use of
effective educational strategies and resource use (Loeb, 2007). The dialogues that occur
within the panel aim to identify specific resources that improve student learning. The
experts are provided with a predetermined performance target and are asked to determine
the resources necessary to reach that target. Each resource/strategy is assigned a cost,
adjusting for differences in school size and school population, and a total expenditure
level is calculated (Odden, 2003; Loeb, 2007). This expenditure level reflects the cost for
ensuring that students achieve a specific academic performance level.
The professional judgment approach has many benefits, including the ability to
adjust costs for districts of different sizes and for students with special needs, as well as
determining what specific elements are required to produce specific student performance
levels (Odden, 2003). These adjustments and determinations help insure the calculated
expenditure levels will provide all types of students and schools with adequate resources.
Even though professional judgment adequacy studies have been successful in improving
practices in various states (i.e. New York), there are still shortcomings in using this
18
approach (Loeb, 2007). One drawback is that the studies only rely on the opinions of the
panel. The panel comes together from different backgrounds, with different experiences
and with different agendas, thus the resources allocated may not be based on what
schools actually need, but rather on what the panel would like (Loeb, 2003; Odden &
Picus, 2008). Moreover, this approach has been utilized in Kansas, Maryland, Oregon,
and Wyoming, but provides too many variations in judgments across and within the states
to be able to make any valuable conclusions regarding resource allocation student
achievement (Augenblick, 2000). These variations could be the result of the lack of
knowledgeable panel members and the lack of expertise in research-based best practices
(Hanushek, 2006; Verstegen, 2007).
The fourth approach, which is the focus of this research study, to determining
adequate school funding levels, is the evidence-based approach. The evidence-based
model identifies the school-level evidence-based educational strategies and resources that
are needed to provide a quality education and ensure students perform to high academic
achievement levels (Odden, et al., 2006). This model uses the strategies and elements of
comprehensive school design models, which already incorporate research and best
practices into school-wide educational strategies, and serves as a guide to help schools
allocate resources in the most effective way possible (Odden, 1997; Odden & Busch,
1998). In comparison to the other approaches, the evidence-based model more directly
identifies what educational strategies produce increased student achievement results and
aggregates the costs of each strategy to determine adequate funding levels (Loeb, 2007;
Odden & Picus, 2008; Verstegen, 2007).
19
The evidence-based model has been used to evaluate and develop adequate
expenditure levels in Kentucky (Odden, Fermanich & Picus, 2003), Arkansas (Odden,
Picus & Fermanich, 2003), Arizona (Odden, Picus, Fermanich & Goetz, 2004), Wyoming
(Odden, Picus et al., 2005), and Washington (Odden, Picus & Goetz, 2006). Based on the
research carried out in the above states, this model has been successful in determining the
level of funding needed to implement any research based strategy schools may need to
impact student learning (Odden & Picus, 2008). Odden et al. (2008) outline the ten key
components the model incorporates, that are research-based for improving student
performance: (1) conduct a needs assessment, (2) set high goals for student performance,
(3) adopt a rigorous, standards-based curriculum, (4) commitment to data-driven decision
making, (5) invest in on-going and effective professional development, (6) for
instructional time efficiently, (7) provide multiple interventions for struggling students,
(8) create professional learning communities, (9) empower leaders to support
instructional improvement, and (10) family engagement. Based on these components, the
evidence-based model insures that schools have adequate resources for core resources
that include teacher specialists, administrators, reduced class sizes, and basic instructional
materials. The model also provides extended support to struggling students through
certificated tutors, extended day instruction and summer school opportunities.
Professional development is also a key component that the model supports, allowing for
ten extra days for professional development opportunities, trainers, and instructional
coaches.
20
Using prototypical elementary, middle, and high schools, the evidence-based
model outlines the resources (such as class size, professional development and staffing)
that would be adequate to educate students to high academic performance levels (Odden
& Picus, 2008). For kindergarten through fifth grade, prototypical school size is 432
students. For middle schools (grades 6-8), the prototypical size is 450 students, and for
high schools (grades 9-12), the prototypical size is 600 students. The prototypical models
for each type of school can be adapted through using simple calculations that reflect
small or larger school sizes. Table 2.1 below shows how resources (based on the school
expenditure framework in Table 2.2) would be allocated for prototypical schools that are
a little smaller than the actual prototype. When using the framework and comparing to
the prototypical schools under the evidence-based model, numbers would need to be
altered to consider the actual school enrollment and demographic data.
Table 2.1: Evidence-Based Model Recommendations for Prototypical Schools
School Element Elementary
Schools
Middle Schools High Schools
School
Characteristics
School
Configuration
Prototypic School
Size
Prototypic Class
Size
Full Day
Kindergarten
Number of Teacher
work days
K-5
432
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
Yes
200 teacher work
days including 10
days for intensive
training
6-8
450
6-8: 25
NA
200 teacher work
days including 10
days for intensive
training
9-12
600
9-12: 25
NA
200 teacher work
days including 10
days for intensive
training
21
% Disabled
% Poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
% ELL
% Minority
days for intensive
training
12.0%
50%
10%
30%
days for intensive
training
12.0%
50%
10%
30%
days for intensive
training
12.0%
50%
10%
30%
Personnel
Resources
1. Core teachers
2. Specialist
teachers
3. Instructional
facilitators/mentors
4. Tutors for
struggling students
5. Teachers for ELL
students
6. Extended day
7. Summer School
8. Learning and
mild disabled
students
9. Severely disabled
students
10. Teachers for
gifted students
11. Vocational
education
24
20% more: 4.8
2.2
One for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
An additional 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students:
0.43
1.8
1.8
Additional 3
professional teacher
positions
100% state
reimbursement
minus federal funds
$25/student
NA
18
20% more: 3.6
2.25
One for every 100
poverty students:
2.25
An additional 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students:
0.45
1.875
1.875
Additional 3
professional teacher
positions
100% state
reimbursement
minus federal funds
$25/student
NA
24
33% more: 8.0
3.0
One for every 100
poverty students:
3.0
An additional 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students:
0.60
2.5
2.5
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions
100% state
reimbursement
minus federal funds
$25/student
No extra cost
Personnel
Resources
12. Substitutes
13. Pupil support
staff
5% of lines 1-9
1 for every 100
5% of lines 1-9
1 for every 100
5% of lines 1-9
1 for every 100
Table 2.1: Continued
22
staff
14. Non-
instructional
aides
15. Librarians/media
16. Principal
17. School Site
secretary
18. Professional
development
19. Technology
20. Instructional
materials
21. Student
activities
poverty students:
2.16
2.0
1.0
1
1.0 secretary and
1.0 clerical
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators
Planning & prep
time
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for
other PD expenses
– trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
$250/pupil
$140/pupil
$200/pupil
poverty students &
1.0 guidance/250
students
2.0
1.0
1
1.0 secretary and
2.0 clerical
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators
Planning & prep
time
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for
other PD expenses
– trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
$250/pupil
$140/pupil
$200/pupil
poverty students &
1.0 guidance/250
students
3.0
1.0 librarian and
0.0 library
technician
1
1.0 secretary and
2.0 clerical
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators
Planning & prep
time
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for
other PD expenses
– trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
$250/pupil
$175/pupil
$250/pupil
Reprinted from Odden & Picus (2008)
The evidence-based model is one of the only models that provide the costs for
resources at the school-level (Verstegen, 2007). However, some researchers contend that
the research the model is developed upon is not supportive enough to be able to draw
conclusions as to what strategies and interventions directly impact student performance
(Loeb, 2007). To gain a better understanding of educational adequacy, it is important to
Table 2.1: Continued
23
not only understand what resources impact student performance, but also the funding
available to acquire these resources and how schools are actually allocating them. The
following sections will provide a brief overview of how California schools are funded,
followed by research on how schools are actually using resources.
California School Finance
In designing state finance systems that provide an adequate education for all
students, it is important to understand how California schools are funded at the state,
local district, and school site levels. Most of California’s school revenues are controlled
at the state level. The state legislature and governor determine annually how much state
and property tax funding will go to public education. Monies are distributed as general
and categorical funds that school districts must allocate to individual schools according to
state and federal guidelines. The federal government contributes about 11% of
California’s education budget (EdSource, 2006). California state taxes contributes 61%,
local property taxes contributes 21%, 2% comes from the California lottery and local
miscellaneous revenues are about 6% of the total (EdSource, 2006). These funding
sources are combined and distributed into two funds: about one-third is categorical funds
and about two-thirds are general-purpose funds. The finance system and distribution
percentages have looked about the same for more than twenty-five years, despite the
growth in the school-age population and student diversity within the state. It is generally
agreed that more resources are required to meet the needs of the ever-changing student
population, however, with most of the school budget in the form of general funds,
specific instructional programs and staff may not be funded or provided.
24
California's school finance system has changed significantly due to a variety of
laws, court decisions, and ballot measures. This following provides a brief summary of
the legislative, court, and voter contributions that have had the most influence on the way
schools are financed today. The California funding system is primarily the result of the
following three measures: the Serrano v. Priest court ruling, Proposition 13, and
Proposition 98 (Timar, 2004; Grubb et al., 2004). Serrano v. Priest is the 1976 California
Supreme Court decision that found the existing system of financing schools
unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the state Constitution
(Timar, 2004). The court ruled that property tax rates and per pupil expenditures should
be equalized and that, by 1980, the difference in revenue limits per pupil should be less
than $100 (Serrano band). This difference in revenue limits has subsequently been
adjusted for inflation and is currently about $350. Proposition 13 is a constitutional
amendment approved by California voters in 1978 and limits property tax rates to 1% of
a property's assessed value. Increases in assessed value per year are capped at 2% or the
percentage growth in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is less. According to
this law, there are limits on how much local tax revenues go to school districts.
Therefore, California districts rely primarily on the state to fund local school sites
(Duncombe & Yinger, 2007). Furthermore, Proposition 98 is a constitutional
amendment, approved in November 1988, which guarantees a minimum funding level
from state and property taxes for K-14 public schools in a complex formula based on
state tax revenues. Proposition 98 also requires each school to prepare and publicize an
annual School Accountability Report Card (SARC) that covers at least 13 required topics,
25
including test scores, dropout rates, and teacher qualifications. This Proposition in theory
is supposed to stabilize the funding school’s receive, but instead has become a “funding
cap” for public school funding (Timar, 2004). The state is beginning to allocate more
money to categorical programs, thus restricting how schools can allocate resources
(Timar, 2004).
In addition to the General Fund budget, California schools may be eligible to
receive both federal and state categorical funding. Federal categorical funds include Title
I funding for basic programs, Title II for professional development in relation to teacher
quality and technology, Title III for programs and professional development that support
students of limited English proficiency, Title IV for safe and drug free schools, Title V
for innovative strategies (usually allocated to libraries), Title VI is assessment funding
that supports STAR, CELDT and CAHSEE assessments. Most of these federal
categorical funds are kept at the district level and allocated to schools on an individual
basis. California has nearly 30 different state programs that are supported by categorical
funds. The majority of these categorical funds include Economic Impact Aid (EIA)
which supports English learners and students from low socio-economic backgrounds,
school improvement monies, special program funding that support art, music and
physical education, and incentive programs such as Class Size Reduction (CSR) for
grades K-3 and grade 9. Timar (2006) suggests that these categorical funds provide a
significant amount of money towards school programs, but these programs actually
compartmentalize schools and don’t work together to improve learning for all students.
One reason for this is in how the programs are developed. Typically, the programs are
26
developed individually and thus lack the cohesiveness to create a school-wide
improvement effort where all students can learn (Grubb, Goe & Huerta, 2004).
Odden and Picus (2008) maintain that under the theory of fiscal federalism,
providing unrestricted general aid is not a successful strategy for systemically reforming
local fiscal and resource allocation behaviors. Fiscal federalism related to how this
general aid is used at the local level (Oates, 1999). Research on fiscal federalism
contends that funding should be provided in the form of categorical grants for strategies
that have demonstrated success and are research-based (Odden & Picus, 2008). Targeting
the use of educational dollars ensures that all educational monies are spent on the
instructional staff and programs that the legislators intended for. Categorical funds have
been shown to stimulate education expenditures. Two reasons categorical funds stimulate
spending is that requirements for using the funds make it difficult for districts and schools
to use the money elsewhere, and the categorical funds allocate money to special programs
that districts and schools would usually spend less money or no money supporting
(Odden & Picus, 1992). Most researchers agree that categorical funds are more effective
in channeling monies and resources towards educational programs and strategies that
improve student learning and provide an adequate education. However, the challenge
still exists on building cohesiveness between the categorical programs in order to
successfully impact student performance (Timar, 2006).
Accordingly, California faces numerous obstacles in relation to educational
funding, especially in light of the current draconian budget cuts. First, the majority of
funds are distributed in the form of general aid. Second, there are valid concerns about
27
whether or not schools have enough money and resources to meet California’s
demanding academic standards, with particular focus on extra resources for English
learners, low-income students, and students with disabilities (EdSource, 2007). And
third, there are advocates that support more flexibility for schools to make decisions
regarding how to allocate their resources. Each of these concerns have commonalities in
relation to the struggle for California to fund more specific types of programs, provide
enough resources, and allocate resources appropriately and in ways that directly impact
and improve student achievement.
Governed by legislative efforts and categorical funds, California schools are not
being funded by a system that is aligned with school improvement (Koski & Weis, 2004).
Most researchers agree that in order to ensure students meet the state performance
standards, California must align the funding system to its accountability system (Timar,
2007). In an effort to reform this inefficient system, Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger
established a committee that was appointed to analyze current barriers to meeting the
performance standards, research best practices in relation to California’s student
population and make recommendations for improving reform efforts in the future
(Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence, 2007). The topics the committee was
to focus on included teachers and administrators, finance, governance and accountability,
and data. To complete these responsibilities, a research project known as “Getting Down
to Facts” was launched. This project included about twenty studies that examined school
finance, governance and structure, personnel, data systems and adequacy (IREPP, 2007).
28
Overall, the results of the “Getting Down to Facts” studies show that California is
underperforming in the focus areas, and that the school funding system does not support
its’ accountability system (Timar, 2007; Kirst, et al., 2007; Duncombe & Yinger, 2007).
For example, the personnel studies found schools with large populations of struggling
students have difficulty recruiting highly qualified teachers and even more difficulty
retaining them (Loeb & Miller, 2007; Koski & Horng, 2007). Recommendations made in
this focus area included improving professional development for teachers of struggling
students and offering more compensation for teachers who participate in the professional
development efforts. The governance and structure studies indicated the system in place
is too complex and recommendations included simplifying the system, emphasizing
building leadership capacity at the school and district levels (Brewer & Smith, 2007). In
addition, the studies that focused on data and information systems found there is a critical
need for developing data systems that are comprehensive, accessible, track students and
teachers over time, and link student performance with use of resources (Hansen, 2007).
In general, the “Getting Down to Facts” studies imply that districts and schools serving
large percentages of at risk students are under-funded by the current California school
finance system (Chambers, et al., 2007; Imazeki, 2007). Currently, the recommendations
for improvement made by the committee have not been implemented and reform efforts
to restructure California’s school finance system are still pending. This study hopes to
shed light on the fiscal health of California schools by not only examining how schools
are allocating school resources, but whether or not school have enough resources and are
these resources are improving student performance.
29
Resource Use
The allocation of school resources has gained more attention as educational
policies shift from equity to adequacy models. It is important to understand how schools
are spending money and whether or not this spending will provide an adequate education
for all students. Over time, revenues received per pupil have consistently increased. In
1991, Picus studied how resources were allocated as a part of an incentive funding
program in California between 1980 and 1986. California designed the program to
support districts in increasing the instructional day and increasing salaries for new
teachers. Findings showed that the majority of schools increased the instructional day,
but only about fifty percent increased the salaries for new teachers (Picus, 1991).
Furthermore, Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) provide a meta-analysis of one hundred years
of data, concluding that dollars per pupil increased by about 3.5 percent annually until
1990. In the early 1990s, revenues slowed down, but then began to rise again. The
dollars per pupil are adjusted for inflation and still continue to grow despite the swing of
the economy (Odden & Picus, 2008). The National Center for Education Statistics’
(NCES) database reported that in the 2003 school year, expenditures per pupil averaged
just below $9,000 per pupil. These expenditures continue to rise, as reported by the
National Education Association (2005), average expenditures per pupil increased to
$9,102 per pupil in the 2005 school year.
Research shows that the new dollars received have not been used in the
classrooms, but instead are being used to provide services for students in elective courses
and other needs outside of the classroom and core academic areas (Odden & Picus,
30
2008). The important dilemma that surfaces from this trend is despite the increases in
expenditures per pupil, there have been minimal, if not any, improvements in student
performance (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997). To begin resolving this problem, it is crucial
to understand where the new dollars have been spent and to determine whether or not the
resources bought were used effectively in relation to student learning.
Most data related to resource use in education is presented as expenditures for
functions such as instruction, instructional staff services, administration, student support,
operations, maintenance, transportation, food services and other (NCES, 2006). Data on
average expenditures for each category reveal that the majority of educational dollars are
spent in the category of instruction. Expenditures within this category have change
dramatically, such as the increase in price for instructional and non-instructional staff and
the decrease in pupil-staff and pupil-teacher ratios (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997). More
specifically, Odden and Picus (2008) reveal that a substantial amount of additional
instructional resources were spent on: (1) additional teaching staff for new non-core
subject courses to lower core class sizes, (2) special education services, (3) categorical
programs focused on students in poverty and English learners (support programs and
instructional aides, and (4) modest increases in teacher salaries. These findings are
supported by numerous school finance reform research studies that strive to discover
effective strategies for allocating school resources (Alexander, 1974; Barro & Carroll,
1975; Firestone, Goertz, Nagle & Smelkinson, 1994; Picus, 1994, Rothstein & Miles,
1995).
31
Education funding over the years has not informed significant increases in student
achievement, primarily because only a small amount of money was allocated towards
improving instruction (Odden, et al., 2005). In addition, research on these spending
patterns shows that the majority of instructional money was spent on instruction in
courses outside of the core academic areas and for instructors providing help to students
with a variety of special needs. Beginning in the 1960s, schools began to fund additional
teachers for non-core academic courses in order to provide core academic teachers time
during the schools day for preparation and planning (Odden & Picus, 2008). Thus, in
middle schools and high schools, the offerings for elective courses have significantly
expanded and the typical school day has been restructured to include more elective
courses. A typical six period day offering five core courses and one elective course has
been restructured to include seven or eight periods with more electives. This new
structure provides more non-core academic courses, while decreasing the amount of time
students spend in core academic classes, because each period has been shortened. With
little money being allocated to the areas in which students are held accountable to on
state standardized tests – mathematics, science, English language arts, and social studies,
the public education system has become one where little is being done to enhance
curriculum and instruction in the core academic areas and students are not achieving to
high academic standards (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997; Odden & Picus, 2008).
Over the past decade, the standards based movement has increased awareness and
accountability of how educational dollars are being spent. Students, parents,
policymakers, and local, state, and the federal governments are not only interested in how
32
educational dollars are being spent, but want to know if the resources being allocated
positively impact student performance (Brinson & Mellor, 2005). One concern these
stakeholders have is the lack of a consistent fiscal reporting method that can assist
policymakers and educational leaders in making informed decisions about the allocation
of school resources (Odden & Picus, 2008). The key concern with the reporting systems
is that they account for objects of expenditure (i.e.: salaries, benefits, books, etc.) and
lack important information about the categories of expenditures (Odden et al., 2000).
Therefore making decisions and restructuring the allocation of school resources to
improve student achievement becomes a significant challenge.
Furthermore, in relation to the distribution of school funds, stakeholders have
been primarily concerned with equity issues. Over the past few decades, funds have
typically been loosely distributed from the state, to the district, to the school, and into the
classroom with little accountability in relation to whether or not the funds are being
allocated in such a way as to improve student learning (Hannaway et al., 2002). In
addition to this loose accountability system, there was also minimal efforts to collect and
analyze fiscal data in relation to student outcomes under this system. With the shift to
educational adequacy, recent studies are assessing what resources schools are actually
using and whether or not these funds are improving student performance (Hannaway et
al., 2002).
Thus, the debate continues on whether or not providing schools with more money
positively influences student achievement. On one hand, research indicates that no
conclusive evidence exists regarding the relationship between how much money schools
33
spend and student performance (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997). On the other hand,
researchers contend there is conclusive evidence that school expenditures positively
impact student performance (Hedges, Laine & Greenwald, 1994). Researchers dispute
this relationship primarily because it is difficult to make correlations between
expenditures and students achievement due to the lack of specific financial data at the
school level (Odden & Picus, 2008). Without this school level expenditure data, it is
almost impossible to conclude the impact that various strategies of resource allocation
have on student learning (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Gathering this data at the school level is essential, since the school sites and
individual classrooms are the factories where educational resources are supplied and
student outcomes produced. Therefore, identifying what components provide an adequate
education for students at the school level needs to be studied. Odden and Picus (2008)
have identified the following key components of resource use data that must be analyzed
in order to make correlations between school level expenditures and student performance:
1. Staffing and Expenditures by Program: the regular instructional program;
programs for special-needs students including bilingual, compensatory,
and special education; administration; staff development; and instructional
materials.
2. Staffing and expenditures by educational strategy: class size, professional
development, tutoring, pullout resource room, core versus elective
subjects, etc.
34
3. Staffing and expenditures by content area: mathematics, language arts,
science, history/social science, foreign language, art, and physical
education.
4. Interrelationships among these staffing and expenditure patterns.
5. Relationships of these staffing and expenditure pattern to student
performance.
Even though these types of data have not been systematically collected at the
school level, many states are already beginning to collect and analyze similar pieces of
information, including California, Florida, Kentucky, Ohio, Oregon, Texas and Wyoming
(Busch & Odden, 1997). As this type of information becomes more accessible, the
opportunity to study the correlation between the allocation of school resources and
student performance will increase and as a result, schools can begin to make more
informed decisions about the most effective use of school resources (Odden & Picus,
2008).
Developing systems that collect and analyze expenditure data at the school level
is the only way to make this correlation between allocation of school resources and
student performance. Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003) developed an
expenditure structure that incorporates the following two components: (1) identifies a set
of resource indicators that provide insight into a school’s priorities and instructional
strategies, and (2) categorizes school expenditure data according to nine elements that are
further classified as instructional or non-instructional. The school resources indicators
and expenditure structure are provided in Figure 2.2.
35
The school resource indicators listed in Table 2.2 provide important demographic
and contextual information at the school site level. The descriptions of each school
resource indicator are adapted from the definitions provided in the Journal of Education
Finance article Defining School Level Expenditure Structures That Reflect Educational
Strategies by Odden, Archibald, et al., (2003). School building size is defined as the total
student enrollment of the school. When accounting for this element, it is important to
identify a specific date, because the data can be inconsistent due to student transience.
School unit size is the student enrollment of each instructional unit within a school, for
example “schools within a school” design, which are small learning communities at the
secondary level. Percent low income is the percent of enrolled students who are eligible
for the free- and reduced- price lunch federal program. For data analysis purposes, the
most accurate way to collect this data at the secondary level, would be to use the
percentages form the feeder elementary and middle schools. Many secondary students do
not report themselves into the program, even if they are eligible, thus making the
percentage reported under-representative of the actual population.
36
Table 2.2 School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators
School Resource Indicators
School Building Size
School Unit Size
Percent Low Income
Percent Special Education
Percent ESL/LEP
Expenditures Per Pupil
Professional Development
Expenditures Per Teacher
Special Academic Focus of School/Unit
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Class Periods
Length of Reading Class (Elementary)
Length of Mathematics Class (Elementary)
Reading Class Size (Elementary)
Mathematics Class Size (Elementary)
Regular Class Size (Elementary)
Length of Core* Class Periods (Secondary)
Core Class Size (Secondary)
Non-Core Class Size (Secondary)
Percent Core Teachers
*Math, English/LA, Science, & Social Studies
School Expenditure Structure
Instrtional 1. Core Academic Teachers
- English/ Reading/ Language Arts
- History! Social Studies
- Math
- Science
2. Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning and Preparation
- Art, music, physical education. etc.
- Academic Focus with or without Special Funding
- Vocational
- Drivers Education
- Librarians
3. Extra Help
- Tutors
- Extra Help Laboratories
- Resource Rooms (Title 1. special education or other part-day pullout
programs)
- Inclusion Teachers
- English as a second language classes
- Special Education self-contained classes for severely disabled students
(Including aides)
- Extended Day and Summer School
- District-Initiated Alternative Programs
4. Professional Development
- Teacher Time - Substitutes and Stipends
- Trainers and Coaches
- Administration
- Materials, Equipment and Facilities
- Travel & Transportation
- Tuition and Conference Fees
5. Other Non-Classroom Instructional Staff
- Coordinators and Teachers on Special Assignment
- Building Substitutes and Other Substitutes
- Instructional Aides
6. Instructional Materials and Equipment
- Supplies, Materials and Equipment
- Computers (hardware, software, peripherals)
7. Student Support
- Counselors
- Nurses
- Psychologists
- Social Workers
- Extra-Curricular and Athletic
Non-Instructional 8. Administration
9. Operations and Maintenance
- Custodial
- Utilities
- Security
- Food Service
Figure reprinted from Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003)
37
Percent special education means the percent of students in the school with an
individualized education program (IEP) indicating eligibility for special education
services. This category should also indicate whether or not the IEP of for speech and
hearing services, as speech and hearing students are often excluded from the general
special education statistics. Percentages should also reflect subcategories of students with
mild or moderate disabilities and students with severe and profound disabilities due to the
variations in costs to accommodate those individuals. Percent ESL/LEP is defined as
the number (percent) of students eligible for services through the English as a second
language (ESL) program or a bilingual program. The acronym LEP stands for limited
English proficiency. For the elements in which percentages are collected, it would be
more accurate to collect the actual number of students and to use the total enrollment of
students to obtain the percentages. Numbers would need to be collected on the same date
as the student enrollment to prevent statistical errors.
Expenditures per pupil are calculated by dividing the total school operating
expenditures from all funds and sources by the total student enrollment. This calculation
provides the level at which the school site is resourced. Currently, the only method to
calculate pupil expenditure levels is through the school budget. It is not the most
accurate method as school budgets do not incorporate all their funds and district budgets
also do not categorize amounts provided to individual schools. Detailed audits of school
district expenditures may be used to collect the data more accurately.
Professional development expenditures per teacher are calculated by dividing
the total school expenditures for professional development by the total number of
38
licensed teachers, which also includes mentors and instructional facilitators. This
category faces similar challenges to calculating the expenditures per pupil. Furthermore,
in most school districts, professional development is a district function that schools have
no control over. Schools may have money in the school budget for travel to conferences,
but that is usually it. District personnel may be able to provide the expenditure amount
for professional development, but a more detailed framework provided by Odden,
Archibald, Fermanich & Gallagher (2002) may need to be used.
Special academic focus of school/unit is defined as the academic program focus
of a school, for example science and technology, college preparatory, the arts, or a
comprehensive school reform demonstration (CSRD). This category helps explain
specific content areas may be provided with more resources. Length of instructional
day is defined as the number of hours per day that students are present for instruction.
More specifically, two pieces of data should be calculated in this category: the length of
the school day and the length of the instructional day. The length of the school day
represents the total number of minutes students are required to be at school and the length
of the instructional day represents the total number of minutes available for instructional
time. Length of class periods is defined as the typical length of class periods in minutes.
This category provides a benchmark for how much time is available for instruction in
each subject. Length of reading and mathematics class periods (elementary schools)
are defined as the length of math and reading class periods in minutes, including periods
when students are specially grouped for extended math or literacy instruction. In this
category, “reading” includes reading, writing and language arts. If the lengths of class
39
periods or subject specific class periods vary by grade level or day to day (block
scheduling) then average daily minutes spent in these class periods needs to be specified.
Reading and mathematics class size (elementary schools) is defined as the average
number of students per teacher in math and reading classes. It is important to note that
some educational strategies and legislature reduce class sizes for only reading and
mathematics and not for all classes. Regular class size (elementary schools) is defined
as the regular education, self-contained classroom. This class size may be different from
mathematics and reading classes and may also be different from “special” classes such as
art, music and physical education. Length of core class periods (secondary schools) is
defined as the length of mathematics, English/language arts, science, and social studies
class periods in minutes. Core class size (secondary schools) is defined as the average
number of students per teacher in mathematics, English/language arts, science, and social
studies classes. This calculation provides the actual class size for the core subjects and
can thus be compared to the non-core class sizes. Non-core class size (secondary
schools) is defined as the average number of students per teacher of classes other than
mathematics, English/language arts, science, and social studies. Percent core teachers
are defined differently for elementary and secondary schools. For elementary schools, it
is the percent of all licensed school staff except the principal and assistant principal(s)
who are regular classroom teachers. For secondary schools, it is the percent of all
licensed staff except the principal and assistant principal(s) who are mathematics,
English/language arts, science, and social studies teachers. Overall, the categories of
40
school resource indicators provide a solid foundation for demographic and contextual
information.
The other key component of the evidence-based model’s framework for tracking
school resources at the school level is the school expenditure structure (see Table 2.2).
The school expenditure structure consists of nine elements that incorporate the nine core
components of almost all educational strategies resourced at the school level. Table 2.2
provides the details for each of the nine elements. The following will provide a detailed
description of the seven instructional elements and the two non-instructional elements
and are based on definitions provided by Odden, Archibald, et al., (2003).
Core academic teachers. Core academic teachers are defined as licensed
classroom teachers primarily responsible for teaching a school’s core academic subjects
of reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science, and history/social studies. In
elementary schools, core academic teachers consist of the teachers in self-contained
regular education classrooms and may also include teachers in upper elementary grades
where subjects such as mathematics and science are departmentalized. In middle schools
and high schools, core academic teachers consist of those who are members of the
English/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies departments along with
special education or ESL/bilingual teachers who provide classes in these subjects. The
cost of the core academic teachers, along with staff costs in other expenditure elements, is
estimated by multiplying the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers in the
expenditure element by the teacher’s salary plus fringe benefits (Odden, Archibald, et al.,
2003).
41
Specialist and elective teachers. Specialist and elective teachers are defined as
licensed teachers who provide instruction in non-core academic classes and usually
provide planning and preparation time for core academic teachers. Specifically, this
element includes specialist teachers, such as art, music, and physical education,
vocational education teachers, diverse education teachers, licensed librarians or media
specialists, and foreign language teachers (Odden, Archibald, et al., 2003).
Extra Help. Extra help consists of mainly 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 strategies that extra help teachers provide are in
addition to the instruction provided in the regular classroom. Teachers providing the
following instructional strategies would be incorporated into this element category:
licensed tutors providing on-on-one help, extra help classes, extra help resource rooms
for small groups of students, inclusion teachers assisting regular classroom instruction,
ESL teachers, self-contained special education classrooms, extended day or summer
school programs (extra instructional time), and district alternative programs provided in a
school (Odden, Archibald, et al., 2003).
Professional development. Professional development includes expenditures on
the professional development of a school’s staff. The following expenditures would be
included in the costs of this element: teacher time for professional development; trainers
and coaches; professional development administration; materials, equipment and
facilities; travel and transportation; and tuition and conference fees (Odden, Archibald, et
al., 2003).
42
Other non-classroom instructional staff. This element of the expenditure
structure includes licensed and non-licensed instructional staffs that support the
instructional program of a school. Staffs included in this element include: program
coordinators (such as curriculum or technology coordinators), substitutes, and
instructional aides other than the instructional aides working in self-contained special
education classrooms (Odden, Archibald, et al., 2003).
Instructional materials and equipment. This category includes books,
instructional supplies, materials, equipment, and computer hardware and software for all
instructional programs during the school year. Instructional programs include regular
education classrooms as well as all extra help programs (Odden, Archibald, et al., 2003).
Student Support. The final instructional element in the expenditure structure is
student support. Student support consists of school support staff such as counselors,
nurses, social workers, psychologists, attendance personnel, parent liaisons, and school
expenditures for athletics and other extra-curricular activities (Odden, Archibald, et al.,
2003).
Administration. This category is the first of the two non-instructional elements in
the expenditure structure. Administration refers to all expenditures relating to the
administration of a school. This includes the principal, assistant principal(s), clerical
staff, administrative office supplies, equipment and technology, and school reserve funds
(Odden, Archibald, et al., 2003).
Operations and maintenance. The final expenditure structure element is
operations and maintenance. This category includes the costs of staff, supplies, and
43
equipment for custodial services, food services, and security, as well as utilities and
building and grounds maintenance charged to a school (Odden, Archibald, et al., 2003).
The school expenditure structure and resource indicators provide a powerful tool
for analyzing and comparing resource allocation at the school level. The resource
categories of each element in the framework provide further perspective into school
spending as it relates to the instructional program and strategies used in the school. This
expenditure model has been test and Odden, et al. (2003) concluded that it was successful
in providing a detailed analysis into how resources were actually used at the school level.
The evidence-based model, as discussed in the educational adequacy section, utilizes this
expenditure structure to collect and analyze data at the school level.
Best Practices for Improving Performance
Restructuring schools that provide a rigorous, standards-based education that
educates all students to high performance levels requires schools and districts to
restructure their use of educational resources. Research is finding that as districts begin
to hold schools accountable for their test results, the need for more instructional time,
help for struggling students, resources for ongoing professional development and
instructional materials is increasing (Miles, 2000).
Research on over-performing schools has revealed that there are many ways to
organize time, staff, and money to improve student achievement. Miles (2000) outlined
several principles that describe how high-performing schools allocate their resources.
She asserts that the crux of this process is to begin with clearly defining instructional
goals and brainstorming how to reorganize the school resources the meet those goals.
44
The study also outlined research-based strategies for reorganizing resources: (1)
rethinking school staffing, time, and class sizes, (2) rethinking district spending,
especially for professional development and staffing organization, (3) restructuring
teacher salaries, (4) providing schools with more autonomy in the use and organization of
resources, and (5) finding new sources of funding (Miles, 2000).
In relation to staffing, research supports that a reduction in specialist teachers and
an increase in generalized roles for teachers in the regular classroom will support a more
integrated curriculum and instructional model for student learning, especially for English
learners, special education students, and remedial students (Miles & Darling-Hammond,
1997). Furthermore, providing teachers with common planning time has been shown to
improve student achievement (Berends, Bodilly, & Kirby, 2002). Miles (2000) found
that restructuring the weekly school schedule to include an early release or late start day
for students, giving teachers time to collaborate has not only improved instruction in the
classroom, but has also increased staff motivation and interdepartmental relationships.
There is a wealth of research that also focuses on “beating the odds” schools.
Darling-Hammond (2006) suggested several elements that are associated with schools
that are making positive gains in student achievement. A brief description of each
element is given below:
a. Personalization: building relationships between teachers and students through
smaller learning environments that personalize education.
b. Continuous Relationships: structuring schools to foster relationships between
teachers and students over several years.
45
c. High Standards and Performance Assessments: successful schools have a
clear goal focused on the desire for all students to achieve to high standards
and are clear about what students should know and be able to do in order to
succeed.
d. Authentic Curriculum: demanding intellectually challenging work, focused
on preparing all students to work independently and to meet the demands of
college and the workplace. This would include extensive reading and writing
in all classes and cumulative projects that include writing and oral
presentations.
e. Adaptive Pedagogy: focus on how students learn, providing students with
different pathways and approaches to learning that help students’ process
information and make sense of their experiences.
f. Multicultural and Anti-Racist Teaching: schools take a proactive stance to
teaching respect and dignity for all.
g. Knowledgeable and Skilled Teachers: teachers are highly qualified and
knowledgeable in order to support student learning.
h. Collaborative Planning and Professional Development: teachers are provided
time to work together to develop curriculum, lessons, analyze data, and reflect
on practices in order to improve future instruction.
i. Family and Community Connections: successful schools reach out to the
community to create common ground with families.
46
j. Democratic Decision Making: ensures that teachers, parents and students
have a voice in the governance of the school.
Of these ten elements of successful schools, Darling Hammond (2006) maintains that the
most important factor affecting student achievement is the quality of the teachers at the
school. To support teacher quality, the school must have a consistent evaluation process
in place and must also provide consistent support to teachers in the form of professional
development, professional dialogues, and coaching.
Duke (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies that focused on schools that
had been transformed from low-performing to high-performing. Each school had a large
population of at-risk students (low socio-economic backgrounds). Results from this
analysis found several commonalities between the schools that improved. Most common
elements for school improvement across all of the studies included: (1) prompt assistance
for struggling students, (2) teacher collaboration, (3) data-driven decision making, (4)
leadership set a tone for school improvement, (5) organizational structure included teams
and planning, (6) continuous staff development, (7) tests aligned with a standards-based
curriculum and instructional practice, (8) frequent student assessments, (9) high
expectations, (10) parent involvement, and (11) class schedule provided more time on
core areas (Duke, 2006). There are many common elements in the wealth of research on
successful schools as shown by the above studies.
Another common element in the research in relation to school improvement is
professional development. With classroom teachers as the direct providers of the
educational curriculum, it is essential that they are also a priority in reform efforts
47
(Darling-Hammond, 1996). Research maintains that every child has a right to expert
instruction (Resnik & Hall, 1998). This right cannot be provided if teachers are not
experts in their craft. The impact of professional development on instructional practice
and student achievement has been the focus of numerous research studies. Birman, et al.
(2000) identified three critical elements of professional development that impact teacher
instructional practices. Authors found that professional development activities must be
sufficient in duration, have specific content focus, and incorporate active learning. This
study also found that collective participation of teachers from the same subject matter
areas increased the amount of active learning and had a great impact in improving
individual teacher practices.
There have also been numerous studies that support the benefits of professional
learning communities as part of professional development practices (Louis & Marks,
1998; Schmoker, 2004). Successful professional learning communities incorporate the
following elements: (1) shared values, (2) focus on student learning, (3) collaboration,
(4) de-privatized practice, and (5) reflective dialogue (Kruse, Louis & Byrk, 1995; Louis
& Marks, 1998). Building learning communities requires guidance and support from
school administrators. This is a critical factor affecting the successes of the learning
communities (Joyce, 2004). Another factor that affects the successes of learning
communities and also other types of professional development is funding. Garet. et al.
(2001) asserts that quality professional development requires intensive resources and
schools and districts must be creative in order to properly allocate resources that support
48
successful professional development. It is clear from the research that professional
development is a key component providing a quality education to all students.
Conclusions
Overall, research shows the need to collect and analyze school level expenditure
data in relation to instructional strategies that are research-based and demonstrate
improvements in student performance levels. The purpose of this research study is to
identify how the average performing high school that is making little gains in terms of the
California state assessment systems are allocating their resources to improve student
performance. The evidence-based model will be applied in this study, because it
provides the most comprehensive framework for collecting school expenditure data and
analyzing what instructional and expenditure improvements schools can make in order to
operate more effectively for students. The following chapter will outline the
methodology used in conducting this research study.
49
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
Problem and Research Questions
This chapter outlines the methodology used to conduct this study. The purpose of
this study was to provide a school level analysis of resource allocation practices and/or
instructional improvement strategies that are associated with significant gains in student
achievement. The specific goals this study strived to understand included: (1) Developing
a better understanding of what resources schools use to improve learning, and (2)
Developing a better understanding of the links between resources and student
performance. In developing these understandings, this study ultimately provided school
and district administrators with knowledge about research-based practices concerning
how to reallocate resources to make dramatic improvements in student performance.
This was a new knowledge study and utilized both qualitative and quantitative
methods. Using these approaches, multiple sets of data were gathered from six
comprehensive public high schools. The analysis of the data helped the researcher
understand the links between school resource allocation, school instructional
improvement strategies and student achievement. This study addressed the following
research questions:
1. What are the current instructional improvement strategies at the school-level?
2. How are the actual resource patterns at the school sites aligned with or different
from the resource use strategies that are used in the Evidence-Based Model?
3. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
strategies? (instructional vision, plan, goals, etc.)
50
4. How does the availability of resources affect the development and implementation
of the instructional improvement plan?
Design Summary
This study was a new knowledge study and applied the principles of a basic-
applied research design. Using a mixed-methods research approach, data was collected
both quantitatively and qualitatively. The goal was to collect information that facilitated
understanding the instructional strategy or vision of the sample schools and the
corresponding allocation of resources that support that instructional vision. Data
collection instruments included interview protocols and corresponding codebooks that
outlined the types of qualitative and quantitative data collected.
Qualitative data providing information about the sample school’s instructional
strategies/vision was collected through in-person interviews and the data was processed
through written case studies of each sample school. Interviews were conducted with the
school principal and district administration and included open-ended questions focused
on understanding each school’s and the district instructional vision and how that vision
was implemented. Quantitative data associated with school allocation of current
resources and student achievement was collected to help determine how personnel and
other resources are allocated to support the instructional improvement strategy/vision. A
more detailed description of the qualitative and quantitative data elements are provided in
a following section.
Multiple sets of data were collected in order to triangulate the findings. Statistical
measures alone were not able to link allocation of resources to student learning and were
51
not be able to provide information about the consistency of the data and its impact on
student performance. This comparative case study approach helped inform what the
schools are actually doing in comparison with research-based methods that show promise
of working and have worked in other states. Thus, it was important to conduct interviews
and collect multiple types of data that can guide the school stakeholders to link
instructional improvement strategies/vision and resource allocation practices to make
dramatic improvements in student learning.
Participation and Setting
The sample was drawn from high schools in San Diego County, California. Six
public, comprehensive high schools from the Premiere Union High School District were
specifically chosen based on previous and current Academic Performance Index (API)
scores, as well as statewide ranking and similar school ranking. Schools chosen were
those who were “flat” and have not shown significant improvements or significant
declines over the past six years. Table 3.1 displays each sample school’s API scores and
similar school and statewide rankings from 2002-2008.
Tables 3.1: Sample School API, Ranks & CST Proficiency Levels
Old Trafford High School
School Year API Score Statewide
Rank
Similar
Schools
Rank
% Proficient
or Advanced
in English
% Proficient
or Advanced
in Algebra I
% Proficient
or Advanced
in Geometry
2007-2008 632 2 1 25.30% 20.00% 10.00%
2006-2007 604 2 3 24.00% 14.33% 25.00%
2005-2006 590 2 3 22.00% 9.66% 19.00%
2004-2005 600 2 3 24.33% 8.66% 28.66%
2003-2004 588 2 5 23.33% 7.33% 16.66%
2002-2003 574 2 5 22.66% 9.66% 27.33%
52
Tables 3.1: Continued
Goodison High School
School Year API Score Statewide
Rank
Similar
Schools
Rank
% Proficient
or Advanced
in English
% Proficient
or Advanced
in Algebra I
% Proficient
or Advanced
in Geometry
2007-2008 760 7 4 59.00% 19.00% 22.00%
2006-2007 735 7 4 51.00% 10.66% 19.66%
2005-2006 727 7 5 50.00% 8.66% 18.33%
2004-2005 710 6 4 47.00% 8.00% 24.66%
2003-2004 698 7 5 45.00% 7.66% 17.00%
2002-2003 707 7 7 47.00% 7.66% 19.00%
Craven Cottage High School
School Year API Score Statewide
Rank
Similar
Schools
Rank
% Proficient
or Advanced
in English
% Proficient
or Advanced
in Algebra I
% Proficient
or Advanced
in Geometry
2007-2008 634 2 2 25.70% 9.00% 16.00%
2006-2007 634 3 6 25.66% 9.33% 18.66%
2005-2006 637 3 6 25.00% 7.00% 28.00%
2004-2005 641 3 4 28.33% 11.00% 33.33%
2003-2004 618 4 8 24.66% 6.66% 20.00%
2002-2003 616 4 8 24.66% 8.00% 30.66%
Stamford Bridge High School
School Year API Score Statewide
Rank
Similar
Schools
Rank
% Proficient
or Advanced
in English
% Proficient
or Advanced
in Algebra I
% Proficient
or Advanced
in Geometry
2007-2008 734 6 3 47.70% 33.00% 27.00%
2006-2007 725 6 2 47.00% 24.00% 31.00%
2005-2006 699 6 2 41.33% 23.00% 34.33%
2004-2005 697 6 3 38.33% 17.66% 33.66%
2003-2004 672 6 3 37.33% 14.66% 25.66%
2002-2003 665 6 2 38.33% 15.00% 28.00%
Villa Park High School
School Year API Score Statewide
Rank
Similar
Schools
Rank
% Proficient
or Advanced
in English
% Proficient
or Advanced
in Algebra I
% Proficient
or Advanced
in Geometry
2007-2008 800 8 3 62.00% 19.00% 40.00%
2006-2007 760 8 4 52.66% 8.33% 28.33%
2005-2006 763 8 4 52.33% 10.33% 23.66%
2004-2005 739 8 2 51.33% 4.66% 30.66%
2003-2004 724 8 3 51.33% 4.00% 18.66%
2002-2003 743 9 6 55.00% 4.66% 26.66%
53
Tables 3.1: Continued
White Hart Lane High School
School Year API Score Statewide
Rank
Similar
Schools
Rank
% Proficient
or Advanced
in English
% Proficient
or Advanced
in Algebra I
& Proficient
or Advanced
in Geometry
2007-2008 760 7 3 51.30% 23.00% 19.00%
2006-2007 761 7 2 55.33% 20.66% 21.00%
2005-2006 736 7 2 48.00% 18.00% 29.00%
2004-2005 732 8 7 45.00% 15.00% 25.33%
2003-2004 731 8 8 50.33% 11.00% 21.33%
2002-2003 726 8 7 49.00% 17.33% 24.33%
This non-random sample was chosen to support the study’s goal of understanding what
schools are doing to influence learning and student performance and when compared to
the evidence-based model of adequacy, and to examine what these schools could be
doing differently to potentially double student performance.
This non-random sample was chosen, because of the capability to provide data
that can be used to make comparisons between the six sample schools. The focus of
these comparisons included: (1) How the schools differed from the research-based model
of school instructional improvement strategies, and (2) How they differed or were similar
to each other. For example, were they all doing the same thing that is not working, or
doing different things that are not working? These comparisons also provided important
information about the role of the district in relation to resource allocation and student
performance. Furthermore, student demographics within the six sample schools varied
and were used to further triangulate the findings in this study. Also, due to the unique
composition and budget allocation strategies in California schools, the results of this
54
study are not generalizable to the entire population, but should only be used to inform
research and practice in California high schools.
Instrumentation & Data Collection Methods
In June 2008, a mandatory, two-day training session was held for all researchers
participating in this study. This training program provided a detailed lesson covering the
instruments used to collect the data and the instruments used to analyze the data (See
Appendices A, B & C). Codebooks, collection protocols and other corresponding tools
were acquired at this time. All members of the thematic dissertation team attended this
training, and as a result, each team member collected and analyzed data using the same
protocol and tools. This allowed for further comparisons to be made across all the studies
being done by all members of the dissertation team.
Upon completion of the training program, each researcher was responsible for
contacting the principals and superintendents in their chosen sample via e-mail, telephone
and written letters. Initial contacts involved obtaining consent, scheduling the in-person
interviews and discussion about the necessary documents needed prior to the visit. Data
that needed to be gathered in order to prepare for the interviews and other data collection
processes, included: (1) School Staff List (used to determine FTEs), (2) District Staff
List, (3) School Bell Schedule (used to discuss instructional minutes), (4) School and
District Consultants, (5) Class Sizes, (6) Funds for Daily Substitutes, and (7) Professional
Development Budget.
55
Interview Protocol
Each sample school visit consisted of about a four-hour interview with the
principal and any other key personnel as determined by the site principal. Interviews were
in a standardized, open-ended format. This included a pre-determined sequence and
wording for the interview questions and also assured that all interviews performed by all
thematic dissertation members were the same. The objectives of the interview questions
focused on gathering factual information (knowledge) and gaining insight into the
instructional strategies and allocation of school resources (behavior and experience). The
district visit consisted of a two-hour interview with the Assistant Superintendent of
Business Services. During that time, data about resource allocation and instructional
improvement strategies at the district level were collected.
The general interview categories for qualitative data collection at the school and
district level included:
• Curriculum and Instruction: content focus, curriculum used, instructional
methods, assessment strategies, instructional vision and implementation.
• Resources: class size reduction, professional development, interventions for
struggling students (tutoring, extended day, summer school, ELL and
scheduling), parent outreach or community involvement and technology.
• Nature of School Improvement Efforts: e.g. centrally driven, bottom-up, etc.
• Instructional Leadership
• Accountability
56
For the open-ended interview data collection protocol, please refer to Appendix
A. The protocol for the school sites and the district was adapted from a similar school
adequacy study of Wyoming school resource use conducted by Picus, et al. (2008) for the
Wyoming State Legislature. The protocol was intended to capture each sample school’s
and district’s strategies for improving student performance and utilized grand tour, mini
tour, descriptive, and structural types of interview questions (Patton, 2002).
Quantitative Data Collection
The general categories for quantitative data collection at the school and district
level included:
• Contact Information
• School Resource Indicators: student demographics, length of core classes and
AYP status
• Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) for teacher and staff positions in each sample
school: core teachers, specialist and elective teachers, library staff, extra help
teachers and aides, other instructional staff, alternative program staff,
administrators, pupil support staff, instructional facilitators, professional
development administrators, permanent building substitutes, secretaries and
clerical staff and non-teaching aides.
• Professional development budget amounts for each school and for the district
as a whole.
• Daily rates for substitute teachers and any dollars budgeted for non-
professional development consultants.
57
• Class sizes for sample schools.
• Test scores for students in each school.
A detailed quantitative protocol is in Appendices B and C. Appendix B outlines the
specific categories outlined above and Appendix C provides definitions for each data
item.
Data Analysis and Reporting
After the data collection was completed, the researcher entered the quantitative
data into an online data system designed by Picus, et al. (2008). A written case study for
each sample school visited was also written. The purpose of the case studies was to
address the research questions and provide comprehensive stories of each sample
school’s instructional improvement efforts and the resources allocated and used during
that improvement process. Each case study was written using the following outline
format (Odden, et al., 2005):
1. Background of the school and corresponding data (quantitative)
2. Test Scores
3. Key elements of the improvement process
4. Themes of the improvement process
5. Conclusion
In summary, the methodology of this research study was designed to provide
information regarding the relationships between school resource allocations, the school
instructional improvement process and student performance. The next chapter will
58
present the results of the qualitative and quantitative data collected and will also discuss
the findings.
59
CHAPTER VI: RESULTS
The results of the study are presented in this chapter. First, school resource
indicators are reported for the six sample high schools. The second section presents the
school resource use results, which are organized by staffing categories and compare to
the resources provided in the Evidence Based Model. These school resource results are
then compared and contrasted among staffing categories. All results reported are
averages for the six sample schools, which are all apart of the same school district.
Appendix D provides six detailed case studies analyzing school resource use and
instructional improvement strategies for each sample high school. Finally, a description
of the school district will be provided and the results will be summarized.
School Resource Indicators
The school resource indicators in the expenditure model framework provide
information on the use of instructional time in the sample high schools studied.
Instructional Time and Length of School Day
The average instructional day of the six high schools studied, or mean minutes
available for instructional time was 351 minutes, or 5 hours and 51 minutes. The
instructional day is essentially the school day minus time for lunch, nutrition break and
passing periods. During the daily instructional time, teachers spent the same amount of
time in the core subjects as they did in elective courses. Four of the six sample high
schools followed a traditional six period day schedule where teachers spent an average of
53 minutes instructing high school students in core and elective subjects. One sample
high school followed a modified block schedule where teachers spent an average of 76
60
minutes instructing high school students in core and elective subjects. Under this
modified block schedule, students attended classes every other day for the entire year.
Another sample high school followed a block schedule (quarter system) where teachers
spent an average of 86 minutes instructing high school students in core and elective
subjects. Students attended four courses every day and completed a year of instruction in
the time that a traditional school completes one semester. During the second half on the
block schedule, students attend new classes with new teachers. Overall, out of about a
seven-hour school day, most schools scheduled around six hours for instruction.
School Resource Use
This section is organized into expenditure elements that reflect the core
components of school resource use (Odden, Archibald, et al., 2003). Each element
contains results of actual staffing and fiscal resources found in each sample high school
compared to the corresponding resources provided in the Evidence Based Model. In
order to provide a comprehensive picture of the resource use found in the schools
compared to the model, staff allocations are reported in actual totals and FTEs. To set the
context for this comparison, it is important to point out the average school size in this
study is 2,068 students. In contrast, the Evidence Based Model (EBM) is based on a
prototypical high school size of 600 students. Therefore, staff allocations that are 1.0
FTEs in the EBM will be multiplied by a common factor for each sample school,
depending on its actual school size. For example, if the EBM provides 24 core teachers
for every 600 students, that formula would provide 82.7 (2,068 divided by 600 and
multiplied by 24) core teachers for the average school size of 2,068 students in this study.
61
Administration
The first expenditure element, administration, includes principals, assistant
principals, other administrators and clerical staff. Principals, on average, were staffed at
1.0 FTE for all six high schools, which was the same as the model. All schools provided
one full-time principal, but varied in the number of assistant principals present at each
high school. Assistant principals were staffed at five sample schools at 3.0 FTEs and at
one school at 4.0 FTE. On average, the model funded one FTE principal and 3.5 FTE
assistant principals (refer to Table 4.2). Four of the six schools were under what the
model funded for FTE assistant principals and two were over what the model would fund.
It is a typical staffing practice within this district to provide at least 3 FTE assistant
principals in each school. The one school that has four FTE assistant principals managed
to fund the fourth by letting go a few clerical staff employees.
In addition to principals and assistant principals, the sample schools also
employed other administrators. Each school had 1.0 FTE who served as the Manager of
School Facilities. Each school also had 1.0 FTE Technology Coordinator and Specialist.
The final administrative category includes secretaries and other clerical staff. There were
an average of 4.5 FTE secretaries present in the schools studied, compared to the average
3.5 FTE secretary positions funded by the EBM. In addition, there was an average of 3.9
FTE clerical employees, compared to the average 10.3 clerical positions funded by the
EBM (refer to Table 4.2). Schools tended to staff more high-wage secretary positions
compared to low-wage clerical staff. Schools could cut back on the higher paid
secretarial staff and hire more clerical workers. Specific types of secretaries included
62
special education secretaries, principal’s secretary, assistant principal’s secretaries, a
registrar and guidance secretaries. Clerical staff duties included finance clerks,
photocopying clerk, book clerk and other bookkeeping type of clerical workers.
Core Academic Teachers
The next expenditure element, core academic teachers, include all licensed
classroom teachers who teach a school’s core academic subjects of English/Language
Arts, Mathematics, Science and History/Social Science. There were 330.7 FTE core
teachers in the schools studied. Those teachers served a total of 12,408 students, thus
making the average student to core teacher ratio 37.52 to 1. In the Evidence Based
Model, high school core teachers are funded at a ratio of 25 students to one teacher. The
total number of core teachers funded by the model for the schools in the study was 484.8
FTE, making the average student to core teacher ratio 25.59 to 1. Table 4.1 provides the
number of core and specialist/elective teachers at each sample school compared to the
number of core and specialist/elective teacher allocations suggested by the Evidence
Based Model. This data confirms that the sample high schools are providing students
with larger class sizes than the EBM funds.
Specialist and Elective Teachers
Another expenditure element, specialist and elective teachers, includes teachers
who provide instruction in specialist subjects such as Art, Music, Physical Education,
Foreign Language, Career and Technical Education, Health and other non-core academic
subjects, as well as librarians. The EBM provides resources for staffing high school
specialist and elective teachers at the rate of 33% over core teachers. The EBM provides
63
1.0 FTE Librarian and 1.0 FTE Media Specialist for the prototypical high school of 600
students.
A total of 128.7 FTE specialist and elective teachers were found in the schools in
the study. The total number of specialist and elective teachers funded by the model for
the schools in the study was 163.3 FTE. Table 4.1 provides the number of core and
specialist/elective teachers at each sample school compared to the number of core and
specialist/elective teacher allocations suggested by the Evidence Based Model. At all six
sample schools, there were less specialist and elective teachers than the model would
generally fund. It is important to point out that the sample schools have far fewer core
teachers and almost the same number of elective and specialist teachers compared to
what the Evidence Based Model would fund.
Table 4.1 – Comparison of Sample Schools and Evidence Based Model Allocations of
Core and Elective/Specialist Teachers (FTEs)
Core Teacher FTE
Allocations
Elective and Specialist
Teacher FTE Allocations
School EBM School EBM
Goodison HS 60.6 98.4 25.8 32.5
Stamford Bridge HS 35.8 57.6 16.8 19.0
White Hart Lane HS 56.6 86.4 16.8 28.5
Villa Park HS 54.4 84.9 21.8 28.0
Craven Cottage HS 51.4 77.0 20.2 25.4
Old Trafford HS 71.9 90.5 27.3 29.9
TOTAL 330.7 484.8 128.7 163.3
Each sample high school also had 1.0 FTE Librarian and 1.0 FTE Media Specialist.
These positions were all below what the EBM model funded, which for the sample
schools, was an average of 3.4 FTE Librarians and 3.4 FTE Media Specialists. Even
when library positions were combined, the model funded more for each school site.
64
Extra Help
The extra help expenditure element includes tutors, resource room staff, special
education staff, EL staff and extended day and summer school programs. All schools in
this study employed only non-certificated tutors who served as extra help tutors for
AVID programs, EL classes and after school programs. There were no certificated tutors
employed by the schools offering individual one-on-one tutoring, which is one of the
most effective and powerful strategies for struggling students (Odden, Picus, et al., 2003).
On average, schools in this study employed 3.6 FTE non-certificated tutoring positions.
The number of students receiving services from these tutors was about 150.
Schools in the study also provided extended day programs for struggling students.
Certificated teachers provided one-on-one and small group assistance after school to an
average of 15 students per week. An average of 2.85 FTE extended day, certificated
tutorials offered assistance to struggling students in the sample schools. The EBM would
fund and average of 4.3 FTE extended day, certificated tutors for struggling students
(refer to Table 4.2). Summer school programs also provide assistance to struggling
students. An average of 3.2 FTE summer school positions were allocated in the sample
schools, compared to 4.3 FTE summer school positions funded by the model.
For English Learner students, there were a total of 11.9 FTE EL teachers for a
total of 1,669 EL students at the schools in the study. The EBM funds one additional
FTE teacher for every 100 EL students. For the sample schools, the model would fund a
total of 16.69 EL teachers for 1,669 EL students. All schools in the study allocated less
EL teaching positions compared to what the model would fund. Similarly, for special
65
education students, there was a total of 60.2 FTE inclusion and resource room teachers
for a total of 1,310 special education students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs).
The EBM funds an additional 4.0 FTE special education teachers for 600 students. For
the sample schools, the model would fund a total of 82.7 FTE inclusion and resource
room teachers. All schools in the study allocated less special education FTE compared to
what the model would provide (refer to Table 4.2).
Professional Development
This expenditure category includes instructional facilitators, professional
development administrators and fiscal resources to hire trainers and fund other expenses.
The Evidence Based Model provides a total of ten summer days for professional
development activities, as well as $100 per pupil for other ongoing professional
development expenses such as trainers, conferences, travel, etc. According to the 2003
research-based school finance adequacy report for Arkansas, ongoing professional
development is the key educational strategy for improving student learning (Odden,
Picus, et al., 2003). Corresponding resource recommendations for professional
development include: pupil-free days for intensive training institutes most effectively
conducted during the summer, on-site coaching for all teachers, collaborative work with
teachers in their school during planning and preparation periods and funds for training
(Odden, Picus, et al., 2003).
District-wide, all certificated staff is required to participate in only three
professional development days during the summer, directly before the school year begins.
In addition, staff is allotted one school business and one professional growth day during
66
the school year, which can be used to attend seminars and conferences. On average, the
six high schools in this study allocate $8,000.00 of “school business” funds, which can be
used to send teachers to various professional development opportunities. This amount is
negligible compared to what the model would fund for professional development. In
addition to adding more days of professional development into the school year (a total of
10), the model would provide $100 per pupil in addition for professional development.
Compared to the average $8,000.00 allotted by the sample schools, the EBM would
provide on average, an additional $207,300 for ongoing professional development
opportunities.
Furthermore, the Evidence Based Model would provide one instructional
facilitator for every 200 students in a school. The role of an instructional facilitator is to
support the school’s instructional program by providing pedagogical content knowledge
expertise to teachers and other staff via coaching and mentoring in the classroom. There
were no instructional facilitators in the sample schools. However, the district has hired
one instructional coach who can work with individual schools, departments or teachers.
This one coach serves over 24,000 students and 11 high schools in the district. There is a
significant difference in resource use for this category, as the model would fund an
average of 10.3 FTE instructional facilitator positions at each of the six sample high
schools (refer to Table 4.2). One explanation for this discrepancy is the lack of funding
for instructional facilitators.
67
Student Support
Another element of the expenditure structure is student support and includes
counselors, nurses, psychologists, speech pathologists, social workers, attendance and
other staff who provide pupil support. Overall, some sample schools were staffed at a
higher rate than was funded by the Evidence Based Model and some schools were staffed
at a lower rate than was funded. Schools employed an average of 12.8 FTE pupil support
staff, compared to the average 13.5 FTE pupil support staff funded by the model.
Operations and Maintenance
The final expenditure element, operations and maintenance, includes security,
custodial and maintenance staff. (Data on food services staff was not collected). Sample
schools had an average of 5.4 FTE security personnel and 1.0 School Resource Officer.
Schools also had an average of 6.7 FTE custodians.
District Description
The six sample high schools in this study are all part of the Premiere Union High
School District. This district is comprised of eleven comprehensive, public high schools
that range in size from 1,500 to 2,900, serving a total of 24,447 students. Over the past
ten years, there have been major shifts in district administration and personnel. There
have been four different superintendents and assistant superintendents have been
continuously revolving as well. The relationship between the district and the Board has
never been positive. There are continuous tensions that exist between the Board, District
and teachers, which have only recently begun to dissipate. The Board is comprised of
four members with alternative, religious and political agendas, and two members who are
68
advocates for teachers and students. Five years ago, teachers went on strike due to the
inability to mediate a labor and salary dispute. Eventually there was a settlement and
since, the relationships between the teachers, district and board have been troubled.
However, with the welcoming of a new superintendent, there have been positive
relationships building between the district and the schools. The new superintendent is
student-centered and primarily interested in improving student achievement through
developing more effective teaching practices, rigorous educational programs and post-
secondary plans for every student upon graduation.
District decisions regarding the allocation of resources to schools are very
formula-driven. They depend primarily on the number of students that attend each
school. The most significant considerations when deciding how much money is allocated
to each school site are dependent on the goals of the school board and the “guiding
principles’ of the district. These guiding principles include: (1) focusing on teaching and
learning, (2) providing a successful core instructional program, and (3) providing
sufficient certificated staff members to meet student needs. These decisions are very
centralized and it is the general opinion of the district that schools are not ready nor
prepared for decentralized decision-making regarding allocation of resources. There are
some discretionary monies that individual school sites allocate as they deem appropriate.
Currently, schools are allotted $60 per pupil in discretionary monies. Overall, the district
allocates funds that encourage schools to provide the same resources for the majority of
the students. As a starting point, the district allocates funds on an equitable basis to give
schools the same starting point. These funds are usually state categorical funds that are
69
basic allocations for providing the core instructional program. The district does not
discourage creativity within individual schools and allows some customizing of the fund
allocations, assuring that overarching guidelines are met.
There are district-wide policies and strategies that encourage schools to provide
specific resources for specific services. Currently, the district has provided an additional
0.5 FTE to specifically work on student interventions. Individual schools decide what
area of student interventions this individual will work with. There are also current state
categoricals provided through the district to individual schools for CAHSEE
interventions. Most schools are using these funds to provide extra CAHSEE support
classes for struggling students. These support classes provide tutoring from certificated
and non-certificated tutors. Furthermore, there is an attendance and energy initiative
which returns monies saved from decreasing energy costs and improving student
attendance to the schools. Schools have complete discretion on how to use these funds.
With the current California budget crisis, all districts and schools have been
forced to make financial cuts. The Premiere district has cut central office personnel by
ten percent, thus reducing classified staff members. There has also been an increase in
class sizes across all schools in the district. In making these crucial decisions, district
administrators try to maintain the current core instructional programs and intervention
programs that are being provided by each school. If any monies are leftover, reducing
class sizes becomes the priority of the district.
70
Summary of Results
Each of the individual school resource indicators and expenditure elements
provides a snapshot of the way that the sample schools are staffed and the educational
strategies that are employed in the schools. Appendix D provides individual case studies
for each sample school and details the expenditure elements in comparison to the
Evidence Based Model, as well as specific types of instructional improvement strategies
used. The comparison of the individual elements to the Evidence Based Model allows
for a comparison between how schools actually allocate resources and the educational
strategies funded by the model. A comprehensive exploration of the individual elements
side-by-side, as presented in Table 4.2, illuminates a bigger picture of the distribution of
resources within all of the sample schools averaged together.
71
Table 4.2 – Average School-Level Resource Use in Full-Time Equivalencies (FTEs)
Expenditure Element Staffing Category
Average Evidence
Based Model
Resources
Generated for the 6
Schools in the
Sample
Average
Observed
Staffing in
the 6
Sample
Schools
Principals 1.00 1.00
Assistant Principals 3.50 3.16
Technology Coordinators 0.00 1.00
Other Administration 0.00 1.00
Secretaries 3.50 4.50
Administration
Clerical Staff 10.3 3.90
Core Academic
Teachers
Core Teachers 80.8 55.12
Specialist/Elective Teachers 27.22 21.45
Librarians 3.40 1.0 Specialist Staff
Media Specialist 3.40 1.0
Certified Tutors 4.30 0.00
Non-Certified Tutors 0.00 3.60
Special Education Teachers 13.78 10.03
Extra Help
ELL Teachers 16.69 11.9
Professional
Development
Instructional Facilitators 10.3 0.00
Student Support Pupil Support Staff 13.5 12.8
Security N/A 5.4
Operations &
Maintenance
Custodians and
Maintenance
N/A 6.7
TOTAL ALL STAFF 191.69 131.46
Overall, schools staffed fewer administrators, clerical staff, core teachers,
specialist/elective teachers, librarians, media specialists, special education and EL
teachers, instructional facilitators and support staff compared to the Evidence Based
Model. The only position that garnered more allocations in the schools was secretaries.
Sample schools also allocate more instructional aide positions and non-certificated tutors
than supported by the Evidence Based Model.
72
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to provide a school level analysis of resource
allocation practices and/or instructional improvement strategies that are associated with
significant gains in student achievement. The specific goals this study strived to
understand included: (1) Developing a better understanding of what resources schools
use to improve learning, and (2) Developing a better understanding of the links between
resources and student performance. In developing these understandings, the following
research questions were addressed:
1. What are the current instructional improvement strategies observed at the
school level?
2. How are the actual resource patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies that are used in the evidence-based
model?
3. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
plan?
4. How does the availability of resources affect the development and
implementation of the instructional improvement plan?
Most educational finance research focuses on district-level resource use. What
makes this study unique is the attempt to understand school resource use at the school-
level. School-level data was collected from six comprehensive high schools from the
same district in San Diego County. Using a mixed-methods research approach, data was
collected both quantitatively and qualitatively. The data collected helped facilitate a
73
deeper understanding of the instructional strategy or vision of each sample school and the
corresponding allocation of resources that supported that instructional vision. Data
collection instruments included interview protocols and corresponding codebooks that
outlined the types of qualitative and quantitative data to be collected (Appendices A, B &
C).
Summary of School Resource Use Results
This section presents the school resource use results, which are organized by
staffing categories and compared to the resources provided in the Evidence Based Model.
Each element contains results of actual staffing and fiscal resources found in each sample
high school compared to the corresponding resources provided in the Evidence Based
Model. In order to provide a comprehensive picture of the resource use found in the
schools compared to the model, staff allocations are reported in actual totals and FTEs.
To set the context for this comparison, it is important to point out the average school size
in this study is 2,068 students. In contrast, the Evidence Based Model (EBM) is based on
a prototypical high school size of 600 students. Therefore, staff allocations that are 1.0
FTEs in the EBM were multiplied by a common factor for each sample school,
depending on its actual school size.
Each of the individual school resource indicators and expenditure elements
provides a snapshot of the way that the sample schools are staffed and the educational
strategies that are employed in the schools. The comparison of the individual elements to
the Evidence Based Model allows for a comparison between how schools actually
allocate resources and the educational strategies funded by the model. A comprehensive
74
exploration of the individual elements side-by-side, as presented in Table 5.1, illuminates
a bigger picture of the distribution of resources within the sample schools. All FTEs
reported for each category are averages of the results from all six sample schools.
Table 5.1 – Average School-Level Resource Use in Full-Time Equivalencies (FTEs)
Expenditure Element Staffing Category
Average Evidence
Based Model
Resources Generated
for the 6 Schools in
the Sample
Average
Observed
Staffing
in the 6
Sample
Schools
Principals 1.00 1.00
Assistant Principals 3.50 3.16
Technology Coordinators 0.00 1.00
Other Administration 0.00 1.00
Secretaries 3.50 4.50
Administration
Clerical Staff 10.3 3.90
Core Academic
Teachers
Core Teachers 80.8 55.12
Specialist/Elective
Teachers
27.22 21.45
Librarians 3.40 1.0
Specialist Staff
Media Specialist 3.40 1.0
Certified Tutors 4.30 0.00
Non-Certified Tutors 0.00 3.60
Special Education
Teachers
13.78 10.03
Extra Help
ELL Teachers 16.69 11.9
Professional
Development
Instructional Facilitators 10.3 0.00
Student Support Pupil Support Staff 13.5 12.8
Security N/A 5.4
Operations &
Maintenance
Custodians and
Maintenance
N/A 6.7
TOTAL ALL STAFF 191.69 131.46
Overall, schools staffed fewer administrators, clerical staff, core teachers,
specialist/elective teachers, librarians, media specialists, special education and EL
teachers, instructional facilitators and support staff compared to the Evidence Based
75
Model. The only position that garnered more allocations in the schools was secretaries.
Sample schools also allocated more instructional aide positions and non-certificated
tutors than supported by the Evidence Based Model. It is also important to point out that
all six sample schools were extremely low on core teachers, but not so far off on
specialist/elective teachers, in comparison to what the Evidence Based Model would
generate (refer to Table 4.1). Appendix D provides six detailed case studies analyzing
school resource use and instructional improvement strategies for each individual high
school in this study.
Summary of Instructional Improvement Strategies
School-site interviews revealed that the six high schools studied developed and
implemented a variety of instructional strategies designed to improve student
performance. Overall, all schools are currently focusing improvement efforts towards
improving student performance in Math and English. Student success on the CAHSEE is
dependent upon academic skills in Math and English, thus making these core subjects
important in most school’s improvement plans. To improve academic achievement in
Math and English, all sample schools first focused on soundly aligning all curriculums to
state standards. Most schools also adopted supplemental instructional materials to help
struggling students and EL and special education subgroups improve academic
performance in these core areas.
In addition to these improvement efforts, sample schools also developed and
implemented a variety of strategies to help struggling students. All schools offered after
school tutorials which students could voluntarily attend and receive academic assistance
76
from a certificated teacher in various subject areas. On average, fifteen teachers from
each school offered tutorials and about 10 to 20 students would regularly attend.
Furthermore, schools also provided opportunities for students to make-up credits and
receive academic remediation in summer school. Summer school was divided into two,
three-week sessions with students attending five hours per day. Other extended day
strategies to help struggling students varied from school to school and included: (1)
ASSETs program for enrichment and academic assistance, (2) CAHSEE prep courses for
struggling students, (3) support classes for struggling students in core classes, (4) night
library, and (5) grant-funded tutorial programs (STAMP) with academic assistance
offered by certificated teachers and peer tutors.
Instructional improvement efforts at each sample school also included the
development of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). Originally a district
initiative, PLCs at each school site were subject-specific and met weekly for at least one
hour. All sample schools adjusted their daily bell schedule to incorporate time within the
school day for PLCs to meet. One common agenda item within the PLCs included
developing common achievement goals that are aligned to the school and district goals.
These goals have driven efforts to assure that curriculum is soundly aligned to state
standards. Differentiating curriculum and instructional strategies has also become a
primary focus of PLCs in order to meet the needs of struggling students. Teachers are
provided district support to develop goals and strategies within the PLCs. PLCs are also
beginning to work on developing common formative and summative assessments that
will help target struggling students and weak areas in the curriculum and instructional
77
process. This seemed to be a weak area for most schools and there was a desire
expressed by most site principals for more professional development in this area.
Instructional strategies utilized in the classroom were another important element
of the instructional improvement processes at each school site. Five of the six sample
schools had not engaged in any dialogue defining strategies and characteristics of
effective teaching. Teachers are evaluated every two years and at that time were
involved in discussions with administrative teams about the characteristics of effective
teaching. Most principals expressed a definite need for dialogue centering on effective
teaching practices. Two schools have begun to use “lesson studies” to further engage in
reflective conversations and improve the curriculum and instruction in Math and English.
One sample school has created a school-wide focus on developing instructional standards
and goals for the school year. There are four instructional standards for each school year
that are developed from research-based strategies of effective teaching. The four goals
for this current school year included: (1) Demonstrate your ability to clearly articulate
daily learning objectives to students either verbally or by posting them prominently
within the classroom, (2) Demonstrate your ability to facilitate students working together
in pairs or groups of three and four, (3) Demonstrate your ability to check for
understanding to ensure student learning (includes effective use of questioning
techniques), and (4) Demonstrate your ability to use multiple methods of assessment to
check for and ensure student learning (includes both formative and summative
assessments). Teachers also participated in book circles within their PLCs where they
engaged in reflective and essential conversations concerning effective teaching strategies
78
from their current book by Marzano, in relation to the four instructional goals for the
year. This school also provides many professional development opportunities to help
teachers understand the effective teaching strategies and develop goals for the year.
Professional development in the district requires certificated teachers to attend
three days of professional development activities during the summer, directly before the
school year begins. The agenda for these three days varied from school to school, but
most included reviewing discipline and academic procedures for the upcoming year,
participating in technology workshops regarding websites, online grades and Power
Point, and allowing time for PLCs to meet and develop goals for the year. In addition,
during the school year, teachers are allowed one school business day and one professional
growth day of which teachers can use to attend seminars and workshops specific to their
needs. Schools do not currently have instructional coaches to work with teachers, but the
district has hired one instructional coach that is available to work with individual schools,
departments or teachers. The district instructional coach collaborates primarily with
PLCs at various school sites.
Lastly, school culture varied between the sites, but all sample schools did have the
basic school site council, PTSA and other organizations that encouraged parent
participation and made important connections between the school and the community.
Two of the more diverse sample schools had an ELAC committee to help immigrant
parents and EL students transition and learn about essential resources in the school and
community. One school is currently using Parent Institute to aid in recruiting and
teaching minority parents how to get involved with their child’s academic life and how to
79
utilize resources within the community. Overall, the school cultures on all six high
school campuses were focused on building positive relationships with parents, students
and the community.
Analysis and Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to examine how six comprehensive high schools
from the same district in California utilized resources and implemented instructional
strategies to organize, prioritize and plan for improved student performance. The schools
chosen were schools that were rather stagnant in terms of API, CST and CAHSEE scores,
making small fluctuations in student achievement from year to year. Four schools were
primarily Caucasian, with the next largest subgroup being Hispanic/Latino. Two schools
in the study were primarily Hispanic/Latino, with the next largest subgroup being
Caucasian. Academic performance within individual subgroups (including EL, low SES
and special education students) was also stagnant with small fluctuations from year to
year. Despite these demographic differences, all sample schools could be considered
your average performing school with some progress being made towards achieving an
API of 800 for the school and all subgroups. One school in the study did achieve an API
score of 800 in 2008, however, this school is still underperforming in terms of the
statewide and similar schools index rankings. According to these indices, all six schools
in the study are, on average, performing below other schools in California of similar
school type and demographics.
How can we change schools that are already relatively high performing?
Studying schools that show flat academic performance is important for many reasons.
80
The district that all sample schools are apart of allocates the same types of resources to all
schools and schools are required to offer similar types of educational programs, even
though there may be dramatic differences in what the students need at each school site.
This study allows for comparisons between the schools to see how the district allocations
are being used and if student achievement was affected. The focus of these comparisons
included: (1) How the schools differed from the research-based model of school
instructional improvement strategies, and (2) How they differ or are similar to each other.
For example, are they all doing the same thing that is not working, or are they doing
different things that are not working? In comparison to the model, it is clear that the
schools are allocating resources below the levels that the Evidence Based Model
recommends in all staffing categories. Not only are there much larger class sizes at each
school (average of 37:1) but there are also not enough core teachers or specialist teachers
to deliver a rigorous, comprehensive educational program equitably to every student.
This seems to be the case for most large high school districts in California suffering from
the same budget crisis. Thus, if there is little control over the number of employees the
district will allow schools to hire, it is important to look at the educational programs
offered at each school in comparison to the literature. This will illuminate areas of
strengths and areas of weaknesses for the schools in relation to their educational
improvement strategies.
One common finding in this study was the lack of adjustments in the school
schedule to provide additional instructional time for all students in subject area selected
to improve. Two schools in this study did add support classes for Math and English, but
81
these classes only supported a small population of mostly EL students. Other struggling
students were not scheduled into these support classes. Duke (2006) found that schools
that had been successful in improving student performance made adjustments in the daily
schedule in order to increase time for academic work, especially in the key areas of
reading and math. One sample school with block scheduling does provide students with
longer core instructional periods; however, there was no conclusive evidence that this is
having a significant effect on student achievement.
The finding that a common strategy employed by the schools in this study was to
provide additional assistance for students not demonstrating proficiency in the area
selected for improvement is supported by previous research. Duke (2006) found that a
common effective strategy to improve instruction was to assist students experiencing
problems with learning by providing them with prompt assistance often delivered in
small groups or individually. All high schools in the study provided opportunities for
struggling students to receive individual and small group assistance. However, these
opportunities were voluntary (a district policy) and the majority of students taking
advantage of the extra assistance were not the failing students, but students passing
courses with A’s and B’s already.
Furthermore, providing additional assistance for struggling students was not
always by a certificated teacher. Research shows that instructional aides and tutors are
not effective in significantly improving student performance (Picus, 2008). All schools
in this study hired tutors for AVID, EL students and extended day tutorials, as well as
instructional aides for EL and special education students. The average hourly pay for
82
instructional aides in the district is $15.00, with most working a seven-hour day. The
average hourly pay for certificated teachers offering extended day opportunities for
struggling students is $45.00, with most teachers tutoring 2 to 4 hours per week.
Research shows that certificated teachers impact student achievement to a greater degree,
and according to the above figures, would be more cost effective than hiring numerous
instructional aides to “baby-sit”, as one principal put it.
Another common finding in this study is the adoption of specific curriculum
programs designed to improve student achievement in specific content areas. All schools
adopted Math and/or English supplemental materials to help improve the academic
achievement of EL and special education students. Darling-Hammond (2006)
documented that the adoption and implementation of authentic curriculum is correlated
with higher student performance. She further stressed that successful schools demand
intellectually challenging work, and they are focused on preparing all students to work
independently and to meet the skill and content demands of college and challenging jobs.
Good in theory, however, most schools are not providing teachers with the necessary
training on how to properly implement these adopted materials.
Overall, schools in this study are still allocating resources in a traditional manner.
Picus (1995) held that regardless of available funding, school districts generally tend to
utilize their resources in the same way each year, doing the same thing but expecting
different results. To some extent, that finding was corroborated by this study. Even
though there were definite signs of each sample school developing specific programs to
improve student achievement, there is a lack of funding at the school, district and state
83
levels to support the implementation and growth of such programs. As a result, this
district and the schools in this study operate in a very traditional manner, allocating
resources in the same way every year.
Recommendations
High schools in this study are relatively high performing, but there is still
potential for improvement. As schools continue to focus on school improvement through
the selection of resource allocation strategies and instructional strategies, it will be
important to be as effective as possible in order to have a significant impact on student
achievement. The Evidence Based Model has provided a tool upon which to compare the
allocation of school resources and determine strategies for improving student
performance. Upon making these comparisons, there are seven recommendations that
should be considered.
First, schools must be provided with adequate funding to increase the number of
core and specialist teachers, instructional facilitators, student support staff, clerical staff
and administrators. This will reduce class sizes, provide more opportunities for
individual instruction, especially in core courses, increase support services offered to
students and overall improve the educational program provided by the school.
Second, it is recommended that schools continue to develop extended day
programs for struggling students. However, it is also recommended that individual and
small group tutoring is provided by a certificated tutor or teacher and not an instructional
aide, peer tutor or non-certificated tutor.
84
Third, teachers should be provided with more opportunities for professional
development regarding effective teaching strategies and effective strategies for struggling
students. There would also need to be district support with these professional
development opportunities.
Fourth, schools should provide additional time or classes during the school day
for struggling students who need academic assistance, especially in English and Math.
These courses should be small in size and taught by a certificated teacher.
Fifth, it is recommended, according to the Evidence Based Model, that schools
allocate sufficient funding to support the development and improvement of programs for
gifted students, career and technical education, special education students and other
struggling subgroups.
Sixth, schools must be provided with funding for technology that will support the
instructional improvement strategy of the school. Staff must also receive appropriate
training regarding the effective use of technology in the classroom. Currently,
technology on the school campuses is minimal and outdated.
Lastly, it is recommended that schools be provided with more flexibility regarding
how funds will be allocated in their specific school. Education is not a one size fits all
model. The district must allocate resources in a manner that allows schools to develop
and implement improvement programs specific to their population and student needs.
Implications for Future Research
This study was limited to six of the eleven schools in the same district. It would
be valuable to collect school-level resource use and instructional improvement strategy
85
data from all eleven schools, including two charter schools. This would paint a more
accurate picture of how schools compare in relation to resource use and the district’s role
in allocating resources to schools.
Furthermore, this research will make valuable contributions to the body of
research regarding the allocation of resources at the school level as it relates to student
performance. This study will provide California policy makers and stakeholders with
valuable information regarding the school-level resources needed to provide an equal,
effective and quality education to all students.
This study will also inform the district and school administrators of the support
and resources necessary at the school level to improve student achievement. This study
will also provide school sites and practitioners with valuable information regarding what
specific research based instructional strategies improve student achievement and how to
allocate resources to implement these types of successful instructional programs.
In addition, it is important for schools and districts to continually evaluate what
instructional practices, personnel, intervention strategies and other resources significantly
influence student achievement. It is vital for schools to make every dollar count.
Summary
The schools in this study have demonstrated that they used funds in much the
same way as they have done historically. The schools also allocated fewer resources than
recommended, spreading resources out too thin and allocating them in a traditional
manner, making it difficult to significantly improve student achievement. The schools do
not necessarily have a choice in how they are currently allocating resources due to the
86
limited resources available at the district and state levels. Schools are beginning to
recognize the need to reform current instructional improvement strategies and resource
allocation practices, but until there is more funding and flexibility, the high schools
within this district may remain stagnant in terms of student achievement.
87
REFERENCES
Addonizio, M. F. (2003). From fiscal equity to educational adequacy: Lessons from
Michigan. Journal of Educational Finance, 28, 457-484.
Alexander, A. J., (1974). Teachers, salaries and school district expenditures. Santa
Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
Augenblick, J., & Silverstein, J. (2002). The status of school finance in 2000. The State
Education Standard, Summer, 2000, 8-13.
Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3), 259-
287.
Barro, S. M., & Carroll, S. J. (1975). Budget allocation by school districts: An analysis
of spending for teachers and other resources. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND
Corporation.
Berends, M., Bodilly, S., Kirby, S.N. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole-school
reform: New American Schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing
professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
Brewer, D., & Smith, J. (2007). Evaluating the "Crazy Quilt"; Educational governance in
California. Retrieved May, 2008, from Stanford University Web Site:
http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Brinson, V., & Mellor, L. (2005). How are high performing schools spending their
money? A case study. Louisville, KY: American Education Finance
Association.
Busch, C., & Odden, A. (1997). Special issue: Collection of school-level finance data.
Journal of Education Finance, 22(3).
California Department Of Education. (2007, March). Overview of California's 2006
similar schools ranks based on the API. Retrieved May, 2008, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov Web Site: http://star.cde.ca.gov/
Chambers, J., Levin, J., & Delancey, D. (2007, March). Efficiency and adequacy in
California school finance: A professional judgment approach. Retrieved May,
2008 from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
88
Clune, W. H. (1994). The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance. Educational
Policy, 8(4), 376-394.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child.
Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 193-201.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Securing the right to learn: Policy and practice for
powerful teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 13-24.
Duke, D. (2006). What we know and don't know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 729-735.
Duncomber, W., & Yinger , J. (2007, March). Understanding the incentives in
California's education finance system. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on
Educational Policy and Practice (IREPP).
Edsource (2006, November). The basics of California’s school finance system.
Retrieved May, 2008, from Edsource Web Site.
Edsource. (2007, January). Trends and comparisons in California school finance.
Retrieved May, 2008, from Edsource Web Site:
http://californiaschoolfinance.org/tabid/126/Default.aspx
Firestone, W. A., Goetz, M. E., Nagle, B., & Smelkinson, M. F. (1994). Where did the
$800 million go? The first years of New Jersey’s quality education act.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(4), 359-374.
Garet, M.S., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B. & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Education Research Journal. 38(4), 915-945.
Governor's Committee On Education Excellence (2007, November). Students first:
Renewing hope for California's future. Retrieved May, 2008 from
http://www.everychildprepared.org/
Grubb, W. N., Goe, L., & Huerta, L. A. (2004). The unending search for equity:
California policy, the "improved school finance," and the Williams case. Teachers
College Record, 106(11), 2081-2101.
Guthrie, J. W., & Rothstein, R. (1999). Enabling adequacy to achieve reality: Translating
adequacy into state school finance distribution arrangements. In H.F. Ladd, R.
Chalk, & J. S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues
and perspectives (pp. 209-259). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
89
Hannaway, J., McKay, S., & Nakib, Y. (2002). Reform and resource allocation: National
trends and state policies. Developments in School Finance, 1999-2000.
Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of
Education, 57-76.
Hansen, J. (2007, March). Education data in California: Availability and transparency.
Retrieved April 30, 2008 from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Hanushek, E. (2006). Courting Failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges’
good intentions and harm our children. Stanford: Hoover Press.
Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (1997). Understanding the twentieth-century growth in U.S.
school spending. Journal of Human Resources, 32(1), 35-68.
Hedges , L. V., Laine, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994). An exchange: Part I: Does money
matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on
student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23(5). Retrieved June, 2008, from
http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/5
Imazeki, J. (2007, March). Assessing the costs of K-12 education in California public
schools. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from
http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice. (2007). Getting down to facts; A
research project examining California's school governance and finance systems.
Retrieved June, 2008, from Stanford University Web Site:
http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Jennings, J. (2000). Title I: Its legislative history and its promise. Phi Delta Kappan,
81, no. 7 (March): 516-522.
Joyce, B. (2004). How are professional learning communities created? Phi Delta
Kappan, 86(1), 76-83.
Kirst, M., Goertz, M., & Odden, A. (2007). Evolution of California state school finance
with implications from other states. In Consortium for Policy Research in
Education (CPRE).
Koski, W., & Horng, E. (2007, March). Curbing or facilitating inequality? Law,
collective bargaining, and teacher assignment among schools in California ().
Retrieved May, 2008 from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
90
Koski, W. S., & Weis, H. A. (2004). What educational resources do students need to
meet California's educational content standards? A textual analysis of California's
educational content standards and their implications for basic educational
conditions and resources. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1907-1935.
Kruse, S., Louis, K., & Bryk, A. (1995). An emerging framework for analyzing school-
based professional community. In K. S. Louis & S. D. Kruse (Eds.),
Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ladd, H., & Hansen, J. (1999). Making money mater. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Loeb, S. (2007, August 6). Difficulties of estimating the cost of achieving education
standards (Working Paper 23). Stanford: School Finance Redesign Project.
Loeb, S., & Miller, L. (2007, March). A review of state teacher policies: What are they,
what are their effects, and what are their implications for school finance?.
Retrieved June, 2008 from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Louis, K., & Marks, H. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom?
Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American
Journal of Education, 106(4), 532-575.
Miles, K. (2000). Critical issue: Rethinking the use of educational resources to support
higher student achievement. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Miles, K. H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Rethinking the allocation of teaching
resources: Some lessons from high performing schools. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 20(1), 9-29.
National Center for Education Statistics (2006). Accessed online at
http://www.nces.ed.gov
Oates, W. E. (1999). An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature,
37(3), 1120-1149.
Odden, A. (1997). How to rethink school budgets to support school transformation.
Getting better by design series, 3. Arlington, VA: New American Schools.
Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.
91
Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2000). Reallocating resources: How to boost student
achievement without asking for more. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H. A. (2002). A cost framework
for professional development. Journal of Education Finance, 28(1), 51-74.
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditure structures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education
Finance, 28, 323-356.
Odden, A., & Busch, C. (1998). Financing schools for high performance. San Fransisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Odden, A., Goetz, M., Archibald, S., Gross, B., Weiss, M., & Mangan, M. T. (2006).
The cost of instructional improvement: Resource allocation in schools using
comprehensive strategies to change classroom practice. Journal of Education
Finance. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San
Fransisco, CA.
Odden, A., Goertz, M., Goetz, M., Archibald, S., Gross, B., Weiss, M., Mangan, M.T.
(2008). The cost of instructional improvement: Resource allocation in schools
using comprehensive strategies to change classroom practice. Journal of
Education Finance, 33(4), 381-405.
Odden, A., & Picus, L.O. (1992). School Finance: A policy perspective. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Odden, A., & Picus, L.O. (2004). School Finance: A policy perspective (3
rd
ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Odden, A., & Picus, L. O. (2008). School Finance: A policy perspective (4th ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., & Fermanich, M. (2003). An evidence-based approach to school
finance in Arkansas. Report prepared for the Arkansas Joint Committee on
Educational Adequacy. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Mangan, M. T., & Fermanich, M. (2006). An
evidence-based approach to school finance adequacy in Washington. Report
prepared for the K-12 Advisory Committee of Washington Learns. North
Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
92
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditure structures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Educational
Finance, 28(3), 323-356.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Fermanich, M., Seder, R. C., Glenn, W., & Nelli, R.
(2005). An evidence-based approach to recalibrating Wyoming’s block grant
school funding formula, final report prepared for the Wyoming Legislative Select
Committee on Recalibration. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Mangan, M. T., & Fermanich, M. (2006). An
evidence-based approach to school finance in Washington. Submitted to the
Washington Learns Steering Committee, Olympia, WA. Retrieved March, 2008
from http://washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/EvidenceBasedReportFinal9-11-
06_000.pdf
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Picus, L. O. (1991). Incentive funding programs and school district response: California
and Senate Bill 813. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(3), 289-308.
Picus, L. O. (1994). The local impact of school finance reform in Texas. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(4), 391-404.
Picus, L. O. (2000). How schools allocate and use their resources. ERIC Clearinghouse.
ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 452578.
Picus, L. O., Odden, A., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. T., & Goetz, M. (2008). Implementing
school finance adequacy: School level resource us in Wyoming following
adequacy-oriented finance reform. Retrieved March, 2008 from
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2008/interim/schoolfinance/resources.pdf
Rebell, M. A. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement and judicial review: A
proposal for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. Teachers
College Record, 109(6), 1303-1373.
Resnik, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (1998). Learning organization for sustainable educational
reform. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 127(4), 89-118.
Rice, J. K. (2004). Equity and efficiency in school finance reform: Competing or
complementing goods? Peabody Journal of Education, 79(2), 134-151.
93
Rothstein, R., & Miles, K. H. (1995). Where’s the money gone? Washington, DC:
Economic Policy Institute.
Roza, M., & Hill, P. (2006). How can anyone say what’s adequate if nobody knows how
money is spent now? In Hanushek, E., (2006). Courting Failure: How school
finance lawsuits exploit judges’ good intentions and harm our children. Stanford,
CA: Hoover Press.
Schmoker, M. (2004). The tipping point: From reckless reform to substantive
instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, February 2004, 424-432.
Timar, T. B. (2004). School governance and oversight in California: Shaping the
landscape of equity and adequacy. Teachers College Record, 106`(11), 2057-
2080.
Timar, T. B. (2006, September). How California funds K-12 education. University of
California, Davis: Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice
(IREPP).
Timar, T. B. (2007, March). Financing K-12 education in California: A system overview.
Retrieved May, 2008 from http://irepp.standford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Verstegen, D. A. (2007). Has adequacy been achieved? A study of finances and costs a
decade after court-ordered reform. Journal of Education Finance, 32(3), 304-327.
94
APPENDIX A
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.
A. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy?
1. What has the content focus of your improvement process been?
(E.g. Reading, Math, Reading First, Math Helping Corps, etc.)
2. What curricula have you used during your instructional
improvement effort? (E.g. Open Court reading, Everyday Math, etc.)
• Is it aligned with state standards?
• How do you know it is aligned? (E.g. District recent
review for alignment)
3. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement
effort?
• Does your staff have an agreed upon
definition of effective teaching?
4. What is the instructional vision for your improvement effort?
(E.g. Connecticut standards or the Danielson Framework)
5. Have assessments been an integral part of your instructional
improvement process?
• If so, what types of assessments have been key?
(E.g. formative, diagnostic, summative)
• How often are those assessments utilized?
• What actions were taken with the results?
6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a
part of your reform efforts? (E.g. Individualized instruction,
differentiated instruction, 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading
instruction)
95
• Were teachers trained in a specific instructional
strategy?
• How did you know that the instructional
strategies were being implemented?
B. What were the resource pieces of the strategy? How long have the
resources been in place?
1. Early Childhood program: Is it half or full day? Number kids?
Staffing ratios? Eligibility?
2. Full Day Kindergarten
• If yes, how long have they had full day kindergarten?
3. Class Size Reduction
• Reduction Strategy (E.g. 15 all day long K-3 or
reading only with 15)
4. Professional Development:
• When are the professional development days scheduled
for? (E.g. Summer Institutes, Inservice Days)
• What is the focus of the professional development?
• Do you have instructional coaches in schools? Were
there enough coaches? (Did they need more but couldn’t afford it?)
5. “Interventions” or Extra Help Strategies for Struggling
Students:
• Tutoring: Specify 1:1, in small groups (2-4), or in
medium groups (3-5)
• Extended day: How frequently (Number minutes &
Number of times per week), Academic focus, Who instructs
(certified teachers or aides), Who participates
• Summer school: How Frequently (Number hours a day,
Number weeks), Who instructs (certified teachers or aides), Who
participates
• ELL
• Scheduling: (E.g. double periods in secondary schools)
6. Parent outreach or community involvement
7. Technology
C. Was the improvement effort centrist (central office orchestrated) or
bottom up?
96
D. What type of instructional leadership was present?
E. Was there accountability built into this improvement plan? (E.g. School
Board report which helped solidify focus)
F. What additional resources would be needed to continue and expand
your efforts?
97
APPENDIX B
Data Collection Protocol
School Profile
School Name School
Pseudonym
Address
City State Zip
CA
Phone Fax
Website
NOTES:
98
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:
School Contact (3)
Title
Honorific First Name Last
Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
99
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:
District Contact (3)
Title
Honorific First Name Last
Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
100
School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment
!
Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment
!
Grade Span
Number of ELL Students
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:
!
101
Core academic teachers
(Self-contained Regular
Education)
FTEs
Kindergarten
(Full day program)
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
!
Grade 9
!
Grade 10
!
Grade 11
Grade 12
English/Reading/L.A.
!
History/Soc. Studies
!
Math
!
Science
Foreign Language
!
!NOTES:
!
Specialist and Elective Teachers
/Planning and Prep
FTEs
102
Art
Music
PE/Health
Drama
Technology
Career & Technical Education
Drivers Education
Study Hall
Athletics
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Description:
NOTES:
Library Staff
FTEs
Librarian
Library Media Specialist
Library Aide
NOTES:
Extra Help I FTEs or Dollars ($)
Certified Teacher Tutors
!
Non-Certified Tutors
!
103
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 Classified Staff
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
104
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:
Professional Development Dollars ($) and FTEs
Number of Prof. Dev. Days in Teacher Contract
Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time)
$
Instructional Facilitators/Coaches
Trainers/Consultants
$
105
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
106
Other Administrator
Description of Other Administrator:
Secretary
Clerical staff
Technology Coordinator/ I.T.
Security
Custodians
NOTES:
Elementary School Class Sizes
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4
Special
Education
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
107
APPENDIX C
Data Collection Codebook
This Codebook 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: Each researcher has developed his/her own criteria to identify
California schools to include in this study.
B. School State ID: This is the CDS identification number that the state has
assigned the school.
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”
G. Zip: Postal zip code of the school
H. Phone: Main office phone number for the school
I. Fax: Main office fax number for the school
J. Website: School’s official website
II. School Contacts
This section is for recording the contact people at the school. This will include
the principal, and most likely the secretary. Anyone else you interview should
also be recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about this person (E.g.
phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what
the data source is.
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: “CA”
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code
108
III. District Profile
A. District Name: This is the name of the district where the school is located.
B. District State ID: This is the identification number that the state has assigned
to the district within which the school resides.
IV. District Contacts
This section is for recording the contact people at the district office. This will
include the superintendent, and possibly an assistant superintendent and/or
director of curriculum and instruction. Anyone else you interview should also be
recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about 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: “CA”
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 2008-09 school year. Enter
personal notations pertaining to the data in the yellow notes fields.
A. Current Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled at the school on
the day of the site visit minus any pre-kindergarten students.
B. Pre-kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled in any
pre-kindergarten programs at the school on the day of the site visit. These
students should not be included in the previous category, Current Student
Enrollment. Make sure to also ask this question at secondary schools.
C. Grade Span: Range of grades that the school provides instruction in. (E.g. K-
5)
D. Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of the site visit, the number
of students eligible for services as an English language learner (ELL) as
defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(http://www.k12.wy.us/FP/title3/Wy_ELD_ELA.pdf).
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.
109
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 Plan
(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 Plan (IEP) indicating their
eligibility for special education services and who learn primarily (at least 60%
of the school day*) outside of a regular education classroom.
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
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.”
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
110
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), 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.
111
A. Librarian/ Library Media Specialist: Number of FTE licensed librarians or
media specialists who instruct students
B. Library Aide: Number of FTE library aides who help instruct students
IX. Extra Help Staff
This category mainly consists of licensed teachers from a wide variety of
strategies designed to assist struggling students, or students with special needs, to
learn a school’s regular curriculum. The educational strategies that these teachers
deploy are generally supplemental to the instruction of the regular classroom.
Extra help staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. Do not include volunteers in the FTE counts. Enter each staff
member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields.
Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.
A. Certified Teacher Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
B. Non-Certified Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are not licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
C. ISS Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who monitor/teach In-School
Suspension (ISS) students.
D. ISS Aides: Number of FTE Title I funded aides who monitor/teach In-School
Suspension (ISS) students.
E. Title I Teachers: Number of FTE non-special education teachers who provide
small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
F. Title I Aides: Number of FTE non-special education aides who provide small
groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
G. ELL Class Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers of English as a second
language (ESL) who work with non-English speaking students to teach them
English.
H. Aides for ELL: Number of FTE aides of English as a second language (ESL)
classes who work with non-English speaking students to teach them English.
I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct students in
the gifted program.
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
112
all of the school day. These teachers may teach a modified version of a
school’s curriculum or other learning goals required by their students’
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who assist
regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or
mental disabilities, or a learning problem. These students generally have “less
severe” disabling conditions.
R. Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers: Number of FTE licensed special
education teachers who provide small groups of students in special education
with extra help in specific areas.
S. Special Ed. Self-contained Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist in self-
contained special education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled
students for most or all of the school day.
T. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or mental
disabilities, or some learning problem. These students generally have “less
severe” disabling conditions.
U. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE special education aides
who provide small groups of students in special education with extra help in
specific areas.
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate in the
extended day program.
W. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of minutes per week
that the extended day program is offered.
X. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work minutes per week in
the teacher contract.
Y. Extended Day Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum after school.
Z. Extended Day Classified Staff: Number of FTE staff who provide students
with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum after school.
AA. Description of Extended Day Classified Staff: Description of classified
staff’s role in the extended day program.
BB. Minutes Per Week of Summer School: Number of minutes per day
multiplied by the number of days per week that students attend summer
school.
CC. Length of Session: Number of weeks that summer school is in session.
DD. School’s Students Enrolled in the Summer School Program: Number of
students from the individual school who are enrolled in the summer school
program (a subset of the following item).
EE. All Students in Summer School: Total number of students enrolled in the
summer school program.
FF. Summer School Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provided students
with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum during summer 2008.
GG. Summer School Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who
provided students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in
the regular curriculum during summer 2008.
113
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 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.
114
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.
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.
115
XIII. Administration
This expenditure element consists of all staffing resources pertaining to the
administration of a school. Administrators should be entered as full-time
equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name
that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses
if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.
A. Principal: Number of FTE licensed principals.
B. Assistant Principal: Number of FTE assistant principals.
C. Other Administrators: Number of FTE other administrators. (Use this category
sparingly.)
D. Other Description: Indicate what the “Other” administrators’ duties are.
E. Secretary: Number of FTE Secretaries. (12 month employees)
F. Clerical Staff: Number of FTE clerical staff members. (10 month employees)
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.
116
APPENDIX D
Individual School Case Studies
Case Study One: Goodison High School
Case Study Two: Stamford Bridge High School
Case Study Three: White Hart Lane High School
Case Study Four: Villa Park High School
Case Study Five: Craven Cottage High School
Case Study Six: Old Trafford High School
117
CASE STUDY ONE:
Goodison High School
A case study of Instructional Improvement Strategies and Resource Use
Goodison High School is a comprehensive public high school in a large high
school district in East San Diego County, serving grades 9-12. Goodison opened in 1920
and was the first high school in the district. The surrounding attendance area is primarily
composed of suburban residential neighborhoods and serves 2,477 students.
Approximately sixty percent of the students live in single-family homes; however, as
large rental complexes are being built in the attendance area, there has been an increase in
the percentage of students living in apartments. Goodison High School is one of eleven
comprehensive high schools in the Premiere Union High School District. All six of the
sample schools in this study are located in this same high school district.
The growth of the surrounding community over the past ten years has directly
affected the student demographics at Goodison High School. The student body is
currently comprised of 57.1% Caucasian, 25.0% Hispanic or Latino, 5.6% African
American and the remaining 12.3% of students are from various ethnic groups including
Filipino, American Indian, Asian and Pacific Islander. Although the student population
is still predominantly Caucasian, there has been an increase in the percentage of
Hispanic/Latino and African American students. Figure 4.1 shows the changing trends in
student demographics from 1994 to 2008.
118
Figure 4.1 – Goodison High School Demographics from 1994 to 2008
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
% of Student Population
Caucasian Hispanic/Latino African American
These changing demographics have challenged the staff and faculty of Goodison High
School to reform educational goals and practices in order to meet the growing needs of
their diverse student population.
From a socio-economic perspective, Goodison High School serves students that
come primarily from middle class and upper-middle class areas, however, students
attending from lower socio-economic areas increases every year. As a result, the
percentage of students on free and reduced price lunch has significantly increased over
the past ten years to 22.6%. Goodison does not currently qualify to receive Title I funds
despite this high percentage of students. Furthermore, about seven percent of the student
population are English Learner (EL) students. The primary language within this EL
population is Spanish. Another significant subgroup is the disabled student subgroup.
Currently, 313 (12.6%) students within the student body are classified as disabled with an
Individual Education Plan (IEP).
119
As the student population at Goodison High School continues to grow and the
demographics continue to change, it is important to see what impact these changes are
having on the Academic Performance Index (API) scores, Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) scores and the California High School Exit Exam Scores. As a
school, Goodison’s API has improved 53 points since 2003 from 707 to 760. The goal
for all California schools is to achieve an API score of 800 for all students and all
significant subgroups. Table 4.1 summarizes the whole school and significant subgroup
API scores from 2003 to 2008 for Goodison students.
Table 4.1 – Goodison High School API Scores 2003 to 2008
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Change
2003 to
2008
All Students 707 698 710 727 735 760 +53
Caucasian 740 731 746 765 772 792 +52
Hispanic/Latino 619 609 627 625 660 699 +80
Low Socio-
economic
563 577 596 613 630 677 +114
English Learners N/A N/A N/A N/A 600 652 +52
Hispanic/Caucasian
Gap
121 122 119 140 112 93 -28
The most impressive gains are the improvements made by the low SES subgroup,
improving 114 API points, from 563 in 2003 to 677 in 2008. Other important
improvements include the decline of the achievement gap between the Caucasian and
Hispanic/Latino subgroups. Figure 4.2 shows how the achievement gap between all
significant subgroups is closing.
120
Figure 4.2 – Goodison High School API Scores 2003 to 2008
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API Scores
All Students Caucasian Hispanic/Latino
Low Socioeconomic English Learners
Although minor, the achievement gap between Caucasian and Hispanic/Latino students
has closed by 28 API points, decreasing from 121 API points in 2003 to 93 API points in
2008. The API gains are slow and steady, but it is important to point out that each
significant subgroup is improving while the demographics of the student body
consistently change and become more diverse.
While all students and subgroups at Goodison High School continue to improve
API scores, the gains being made are still somewhat stagnant in comparison to the
statewide and similar schools index ratings. Table 4.2 summarizes Goodison’s statewide
and similar school rankings from 2003 to 2008.
Table 4.2 – Goodison High School Statewide and Similar Schools Ranking 2003-2008
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average
2003 to
2008
Statewide Rank 7 7 6 6 7 7 6.7
Similar Schools Rank 7 5 4 4 4 4 4.6
121
Goodison’s average statewide rank is 6.7 and represents the decile where the base API
falls in comparison with the base APIs of all other schools statewide of the same school
type and demographics. Goodison’s average similar school rank is 4.6 and represents the
decile where the base API falls in comparison to the base APIs of 100 similar schools of
the same school type and demographics. The average statewide and similar school
rankings indicate that Goodison High School is not progressing as well as it should be in
order to meet the ultimate goal of an 800 API score for the school and all significant
subgroups.
Another measure that illustrates the stagnant academic growth of Goodison High
School students are the California Standards Test (CST) scores in the core subject areas
of English/Language Arts, History, Mathematics and Science. Table 4.3 shows the
percent of students scoring advanced or proficient in the four core areas. The
English/Language Arts scores reflect students who scored advanced or proficient in
grades 9-11 standards. The History scores reflect students who scored advanced or
proficient in World History and US History. The Math scores reflect students who
scored advanced or proficient in General Math (grades 6 & 7 standards), Algebra I,
Geometry, Algebra II and Summative High School Math (grades 9-11 standards). The
Science scores reflect students who scored advanced or proficient in Earth Science,
Physics, Biology and Chemistry.
122
Table 4.3 – Goodison High School CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
English/LA 47% 45% 47% 50% 51% 59%
History 35% 33% 39.5% 39.5% 38% 42.5%
Math EOC 26.3% 22% 22.8% 21% 21.3% 23.4%
Science EOC 35.1% 23% 27.7% 27.3% 26.8% 46.25%
While the percent of students scoring proficient or advanced in English/Language Arts
and Science have increased by about ten percent from 2003 to 2008, the Math and
History scores have remained somewhat stagnant. Figure 4.3 shows the achievement
trends for each subject area from 2003 to 2008.
Figure 4.3 - Goodison High School CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
% Advanced or Proficient
English/LA History Math EOC Science EOC
The English/Language Arts scores have not consistently grown over the past six years,
but instead showed strong growth from 51% in 2007 to 59% in 2008. The Science scores
followed this same inconsistent pattern, increasing from 26.8% in 2007 to 46.25% in
2008.
123
An examination of California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores at
Goodison High School shows that students have consistently scored at proficient or
advanced levels, thus contributing to over an 80% pass rate in both the English and Math
portions of the exam since 2005. Table 4.4 shows the percentages of students from
various subgroups that have passed the English and Math portions of the CAHSEE from
2005 to 2008 on the first attempt.
Table 4.4 –Goodison CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup 2005 – 2008.
English % Passed Math % Passed

2005
n=613
2006
n=595
2007
n=572
2008
n=599
2005
n=591
2006
n=582
2007
n=567
2008
n=591
All 10th Grade 82% 81% 83% 82% 84% 84% 85% 91%
Hispanic/Latino 66% 64% 67% 71% 74% 72% 69% 85%
African American 72% 54% 65% 66% 72% 55% 76% 76%
Caucasian 88% 90% 90% 89% 89% 90% 93% 95%
English Learner 38% 28% 34% 47% 52% 48% 41% 68%
Low SES 63% 63% 62% 68% 69% 66% 68% 81%
Special Education 22% 30% 47% 39% 31% 41% 59% 61%
The most significant gains have been with special education students, who have doubled
their pass rates on both the English and Math portions of the CAHSEE exam. English
Learners have also shown significant gains, increasing their pass rate on the Math portion
from 52% in 2005 to 68% in 2008. Other subgroups have shown minor increases in the
percentage of students passing both the English and Math portions, but still remain rather
stagnant in terms of any significant improvements. Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show patterns of
improvement in the English and Math passing rates on the CAHSEE.
124
Table 4.4 – CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup for the English portion
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 n=613 2006 n=595 2007 n=572 2008 n=599
% Pass Rate English
All 10th Grade Hispanic/Latino African American Caucasian
English Learner Low SES Special Education
Table 4.5 – CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup for the Math portion
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 n=591 2006 n=582 2007 n=567 2008 n=591
% Pass Rate Math
All 10th Grade Hispanic/Latino African American Caucasian
English Learner Low SES Special Education
The data summarized show that Goodison High School has had a stagnant past in
terms of student academic performance, but has recently made significant improvements
125
with most significant subgroups on the CSTs and CAHSEE. Goodison has never been in
Program Improvement, even though the district is, and has continued to meet and exceed
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) growth goals since 2005 for the school and all significant
subgroups.
One area of concern the data clearly identifies is student achievement scores in
Math. The percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in Math is below 30%
and has been stagnant with little to no growth since 2003 (Figure 4.3). Upon further
investigation into the courses offerings in mathematics, it was discovered that 20% of the
courses being taken are remedial and consist of students enrolled in Basic Algebra and
low-level Algebra either for the first time or even multiple times. Figure 4.6 compares
the percentage of courses offered at the remedial, college preparatory and advanced
levels for core subject areas.
Figure 4.6 – Goodison High School Course Level Offerings by Subject Area
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
English Math Science History Foreign
Language
Total
% Courses Offered
Remedial College Preparatory Advanced
126
In science and math about 20% of the courses are remedial. In comparison to CST scores
in science and math, questions begin to arise concerning the distinct parallel between the
lack of rigorous, grade-level courses being taken and the low, stagnant CST scores in
those subject areas.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Improving student achievement at Goodison High School has become a
significant focus over the past five years. The staff and leadership team have worked
together to develop a common vision for student achievement. Under this new vision,
staff and administration are committed to providing a high quality learning experience to
students through offering a comprehensive academic program that will prepare all
students for post-secondary education or the world of work and career. Students at
Goodison High School are offered a full range of co-curricular and extracurricular
activities in which to participate. The curriculum is based on the California State Content
Standards and Frameworks and is reviewed monthly at subject matter council meetings in
order to insure alliance with state standards, district goals and the statewide assessment
program.
Staff and administration have vocalized concerns about the changing
demographics at Goodison and the low CST scores across the core subject areas. The
current principal came to the school six years ago and upon hearing these concerns,
began the process of developing strategies for improvement. Once a very divided staff,
Goodison teachers were quickly summoned to come together and become an integral part
of an improvement process. With financial support from the district, teachers at
127
Goodison formed same subject matter professional learning communities (PLCs). The
master bell schedule was changed to allow time for teachers to meet with their
community once a week for one hour during the school day. The PLCs have continued to
develop and grow and are believed by the staff to have positively influenced student
achievement and interventions for struggling students.
Curriculum and Instruction
Within the PLCs, teachers have focused on developing common achievement
goals that are aligned to the school and district goals. These goals have driven efforts to
assure that curriculum is soundly aligned to state standards. Differentiating curriculum
and instructional strategies has also become a primary focus of PLCs in order to meet the
needs of the changing demographics at Goodison. Teachers are provided district support
to develop goals and strategies within the PLCs and common formative and summative
assessments that will help target struggling students and weak areas in the curriculum and
instructional process.
Math and Reading have been the curricular focus of Goodison’s improvement
efforts. The master schedule has been restructured to include Math and English support
classes. Support classes are added to struggling student’s schedules in addition to their
regularly scheduled Math or English course. Support classes are taught by a certificated
teacher and provide outside non-certificated tutors for student in need of one-on-one or
small group instruction. The primary focus of the curriculum within the support classes
is remediation, concentrated on CAHSEE and CST skills and knowledge. The
instructional materials used in the support classes and other remedial courses are all
128
district reviewed and aligned to state standards. Just this year, reading courses have
adopted an intensive English Learner program. Special Education has also adopted a new
Learning Handicapped (LH) reading curriculum titled “Rewards”, and a new Mildly
Handicapped (MH) reading curriculum by Linda Mood.
As a whole staff, there has not been any dialogue defining strategies and
characteristics of effective teaching. Teachers are evaluated every two years and at that
time are involved in discussions with the administrative team about the characteristics of
effective teaching. The principal expressed a definite need for dialogue centering on
effective teaching. One department that has engaged in conversations regarding effective
teaching practices is the math department. With a significant focus on the CAHSEE, this
department has developed lessons within the Algebra and Geometry PLCs and are
currently using “lesson studies” to further engage in reflective conversations and improve
the curriculum and instruction in those subject areas.
Teachers are encouraged to utilize differentiated instructional strategies in order
to meet the needs of all students. However, it was expressed during the interview that
there is a lack of knowledge and skills among the staff on how to differentiate curriculum
and assessments. Teachers are also encouraged to attend district-wide poverty workshops
that focus on meeting the needs of economically disadvantaged students. Trainings are
also offered in Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) methods
that focus on strategies for English Learners and struggling students. According to the
principal, the percent of teachers attending these workshops is very low.
129
Intervention Strategies
Over the past three years, Goodison has developed and implemented a variety of
intervention programs for struggling students. After school tutorials are offered by
certificated teachers in various subject areas. Students voluntarily attend these tutorials
and receive one-on-one or small group assistance relating to the curriculum of the course
or test and absence make-ups. On average, about 20-30 teachers offer tutorials once or
twice a week for one hour. Teachers report having about three to fifteen students that
regularly attend tutorials. Another intervention program recently developed is the
STAMP program. STAMP stands for Student Teacher Academic Mastery Program.
This program pays peer tutors to assist struggling students one-on-one after school. A
certificated teacher and counselor monitor the program. Based on academic grades and
CAHSEE test scores, counselors and teachers recommend students to participate in the
STAMP program for extra academic assistance, remediation and help with homework
assignments.
Another intervention strategy is the CAHSEE intervention courses being offered
by the math department. These courses are also offered after school and students who are
struggling in Basic Algebra, Algebra or Geometry are recommended by counselors to
attend. A certificated teacher monitors the program and students receive assistance from
other certificated teachers who are paid hourly tutorial wages. Students have other
opportunities to make-up course credits and remain on track to graduate. These programs
include the Phoenix Program and Opportunity School. Both programs are credit recovery
programs monitored by a certificated teacher. Students complete packet and book work
130
and receive credits based on the number of hours spent in the classroom and the amount
of work completed. Lastly, summer school is another option for students who need to
make-up credits. About 90% of students who attend summer school are taking courses
they have previously failed. The other 10% are looking for enrichment opportunities.
Summer school is offered in two, three-week semesters and students are required to
attend for five hours a day.
Professional Development
Professional development in the district requires certificated teachers to attend
three days of professional development activities during the summer, directly before the
school semester begins. The agenda for these three days includes reviewing school
academic and disciplinary policies, attending technology workshops focusing on website
development and developing Power Points, and working within subject specific PLCs to
develop goals and plans for the upcoming school year. During the school year, teachers
are allowed one school business day and one professional growth day of which teachers
can use to attend seminars and workshops specific to their needs. Schools do not
currently have instructional coaches to work with teachers, but the district has hired one
instructional coach that is available to work with individual schools, departments or
teachers. The district instructional coach collaborates primarily with PLCs at various
school sites. Most departments express disappointment with the current professional
development system, revealing that the information presented is redundant and their
personal needs are generally never addressed. With the current state of the education
131
budget, there is also a lack of funding available to send teachers to valuable workshops or
seminars.
School Culture
Over the past five years, the school culture at Goodison High School has shifted
dramatically from a very segregated environment to one in which the entire staff values
each other’s strengths and works collaboratively to connect to students and improve
academic achievement. This shift is likely the result of the formation of PLCs and the
shift within the administration to becoming instructional leaders and working more
collaboratively with teachers and other support staff members. Building positive
relationships with parents, students and the community has become a priority. The
Parent Institute is a new program that aids in recruiting and teaching minority parents
how to get involved with their child’s academic life and how to utilize resources within
the community.
Another element that has supported the positive growth of these relationships is
the guidance department, the Parent Teacher Student Associate (PTSA), the Link Crew
and the Associated Student Body (ASB). The guidance department has become very
proactive in building relationships with parents and students through semester
conferences, school information seminars and college information night. The PTSA
continuously recruits parents to become involved in the organization and participation in
school activities. Due to a positive change in leadership, the Link Crew and ASB have
been very effective student organizations on the campus. Every year there is a dramatic
increase in student involvement, awareness and enjoyment of school activities. Incoming
132
freshmen also report that the Link Crew members helped make the transition from middle
school to high school, exciting, non-threatening and a very positive experience.
Although apart of a large high school district, Goodison High School has
remained very autonomous in terms of making decisions for what is appropriate for their
specific campus, staff and population of students. Although it was originally a district
initiative, the PLCs at the high school decide how they want to function and what their
goals and instructional improvement strategies will be. The district is very supportive,
providing staff with many opportunities for professional development concerning PLCs.
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence Based Model
Developed upon research underlying proven methods and strategies for resource
use related to student achievement, the Evidence Based Model provides a framework
upon which to compare Goodison High School resource allocation strategies to a
prototypical school supported by the model. Table 4.5 provides a comparison of the
resource use at Goodison High School to the Evidence Based Model (EBM). The fourth
column shows the difference between the Evidence Based Model and Goodison High
School resource use and indicates how the Evidence Based model would staff a school of
2,477 students with the characteristics and demographics of Goodison High School
(GHS).
133
Table 4.5 - Goodison High School and Evidence Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Goodison HS -
Current Resource
Status
Comparison
between GHS
& EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
School Characteristics
School Configuration 9-12 9-12
School Size 600 2,477 4.1x bigger
Core Class Size 25 35
10 more than
EBM
Number of teacher work
days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
187, including 3
inservice days
Only 3
inservice days,
6 less school
days
Number Disabled
(w/IEP)
313 (12.6%)
Number Poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
560 (22.6%)
Number English Learner 187 (7.5%)
% Minority 42.8%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 24 per 600 students 60.6
EBM suggests
98.4 for 2,477
students
2. Specialist Teachers
33% of core teachers
(8)
25.8
EBM suggests
32.5
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
3
(1 for every
200 students)
0
EBM suggests
12.4
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
0
EBM suggests
5.6
5. Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students
2.4
EBM suggests
1.9
6. Extended Day
1 teacher for every 15
poverty students
(based on half the
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary
1.6 FTE
EBM suggests
4.7 FTE
extended day
teachers
134
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Goodison HS -
Current Resource
Status
Comparison
between GHS
& EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
7. Summer School
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary
3.6 FTE
EBM suggests
4.7 FTE
School Characteristics
8. Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions for 600
students
14 Inclusion and
Resource Room
Teachers
EBM suggests
16.5 teachers
for 2,477
students
9. Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
2 FTE teachers and
3 aides
Based on need
10. Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
Gate budget of
$5,461.00
EBM suggests
funds of
$61,925
11. Vocational
Education
1/3 more per student
enrolled
0 N/A
12. Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher
for illness and 3 PN
3 more days
than EBM
suggests
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance per 250
students
9.0 Counselors
2.0 attendance
1 Nurse, 1 Psych,
2.0 Speech
(15.0 FTE)
EBM suggests
15.6 positions
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
3.0 to relieve teachers
and provide
supervision
0
EBM suggests
12.3
15. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library Tech
1 Librarian &
1 Library Tech
EBM suggests
4.1 Librarians
and 4.1 Library
techs
16. Principal 1 Principal
1 Principal and
3 Assistant
Principals
EBM suggests
1 Principal and
4.1 Assistant
Principals
135
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Goodison HS -
Current Resource
Status
Comparison
between GHS
& EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
17. School Site
Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
5.0 Secretaries &
2.5 clerks
EBM suggests
4.1 secretaries
& 12.3 clerks
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
3 PD summer days
in calendar;
$8,777.00 school
business funds for
PD expenses –
trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
EBM suggests
10 days PD in
summer and
$247,700 for
other PD
expenses.
19. Technology $250 per pupil
1.0 technology
coordinator.
Resources vary
EBM suggests
$619,250
20. Instructional
Materials
$175 per pupil $121,770
EBM suggests
$433,475
21. Student Activities $250 per pupil
1 section ASB, 1
section Leadership
Skills, Link-Crew,
EBM suggests
$619,250
Lessons Learned
Goodison High School is continuously creating a school atmosphere built upon
the fundamental belief that all students can learn. Administrative leaders continue to
build a collaborative environment where teachers and support staff together generate a
school mission and vision statement, and strategies for improvement. With the changing
demographics, some staff members have taken longer than others to join in the
momentum that all students can succeed and teachers need to be responsible for the
136
academic achievement of each individual student. There are continual efforts to obtain
one hundred percent support form all staff.
The use of data to drive instruction is an area of weakness for Goodison High
School. Teachers rely heavily on individually developed, traditional unit summative
assessments. CST scores are superficially used by departments to modify curriculum,
instruction and intervention strategies. The math department is one exception. Math
PLCs have developed numerous common summative and formative assessments and use
data on a daily basis to drive instruction and intervention strategies. The English
department is also in the process of developing common writing rubrics. Professional
development on data-driven-decision making and the development of formative and
summative assessments is a necessity for the staff to engage in.
Most teachers at Goodison High School have high expectations for student
learning. However, it is not a common characteristic of the school culture. Students need
more development in higher order thinking skills and need to be offered a more
challenging curriculum. Teachers have aligned course curricula to the content standards,
but need to work within PLCs to develop essential skills for student learning. Curriculum
can be adjusted and assessed to reflect the essential skills.
Implementing research-based curricula through professional development is
another area of weakness. Most teachers are experts within their content areas, but have
not necessarily received training on differentiating instruction. Teachers are beginning to
make progress and move away from traditional lecture-style instructional methods and
engage students in collaborative and problem-based learning. There is a need for training
137
in developing lessons that center around a collaborative learning environment. PLCs are
beginning to have essential dialogue focusing on improving learning and developing new
curriculum to meet the needs of individual students.
The school day has been restructured to support collaboration within PLCs.
Teachers meet once a week for one hour to develop goals for student learning and
strategies for achieving those goals. Curriculum calendars and assessments are also
common conversations within the PLCs. Once a month during this collaboration time,
there is a meeting for the entire staff to discuss logistical issues and other areas of
concern that the administration may have. Extended day support is provided by
certificated teachers and peer tutors.
There are numerous extra help strategies for struggling students in place that are
managed by the guidance team and individual teachers. One-on-one and small group
tutorials, CAHSEE interventions, Opportunity School and the STAMP program are
extended day programs that offer remediation in the core subject areas. Summer school
is another option for students to make-up credits or to move ahead in the curriculum.
Class size reduction is in place for freshmen math and English students. Counselors
make every effort to keep class sizes low in sheltered (EL) courses, remedial courses, and
support classes in Math and English. Most courses on campus average thirty-five
students and can even extend up to forty-two students.
Students are acknowledged for academic successes on an individual teacher basis.
Teachers have individual strategies that they use to acknowledge student successes. At
the school-level, there are monthly “Star Student Luncheons” with the principal in which
138
one student from every department on campus is nominated to attend. Each teacher
within each department has the opportunity to nominate a student for a specified month.
The foundation of the PLC movement was introduced by the district and
supported by the administrators at each high school. There is support at the district and
school level for developing PLCs and the staff is continually building knowledge and
skills and changing their instructional and assessment practices based on research and
sharing amongst colleagues.
Future Implications
There are additional resources that would be necessary to continue to develop and
deliver a successful instructional program for all students at Goodison High School.
Additional funds to reduce class sizes in all subject areas would alleviate teacher stress
levels and would improve student learning. Additional funding would also be necessary
to further develop intervention strategies for struggling students and improve student
achievement. More professional development time and support for teachers to work
within PLCs is crucial to continue to build relationships and support a positive school
culture. In addition, more classified staff members are needed to process data and
alleviate the growing responsibilities on the administrators.
139
CASE STUDY TWO:
Stamford Bridge High School
A case study of Instructional Improvement Strategies and Resource Use
Stamford Bridge High School is a comprehensive public high school in a large
high school district in East San Diego County, serving grades 9-12. The surrounding
attendance area is primarily composed of suburban residential neighborhoods and serves
1,415 students. Approximately forty percent of the students live in single-family homes,
with the remaining students living in large apartment and condo complexes. The
community enjoys rich traditions supported by a stable, family-oriented community.
Students grow-up participating in a variety of youth sports activities and a variety of
community events on campus. Stamford Bridge opened in 1965 and is one of eleven
high schools in the Premiere Union High School District. All six of the sample schools
in this study are located in this same high school district.
The ethnic diversity in the surrounding community is limited. The student body at
Stamford Bridge High School is currently comprised of 77.4% Caucasian, 15.6%
Hispanic/Latino, 1.7% African American and the remaining 5.3% of students are from
various ethnic groups including Filipino, American Indian, Asian and Pacific Islander.
The student demographics directly mirror the demographics of the surrounding
community and have remained rather consistent, with only small, recent increases in the
percentage of Hispanic/Latino students. Figure 4.1 shows the steadiness of the student
demographics at Stamford Bridge High School from 1994 to 2008.
140
Figure 4.1 – Stamford Bridge High School Demographics from 1994 to 2008
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
% of Student Population
Caucasian Hispanic/Latino African American
From a socio-economic perspective, Stamford Bridge High School serves students
that come primarily from middle class areas, with a median income reported by
SANDAG in 2006 of $65,860. Even though the majority of students are from middle-
class income areas, the number of students attending from low-class areas and receiving
free and reduced price lunch (FRL) has slightly increased over the past few years. There
are currently 11.6% of students receiving free and reduced price lunch. Stamford Bridge
does not qualify to receive Title I funding as a result of this low percentage of FRL
students. Furthermore, only about 3.9% of the student population are English Learner
(EL) students. The primary language within this EL population is Spanish. Another
increasingly significant subgroup on campus is the disabled student subgroup. Currently,
153 (10.8%) students within the student body are classified as disabled with an Individual
Education Plan (IEP).
141
As the student population at Stamford Bridge High School continues to develop
and the school continues to grow, it is important to see how the school is performing
academically on the Academic Performance Index (API), Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) scores and the California High School Exit Exam scores. As a school,
Stamford Bridge’s API has improved 65 points since 2003 from 669 to 734. The goal for
all California schools is to achieve an API score of 800 for all students and all significant
subgroups. Table 4.1 summarizes the whole school and significant subgroup API scores
from 2003 to 2008 for Stamford Bridge students.
Table 4.1 – Stamford Bridge High School API Scores 2003 to 2008
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Change
2003 to
2008
All Students 669 672 697 699 725 734 +65
Caucasian 675 684 723 708 742 744 +69
Hispanic/Latino 613 597 N/A 633 647 694 +81
Low Socio-
economic
561 555 604 652 654 655 +94
Special Education N/A N/A N/A 488 523 525 +37
Hispanic/Caucasian
Gap
62 87 N/A 75 95 50 -12
The most impressive gains are the improvements made by the low SES subgroup,
improving 94 points, from 561 in 2003 to 655 in 2008. The Hispanic/Latino subgroup
has also made significant gains, improving 81 points, from 613 in 2003 to 694 in 2008.
Other important improvements include the decline of the achievement gap between
Caucasian and Hispanic/Latino subgroups. Figure 4.2 shows how the achievement gap
between all significant subgroups is closing.
142
Figure 4.2 – Stamford Bridge High School API Scores 2003 to 2008
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API Scores
All Students Caucasian Hispanic/Latino
Low Socio-economic Special Education
Although minor, the achievement gap between Caucasian and Hispanic/Latino students
has closed by twelve API points, decreasing from 62 API points in 2003 to 50API points
in 2008. The API gains are slow and steady, with each significant subgroup showing
improvement every year.
While all students and subgroups continue to improve API scores, the gains being
made are still somewhat stagnant in comparison to the statewide and similar schools
index ratings. Table 4.2 summarizes Stamford Bridge’s statewide and similar school
rankings from 2003 to 2008.
Table 4.2 – Stamford Bridge High School Statewide and Similar Schools Ranking 2003-
2008
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average
2003 to
2008
Statewide Rank 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Similar Schools
Rank
2 3 3 3 2 3 2.7
143
Stamford Bridge’s average statewide rank is 6 and represents the decile where the base
API falls in comparison with the base APIs of all other schools statewide of the same
school type and demographics. Stamford Bridge’s average similar school rank is 2.7 and
represents the decile where the base API falls in comparison to the base APIs of 100
similar schools of the same school type and demographics. The average statewide and
similar school rankings indicate that Stamford Bridge High School is not progressing as
well as it should be in order to meet the ultimate goal of an 800 API score for the school
and all significant subgroups. The growth compared to other schools in California is very
stagnant and needs to be addressed.
Another measure that illustrates the academic growth of Stamford Bridge High
School students are the California Standards Test (CST) scores in the core academic
subject areas of English/Language Arts, History, Mathematics and Science. Table 4.3
shows the percent of students scoring advanced or proficient in the four core areas. The
English/Language Arts scores reflect students who scored advanced or proficient in
grades 9-11 standards. The History scores reflect students who scored advanced or
proficient in World History and US history. The Math scores reflect students who scored
advanced or proficient in General Math (grades 6 & 7 standards), Algebra I, Geometry,
Algebra II and Summative High School Math (grades 9-11 standards). The Science
scores reflect students who scored advanced or proficient in Earth Science, Physics,
Biology and Chemistry.
Table 4.3 – Stamford Bridge High School CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
English/LA 38.3% 37.3% 41.6% 41.3% 47.0% 47.7%
144
History 24.0% 20.6% 33.0% 31.5% 30.0% 38.0%
Math EOC 26.0% 26.5% 29.2% 28.8% 34.2% 31.6%
Science EOC 17.3% 18.0% 17.7% 15.3% 24.3% 32.0%
The percent of students scoring proficient or advanced in English/Language Arts,
History, Math and Science have all increased by at least ten percent from 2003 to 2008.
Figure 4.3 shows the achievement trends for each subject area from 2003 to 2008.
Figure 4.3 - Stamford Bridge High School CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
% Advanced or Proficient
English/LA History Math EOC Science EOC
All core subject area scores have consistently improved over the past six years. The most
impressive improvements have been in Science, growing from 17.3% advanced or
proficient in 2003 to 32% in 2008. Math and English have shown the smallest
increments of growth, improving about 6% from 2003 to 2008.
An examination of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores at
Stamford Bridge High School reveal that students have consistently scored at proficient
or advanced levels, thus contributing to over an 80% pass rate on both the English and
Math portions of the exam since 2005. Table 4.4 shows the percentages of students from
145
various subgroups that have passed the English and Math portions of the CAHSEE from
2005 to 2008 on the first attempt.
Table 4.4 –Stamford Bridge CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup 2005 – 2008.
English % Passed Math % Passed

2005
n=435
2006
n=402
2007
n=354
2008
n=330
2005
n=425
2006
n=398
2007
n=351
2008
n=323
All 10th Grade 86% 88% 87% 88% 88% 88% 84% 87%
Hispanic/Latino 73% 79% 67% 81% 73% 79% 69% 86%
Caucasian 88% 88% 91% 89% 91% 90% 88% 87%
English Learner 53% 63% 47% 35% 63% 63% 53% 53%
Low SES 60% 83% 70% 76% 76% 82% 68% 77%
Special Education 35% 42% 51% 63% 44% 47% 41% 53%
The most significant gains have been with special education students, who have
improved by at least ten percent on both the English and Math portions of the CAHSEE.
Hispanic/Latino and low SES student subgroups have also shown improvement on both
portions of the exam. One subgroup has shown s significant decline in the percentage of
students passing both the English and Math portions of the CST. English learners have
decreased their pass rate on the English portion from 53% in 2005 to 35% in 2008 and on
the Math portion from 63% in 2005 to 53% in 2006. Other subgroups have shown minor
increases in the percentage of students passing both the English and Math portions, but
still remain rather stagnant in terms of any significant improvements. Figures 4.4 and 4.5
show patterns of improvement in the English and Math passing rates on the CAHSEE.
146
Table 4.4 – CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup for the English portion
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 n=435 2006 n=402 2007 n=354 2008 n=330
% Pass Rate English
All 10th Grade Hispanic/Latino Caucasian
English Learner Low SES Special Education
Table 4.5 – CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup for the Math portion
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 n=425 2006 n=398 2007 n=351 2008 n=323
% Pass Rate Math
All 10th Grade Hispanic/Latino Caucasian
English Learner Low SES Special Education
The data summarized show that Stamford Bridge High School has had a stagnant
past in terms of academic achievement, but has recently made improvements with most
significant subgroups on the CSTs and CAHSEE. Stamford Bridge has never been in
Program Improvement, even though the district is, and has continued to meet Annual
147
Yearly Progress (AYP) growth goals for the school and most significant subgroups since
2005.
One area of concern the data clearly identifies is student achievement scores in
English and Math. The percentage of students scoring advanced or proficient in Math is
31.6% and has been stagnant with only small increments of growth since 2003 (Figure
4.3). Upon further investigation into the course offerings in Mathematics, it was
discovered that about 25% of the courses offered for Math are remedial and consist of
students enrolled in low-level Basic Algebra and Algebra either for the first or second
time. Figure 4.6 compares the percentage of courses offered at the remedial, college
preparatory and advanced levels for core subject areas.
Figure 4.6 – Stamford Bridge High School Course Level Offerings by Subject Area
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
English Math Science History Foreign
Language
Total
% Courses Offered
Remedial College Preparatory Advanced
Math has the largest number of remedial and advanced courses offered, as well as the
smallest percentage of college preparatory courses offered. In comparison to the CST
148
scores in Math, questions begin to arise concerning the distinct parallel between the lack
of grade-level college preparatory courses being taken and the low, flat CST scores in
Math. The rigor of the courses may also be a variable effecting student achievement
scores for Math.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
The mission of Stamford Bridge High School is to create and nurture a
community of learners who are prepared for the intellectual demands of life after high
school and whose abilities to think critically enable active participation in a democratic
society. Stamford Bridge staff worked collectively to create this mission statement and
continue to work hard and demonstrate that students can master habits and skills that will
support them in their educational and career goals. Students at Stamford Bridge High
School are offered a full range of co-curricular and extracurricular activities in which to
participate. The curriculum is based on the California State Content Standards and
Frameworks and is reviewed monthly at subject matter council meetings in order to
insure alliance with state standards, district goals and the statewide assessment program.
Developing strategies for improvement have been a collaborative effort, despite
the constant changes in leadership within the administration at Stamford Bridge High
School. There have been 3 different principals in the last 5 years and assistant principals
only remain at Stamford Bridge on an average of two years. Despite these frequent shifts
in leadership, the staff at Stamford Bridge is very close and communicates effectively
through collaborative forums concerning student achievement and school reform.
149
Curriculum and Instruction
In efforts to provide a better and more meaningful education to students, Stamford
Bridge faculty and staff have developed the concept of themed career
pathways/academies. The industry sectors chosen are: Energy and Utilities, Arts, Media
and Entertainment, and Transportation. Within each sector there are multiple pathways
or “majors” that allow students to enroll in classes of high personal interest while gaining
a more in depth and relevant education. Curriculum within the pathways in standards-
based and most courses meet A-G requirements for California State University and
University of California schools.
English and the AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) program
have been the curricular focus of Stamford Bridge’s improvement efforts. The English
department has adopted the California Partnership for Achieving Student Success
(CALPASS) system. This resource is designed to help educators improve student
achievement by identifying and reducing barriers to successful student transition in all
levels of education, from kindergarten to college. This data system collects and analyzes
student-level data to track performance and improve student academic success. Data is
collected once a year and provides educators with student scores that can be used to align
curriculum, provide necessary student interventions and help students progress to the next
level in their education. Currently, Stamford Bridge High School is using the Cal-PASS
system for English/Language Arts. This is the first year using the program and
administrators hope to see improvements in student performance on the English CSTs in
the spring.
150
Another curricular focus has been with the AVID program. This program has
been expanded to the Social Science department and support courses for AVID skills and
curriculum have been developed in Geography to ensure that all freshmen students
receive the necessary study skills they will need to not only be successful in Geography,
but all the other courses they will take during high school.
As a whole staff, there has not been any dialogue defining strategies and
characteristics of effective teaching. Teachers are evaluated every two years and at that
time are involved in discussions with the administrative team about the characteristics of
effective teaching. The characteristics administrators look for during evaluations include
student engagement, collaborative learning, active learning and teacher ability to check
for understanding. Administrators do not receive formal training on how to evaluate
teachers and the principal expressed the need for formal training and dialogue with
teachers on effective teaching strategies.
The staff has recently been following the Professional Learning Community
model and has organized into core subject area Professional Learning Communities
(PLC). This focus on collaboration has helped to improve instruction in the classroom
through dialogues involving curriculum, instructional strategies, student learning
activities, pacing schedules and common assessments. The instructional vision that
drives efforts within the PLCs center around the common school and district goal of
lowering grade D and F rates in all core subjects. PLCs have provided teachers with a
forum to discuss strategies on how to reduce the D/F rate and develop good teaching
strategies that will impact the learning experience of all students.
151
Furthermore, as part of the reform efforts taken at Stamford Bridge High School,
the bell schedule has been restructured to include time for teachers to collaborate within
their subject area PLCs. The bell schedule has also been altered to include block
scheduling. The modified block schedule allows teachers to have common prep periods
with others in their same department and PLCs. This modified block schedule has been
positively embraced by all teachers on campus despite district efforts to keep the
schedule at all high schools a traditional, seven period schedule.
Intervention Strategies
Over the past several years, Stamford Bridge High School has developed and
implemented numerous intervention programs for struggling students. After school
tutorials are offered by certificated teachers in various subject areas. Students voluntarily
attend these tutorials and receive one-on-one or small group assistance relating to the
curriculum of the course or test and absence make-ups. On average, about 15 teachers
offer tutorials once or twice a week for one hour. Teachers report having about three to
twelve students that regularly attend tutorials. Another intervention strategy is summer
school. Summer school at Stamford Bridge is primarily for students who need to make-
up credits. About 98% of students attending summer school are taking courses they have
previously failed. The other 2% are taking advantage of enrichment opportunities.
Summer school is offered in two, three-week semesters and students are required to
attend for five hours a day. About 600 students, on average, attend summer school.
An intervention program recently developed and implemented targets freshmen in
their English and Math courses. Classes fall under class-size reduction and have about
152
twenty students. Students not only attend their regular English and Math course, but also
in addition are required to attend an AVID support English or Math class depending on
their academic grade. When any enrolled student falls below a C, they are automatically
enrolled in the support class until they have caught up with the requirements of the course
and have a passing grade. AVID courses are also offered for Geography and there are 2
teachers for every 35 students. This allows for more class-size reduction and more one-
on-one assistance for struggling students. This program is in its third year and has
lowered the overall D/F rate for freshmen students and has increased the number of
parent contacts and involvement in helping to remedy student failure.
Professional Development
Professional development in the district requires certificated teachers to attend
three days of professional development activities during the summer, directly before the
school semester begins. The agenda for these three days includes celebrated the
successes of the previous year’s state assessments, reviewing disciplinary and attendance
logistics for the school year, reviewing sexual harassment policies, and providing time for
teachers to meet within their PLCs to set department and PLC goals and individual
teacher goals for the upcoming school year. There is also time allotted for staff bonding
experiences. During the school year, teachers are allowed one school business day and
one professional growth day of which teachers can use to attend workshops and seminars
specific to their needs. Schools do not currently have instructional coaches to work with
teachers, but the district has hired one instructional coach that is available to work with
individual schools, departments or teachers. The district instructional coach collaborates
153
primarily with PLCs at various school sites. The principal expressed dismay with the
funding available for professional development. There is a need on campus to allow
more time for professional development opportunities.
School Culture
The school culture at Stamford Bridge High School is constantly becoming more
collaborative and positive in terms of the educational direction the school is headed.
Building positive relationships with parents, students and the community has become a
priority amongst the staff. The School Site Council consists of the Principal, teachers,
parents and students and meets once a month to discuss issues facing the school and
possible solutions to these issues. There is a Leadership Team that consists of
administrators and parents and works on creating and implementing solutions to the more
in depth challenges on the campus. Every year, there are two town hall meetings at the
beginning of each semester that provide a forum for parents to attend and learn about
important issues affecting the school and upcoming events for the semester.
Another element that has supported positive growth at Stamford Bridge High
School is the recently developed focus groups for parents. There are four seminars/focus
groups per year that educate parents on student study skills, college applications, drug
and alcohol abuse, financial aid and drivers education. Staff and administration have had
positive reports concerning these focus groups, expressing that parents are more involved
in communication between teachers and students and are generally more involved with
their child’s education.
154
Although apart of a large high school district, Stamford Bridge High School has
remained very autonomous in terms of making decisions for what is appropriate for their
specific campus, staff and population of students. Although it was originally a district
initiative, the PLCs at the high school decide how they want to function and what their
goals and instructional improvement strategies will be. The district is supportive,
providing staff with many opportunities for professional development concerning PLCs.
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence Based Model
Developed upon research underlying proven methods and strategies for resource
use related to student achievement, the Evidence Based Model provides a framework
upon which to compare Stamford Bridge High School resource allocation strategies to a
prototypical school supported by the model. Table 4.5 provides a comparison of the
resource use at Stamford Bridge High School to the Evidence Based Model (EBM). The
fourth column shows the difference between the Evidence Based Model and Stamford
Bridge High School resource use and indicates how the Evidence Based Model would
staff a school of 1,415 students with the characteristics and demographics of Stamford
Bridge High School (SBHS).
Table 4.5 - Stamford Bridge High School and Evidence Based Model Resource Use
Comparison
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Stamford Bridge
HS - Current
Resource Status
Comparison
between SBHS
& EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
School Characteristics
School Configuration 9-12 9-12
School Size 600 1,415 2.4 x bigger
Core Class Size 25 35 10 more than
EBM
155
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Stamford Bridge
HS - Current
Resource Status
Comparison
between SBHS
& EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
EBM
Number of teacher work
days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
187, including 3
inservice days
Only 3
inservice days,
6 less school
days
Number Disabled
(w/IEP)
153 (10.8%)
Number Poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
165 (11.7%)
Number English Learner 55 (3.9%)
% Minority 22.6%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 24 per 600 students 35.8
EBM suggests
57.6 for 1,415
students
2. Specialist Teachers
33% of core teachers
(8)
16.8
EBM suggests
19.0
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
3
(1 for every
200 students)
0
EBM suggests
7.1
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
0
EBM suggests
1.6
5. Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students
0.8
EBM suggests
0.6
6. Extended Day 0.8 FTE
EBM suggests
1.4 FTE
extended day
teachers
7. Summer School
1 teacher for every 15
poverty students
(based on half the
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary 3.2 FTE
EBM suggests
1.4 FTE
School Characteristics
8. Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions for 600
students
7.8 Inclusion and
Resource Room
Teachers
EBM suggests
9.4 teachers for
1,415 students
156
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Stamford Bridge
HS - Current
Resource Status
Comparison
between SBHS
& EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
students
9. Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
3.8 FTE teachers
and 3 aides
Based on need
10. Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
Gate budget of
$6,079.00
EBM suggests
funds of
$35,375
11. Vocational
Education
1/3 more per student
enrolled
0 N/A
12. Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher
for illness and 3 PN
3 more days
than EBM
suggests
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance per 250
students
5.0 Counselors
1.0 attendance
1 Nurse, 1 Psych,
1.0 Speech
(9.0 FTE)
EBM suggests
7.3 positions
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
3.0 to relieve teachers
and provide
supervision
0
EBM suggests
7.2
15. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library Tech
1 Librarian &
1 Library Tech
EBM suggests
2.4 Librarians
and 2.4 Library
techs
16. Principal 1 Principal
1 Principal and
3 Assistant
Principals
EBM suggests
1 Principal and
2.4 Assistant
Principals
17. School Site
Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
3.0 Secretaries &
4.0 clerks
EBM suggests
2.4 secretaries
& 7.2 clerks
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
3 PD summer days
in calendar;
$5,765.00 school
business funds for
PD expenses –
trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
EBM suggests
10 days PD in
summer and
$141,500 for
other PD
expenses.
157
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Stamford Bridge
HS - Current
Resource Status
Comparison
between SBHS
& EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
etc.
19. Technology $250 per pupil
1.0 technology
coordinator.
Resources vary
EBM suggests
$353,750
20. Instructional
Materials
$175 per pupil $93,569.00
EBM suggests
$247,625
21. Student Activities $250 per pupil
1 section ASB, 3
sections Life
Management,
Yearbook
EBM suggests
$353,750
Lessons Learned
Stamford Bridge High School is continually evaluating current academic
programs and developing new programs that will meet the interests and needs of the
student population. Staff works collaboratively to develop curriculum and instructional
strategies for struggling students. There have been six principals in five years, but most
have had similar instructional leadership styles and goals. Even with the inconsistencies
in leadership, Stamford Bridge High School teaching staff has strived to remain focused
on doing what is right for the student population and improving curriculum and
instruction in the core subject areas. One drawback with the constant changes in
leadership is that student achievement seems to be suffering and remaining stagnant.
New leaders come with new learning goals, and the school seems to be functioning
similar to how it has functioned for the past fifteen years.
158
The use of data to drive instruction is an area of weakness for Stamford Bridge
High School. Teachers rely heavily on summative assessments. Some PLCs are working
on developing common summative assessments and the Math department is beginning to
use data quest to analyze the results of such assessments. The PLCs seem to be at all
different levels of developing formative and summative assessments to drive instruction
and intervention strategies. Overall, the school is in the beginning stages of learning how
to analyze data and improve instructional practices.
The school day has been restructured into a modified block schedule that also
supports collaboration within PLCs. Teachers meet weekly to develop goals for student
learning and strategies for achieving those goals. Students attend at least six courses,
every other day for 76 minutes. Teachers lobbied for this modified block schedule,
despite district disapproval, and show an overwhelming amount of support to keep it and
continue to improve student learning.
There are numerous extra help strategies for struggling students in place that are
managed by the guidance team, administrators and individual teachers. One-on-one and
small group tutorials and summer school are extended day programs that offer
remediation in the core subject areas. Lunchtime, mandatory tutorials are in place for
struggling students in the core subject areas. Lunchtime tutorials are monitored by
counselors and certificated teachers and students are required to attend if they have a
failing academic grade in any of their core courses. They receive extra instruction for
teachers and also work with peer tutors to get back on track.
159
Future Implications
There are additional resources that would be necessary to continue to develop and
deliver a successful instructional program for all students at Stamford Bridge High
School. Additional funds to reduce class sizes in all subject area would alleviate teacher
stress levels and would improve student learning. More discretionary monies to use as
the school sees fit, instead of the district and state requiring funds to be used for specified
purposes. A larger technology budget that would help to acquire instructional tools and
resources that not only support curricular and instructional processes, but also aim to
improve student academic achievement. In addition, time to collaborate within PLCs to
build relationships and develop goals for student learning.
160
CASE STUDY THREE:
White Hart Lane High School
A case study of Instructional Improvement Strategies and Resource Use
White Hart Lane High School is a comprehensive public high school in a large
high school district in East San Diego County, serving grades 9-12. The surrounding
attendance area is primarily composed of suburban residential neighborhoods and serves
2,205 students. White Hart Lane is one of the newest schools in the district, and resides
in an area that continues to grow with new housing developments, freeways and strip
malls. About half of the student population lives in single-family homes and the other
half live in apartment and condo complexes. White Hart Lane is one of eleven
comprehensive high schools in the Premiere Union High School District. All six of the
sample schools in this study are located in the same high school district.
The surrounding community around White Hart Lane continues to grow in size
and diversity. The student body is currently comprised of 73.5% Caucasian, 13.4%
Hispanic or Latino, 2.3% African American, 2.0% Filipino and the remaining 8.8% of
students are from various ethnic groups including American Indian, Asian and Pacific
Islander. Although the student population is still predominantly Caucasian there
continues to be an increasing percentage of Hispanic or Latino students and a decreasing
percentage of Caucasian students. Figure 4.1 shows the changing trends in student
demographics from 1994 to 2008.
161
Figure 4.1 – White Hart Lane High School Demographics from 1994 to 2008
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
% of Student Population
Caucasian Hispanic/Latino Filipino African American
From a socio-economic perspective, White Hart Lane High School serves
students that come from a range of upper/middle-class to lower-class areas. Annual
trends show that the number of students from lower socio-economic areas is slowly
increasing over time. Currently, 8.5% of the student population is eligible for free and
reduced price lunch (FRL). White Hart Lane does not currently qualify for Title I funds
as a result of this low percentage of FRL students. Furthermore, about 2.1% of the
student population are English Learner (EL) students. The primary language within this
EL population is Spanish. Another subgroup that is also growing in size is the disabled
student subgroup. Currently, 242 (10.9%) students within the student body are classified
as disabled with an Individual Education Plan (IEP).
As the student population at White Hart Lane High School continues to develop
and the school continues to grow, it is important to see what impact these changes are
162
having on the Academic Performance Index (API) scores, Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) scores and the California High School Exit Exam scores. As a school,
White Hart Lane’s API has improved 34 points since 2003 from 726 to 760. The goal for
all California schools is to achieve an API score of 800 for all students and all significant
subgroups. Table 4.1 summarizes the whole school and significant subgroup API scores
from 2003 to 2008 for White Hart Lane students.
Table 4.1 – White Hart Lane High School API Scores 2003 to 2008
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Change
2003 to
2008
All Students 726 734 732 729 761 760 +34
Caucasian 734 741 738 733 769 763 +29
Hispanic/Latino 677 678 708 687 713 729 +52
Low Socio-
economic
668 675 646 656 656 638 -30
Special Education N/A N/A N/A 503 509 531 +28
Hispanic/Caucasian
Gap
57 63 30 46 56 34 -23
The most impressive gains are the improvement made by the Hispanic/Latino subgroup,
improving 52 API points, from 677 in 2003 to 729 in 2008. These gains have also played
an integral role in decreasing the achievement gap between the Caucasian and
Hispanic/Latino. One subgroup that has not shown progress since 2003 is the low SES
subgroup. The academic achievement within this group has decreased 30 API points
from 668 in 2003 to 638 in 2008. Figure 4.2 shows the progress being made by all
significant subgroups in terms of API points from 2003 to 2008.
163
Figure 4.2 – White Hart Lane High School API Scores 2003 to 2008
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API Scores
All Students Caucasian Hispanic/Latino
Low Socio-economic Special Education
Although minor, the achievement gap between Caucasian and Hispanic/Latino students
has closed by 23 API points, decreasing from 57 API points in 2003 to 34 API points in
2008. The API gains are slow and steady, with little significant improvements in API
points over since 2003.
While all students and subgroups at White Hart Lane continue to improve API
scores, the gains being made are still somewhat stagnant in comparison to the statewide
and similar schools index ratings. Table 4.2 summarizes White Hart Lane’s statewide
and similar school rankings from 2003 to 2008.
Table 4.2 – White Hart Lane High School Statewide and Similar Schools Ranking 2003-
2008
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average
2003 to
2008
Statewide Rank 8 8 7 7 8 7 7.5
Similar Schools
Rank
8 7 3 2 3 3 5.2
164
White Hart Lane’s average statewide rank is 7.5 and represents the decile where the base
API falls in comparison with the base APIs of all other schools statewide of the same
school type and demographics. White Hart Lane’s average similar school rank is 5.2 and
represents the decile where the base API falls in comparison to the base APIs of 100
similar schools of the same school type and demographics. The average statewide and
similar school rankings indicate that White Hart Lane High School is not progressing as
well as it should be in order to meet the ultimate goal of an 800 API score for the school
and all significant subgroups. It also appears to be loosing ground to similar schools
across the state as its similar schools rank declines along with a general decline in its
statewide rank.
Another measure that illustrates the stagnant academic growth of White Hart Lane
High School students are the California Standards Tests (CST) scores in the core subject
areas of English/Language Arts, History, Mathematics and Science. Table 4.3 shows the
percent of students scoring advanced or proficient in the four core areas. The
English/Language Arts scores reflect students who scored advanced or proficient in
grades 9-11 standards. The History scores reflect students who scored advanced or
proficient in World History and US History. The Math scores reflect students who
scored advanced or proficient in General Math (grades 6 & 7 standards), Algebra I,
Geometry, Algebra II and Summative High School Math (grades 9-11 standards). The
Science scores reflect students who scored advanced or proficient in Earth Science,
Physics, Biology and Chemistry.
165
Table 4.3 – White Hart Lane High School CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
English/LA 49.0% 50.3% 45.0% 48.0% 55.3% 51.3%
History 41.0% 39.5% 33.5% 31.0% 42.0% 47.5%
Math EOC 27.6% 21.4% 21.6% 24.2% 23.0% 17.4%
Science EOC 41.7% 26.4% 30.0% 28.4% 26.2% 32.4%
While the percent of students scoring proficient or advanced in English/Language Arts
and History have increased from 2003 to 2008, the Math and Science scores have
decreased. Figure 4.3 shows the achievement trends for each subject area from 2003 to
2008.
Figure 4.3 – White Hart Lane High School CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
% Advanced or Proficient
English/LA History Math EOC Science EOC
The History scores have not consistently grown over the past six years, but instead
showed strong growth from 31% in 2006 to 47.5% in 2008. Similarly, the Science scores
have also shown recent growth, increasing from 26.2% in 2007 to 32.4% in 2008. The
CST scores in all areas display a distinct rollercoaster pattern in relation to student scores.
166
What is most important about this scoring pattern is the recent decline in
English/Language Arts and Math scores, the two core areas tested on the CAHSEE.
An examination of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores at
White Hart Lane High School reveal that students have consistently scored at proficient
or advanced levels, thus contributing to over an 80% pass rate on both the English and
Math portions of the exam since 2005. Table 4.4 shows the percentages of students from
various subgroups that have passed the English and Math portions of the CAHSEE from
2005 to 2008 on the first attempt.
Table 4.4 –White Hart Lane CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup 2005 – 2008.
English % Passed Math % Passed

2005
n=576
2006
n=588
2007
n=557
2008
n=556
2005
n=570
2006
n=574
2007
n=539
2008
n=557
All 10th Grade 86% 89% 92% 92% 89% 91% 91% 93%
Hispanic/Latino 86% 86% 84% 92% 91% 87% 82% 88%
Caucasian 85% 90% 93% 91% 89% 92% 93% 93%
African American 82% N/A 82% 100% 64% N/A 100% 100%
Filipino N/A 92% 93% 100% N/A 100% 87% N/A
English Learner 64% 41% 67% 58% 71% 59% 44% 50%
Low SES 66% 76% 73% 74% 74% 80% 75% 74%
Special Education 39% 53% 46% 47% 52% 58% 58% 51%
The most significant gains have been with the Hispanic/Latino, low SES and special
education students, all of which improved their pass rates by almost ten percent on the
English portion of the test. African Americans have also shown significant gains,
increasing their pass rate on the English portion from 82% in 2005 to 100% in 2008, and
on the Math portion from 64% in 2005 to 100% in 2008. One subgroup that has shown
significant declines on both portions of the CAHSEE is English Learners. English
Learners have consistently declined, decreasing their pass rate on the English portion
from 64% in 2005 to 58% in 2008, and on the Math portion from 71% in 2005 to 50% in
167
2008. As the students designated apart of the EL subgroup continues to grow, this is a
definite area of concern for White Hart Lane. Other subgroups have shown minor
increases in the percentage of students passing both the English and Math portions, but
still remain rather stagnant in terms of any significant improvements. Figures 4.4 and 4.5
show patterns of improvement in the English and Math passing rates on the CAHSEE.
Table 4.4 – CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup for the English portion
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2005 n=576 2006 n=588 2007 n=557 2008 n=556
% Pass Rate English
All 10th Grade Hispanic/Latino Caucasian African American
Filipino English Learner Low SES Special Education
168
Table 4.5 – CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup for the Math portion
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2005 n=570 2006 n=574 2007 n=539 2008 n=557
% Pass Rate Math
All 10th Grade Hispanic/Latino Caucasian African American
Filipino English Learner Low SES Special Education
The data summarized show that White Hart Lane High School has had a stagnant
past in terms of student academic performance, but has recently made some significant
improvements with some subgroups on the CSTs and CAHSEE. White Hart Lane has
never been in Program Improvement, even though the district is, and has met Annual
Yearly Progress (AYP) growth goals since 2005, except for this last year when the
overall API fell by one point, with two significant subgroups (Caucasians and low SES)
not meeting their individual growth goals.
An area of concern the data clearly identifies is student achievement scores in
English/Language Arts and Math. The percentage of students scoring proficient or
advanced in English/Language Arts is about 50%, and in Math is below 20%. Scores in
both subject areas have been inconsistent since 2003 (Figure 4.3). Upon further
investigation into the course offerings in Mathematics and English, it was discovered that
169
on average only 5-12% of the courses are remedial. There are only a small percentage of
courses designed for students needing remediation in English and Math skills. Figure 4.6
compares the percentage of courses offered at the remedial, college preparatory and
advanced levels for core subject areas.
Figure 4.6 – White Hart Lane High School Course Level Offerings by Subject Area
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
English Math Science History Foreign
Language
Total
% Courses Offered
Remedial College Preparatory Advanced
About 30% of the courses at White Hart Lane High School are at the advanced level, thus
offering students a variety of rigorous courses to take. The course level offerings provide
insight to the distinct parallel between the improving CST scores in History and Science
and the high percentage of rigorous courses offered in these subject areas. However, it
does raise some concern as to the quality of the remedial and college preparatory courses
in Math and English and the percentage of these courses being offered.
170
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Improving student achievement at White Hart Lane High School has always been
a shared goal by staff members, however it is in the past three years that administration
and staff have really started to focus on what academic interventions are necessary in
order to improve student learning. With a brand new principal and many other new staff
members, there have been significant efforts to develop a common vision for student
achievement. Under this vision, White Hart Lane faculty is continually working toward
developing strategies to provide every student with a valuable learning experience that
will prepare them for the future. The mission that guides staff and students is the
commitment to graduate critical thinkers and problem-solvers who contribute to society
as productive, responsible citizens. Students are provided with a variety of academic
programs and extra-curricular activities in which to participate. The curriculum is based
on the California State Content Standards and Frameworks and is reviewed monthly at
subject matter council meetings in order to insure alliance with state standards, district
goals and the statewide assessment program.
With financial support from the district, teachers at White Hart Lane have
organized themselves into subject specific professional learning communities (PLCs).
The master bell schedule was altered to allow time for teachers to meet with their
community once a week for one hour during the school day. With professional develop
opportunities provided by the district, the PLCs have continued to make progress towards
impacting student achievement. It is still taking some time for one hundred percent of the
171
staff to believe in and participate in the PLC movement, but overall, most communities
are continuing to grow and develop excellent learning goals for student achievement.
Curriculum and Instruction
The PLCs are in all stages of development. Most subject area communities have
developed common achievement goals that are aligned to school and district goals.
Teachers have then begun to use these goals to develop strategies for student learning,
differentiate curriculum and improve intervention strategies and programs for struggling
students. PLCs are also working toward creating common assessments. Their ultimate
goals is to use the results of these assessments to drive instruction and improve
curriculum.
Math and English/Language Arts have been the curricular focus of White Hart
Lane’s improvement efforts. Under these efforts, staff has focused on improving scores
on the CAHSEE, through developing intervention strategies for struggling students.
White Hart Lane currently adopted the use of the “EZMap” system that aids in Math
CAHSEE prep strategies. An English/Language Arts diagnostic test has also been
adopted and is used to identify at-risk students that need assistance on the English portion
of the CAHSEE. The use of these intervention strategies is still in an infantile stage and
will need more time to determine what impact the programs are having on identifying and
providing support for struggling students. Other state materials for CAHSEE preparation
have been adopted to use with special education students. “Measuring Up” is a reading
program designed to use with the learning handicapped and remedial English students.
Along with this program, special education students and remedial English students are
172
using “Read Naturally” which is a computer-based program that provides instant
feedback related to the reading level and reading and comprehension skills of the student.
As a whole staff, there has not been any dialogue defining strategies and
characteristics of effective teaching. Teachers are evaluated every two years and at that
time are invited to share dialogue with administrators about the characteristics of
effective teaching based on the California Standards for Effective Teaching. Some
reflective conversations do take place on a regular basis within PLCs concerning
effective teaching strategies. However, most conversations with teachers are dependent
upon classroom visitations from administrators and whether or not the administrative
team is observing the use of research-based practices inside of the classrooms. Teachers
are encouraged to attend seminars on research-based practices for developing curriculum
and differentiating instruction. However, it was expressed during the interview that
teachers rarely take advantage of these opportunities and usually use the skills that they
have always used. As the population slowly grows more diverse, teachers are
encouraged to use Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) methods
that focus on the growing population of English Learners and struggling students.
Teachers are also encouraged to be self-reflective. The new administrative team
is stressing the importance of guiding one’s lessons based on the following questions: (1)
What am I teaching?, (2) How am I teaching it?, and (3) How am I assessing for
learning?. The administrative team feels that these questions will guide teachers through
the important process of daily self-reflective practices and will ultimately improve the
173
academic performance of low-achievers and will also improve the strategies being used
to assess for learning inside the classrooms.
Intervention Strategies
White Hart Lane High School is continually working on developing and
reforming intervention programs and strategies for struggling students. After school
tutorials are offered by certificated teachers in various subject areas. Students voluntarily
attend these tutorials and receive one-on-one or small group assistance relating to the
curriculum of the course or test and absence make-ups. On average, about 15-20 teachers
offer tutorials once or twice a week for one hour. Another intervention program is the
Pals Program. This program pays peer tutors to assist struggling students one-on-one
after school. A certificated teacher and counselor monitor the program. Based on
academic grades and CAHSEE test scores, counselors and teachers recommend students
to participate in the Pals Program for Extra academic assistance, remediation and help
with homework assignments.
Another intervention strategy is a mentoring program and has been implemented
for only two semesters. Struggling freshmen students are identified based on their Grade
Point Average (GPA). If a student has a GPA on the first progress report of 2.0 or below
they are automatically enrolled into the mentoring program and scheduled a zero period,
in which the student must come to school earlier. Each student is paired with a staff
member (an administrator, teacher or other support staff). Students must check-in with
their “mentor” every day and must fill out a daily progress report, homework chart and
grade report. Staff members assure that the student is completing homework and
174
receiving the academic assistance that he/she needs. If students fail to attend, they are
assigned Saturday school and detentions.
“Ready to Learn”, or better known as Insight class, is another program that has
been adopted to help struggling at risk students. It is a specific curriculum designed to
provide students with non-academic assistance, so when the student reaches the
classroom he/she is not preoccupied with other emotional or physical problems and can
focus on learning. There are peer leaders and counselors that meet with the students three
times a semester during periods one, seven or eight. Lastly, summer school is another
option for students who need to make-up credits. About 95% of students attending
summer school are taken courses they have previously failed. The other 5% are looking
for enrichment opportunities. Summer school is offered in two, three-week sessions and
students are required to attend for five hours a day.
Professional Development
Professional development in the district requires certificated teachers to attend
three days of professional development activities during the summer, directly before the
school semester begins. At White Hart Lane High School, the agenda for these three
days includes human relations activities focusing on parent and community outreach, and
a technology fair that offers teachers a variety of workshops focusing on website
development, online grade books and integrating technology into the classroom. There is
also time allotted for PLCs to meet and determine goals for the upcoming school year.
Parent and community relationships have become increasingly important at White Hart
Lane due to the increase in Middle Eastern and Kurdish students. The school has on
175
average, eighteen or more racial discrimination incidents a year and these are on the rise
as the demographics continue to change. The surrounding community also witnesses a
lot of racial incidents and it is thus extremely challenging to build positive, non-
discriminatory relationships with the community.
During the school year, teachers are allowed one school business day and one
professional growth day of which teachers can use to attend seminars and workshops
specific to their needs. Individual schools do not currently have instructional coaches,
unless they pay for it themselves, but the district has hired one instructional coach that is
available to work with individual schools, departments or teachers. The district
instructional coach collaborates primarily with PLCs at various school sites.
School Culture
With brand new administrative leadership in place, there is currently a strong
movement toward building collaborative relationships between teachers, administration
and students. The prior principal was very disconnected to the staff and students, and as
a result, programs remained stagnant and almost regressive. There was also a severe lack
of follow-through with the prior administrator and staff tensions and resentment began to
build. There are currently many efforts towards developing strong intervention programs
for struggling students and also developing enrichment activities for students to connect
with one another and with school. The PLC movement has helped shift the once divided
staff toward one that works collaboratively to improve student learning.
Other elements that have supported positive growth in building relationships with
staff and students, is the Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA). The PTSA is
176
growing in numbers and collaborates with the new principal to publish a monthly parent
newsletter that informs parents of important school dates and activities and also provides
parents with community resources that they may need to utilize to improve their child’s
education or even their own education.
Although apart of a large high school district, White Hart Lane High School has
remained very autonomous in terms of making decisions for what is appropriate for their
specific campus, staff and population of students. Although it was originally a district
initiative, the PLCs at the high school decide how they want to function and what their
goals and instructional improvement strategies will be. The district is supportive,
providing staff with opportunities for professional development concerning PLCs.
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence Based Model
Developed upon research underlying proven methods and strategies for resource
use related to student achievement, the Evidence Based Model provides a framework
upon which to compare White Hart Lane High School resource allocation strategies to a
prototypical school supported by the model. Table 4.5 provides a comparison of the
resource use at White Hart Lane High School to the Evidence Based Model (EBM). The
fourth column shows the difference between the Evidence Based Model and White Hart
Lane High School resource use and indicates how the model would staff a school of
2,205 students with the characteristics and demographics of White Hart Lane High
School (WHLHS).
177
Table 4.5 – White Hart Lane High School and Evidence Based Model Resource Use
Comparison
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
White Hart Lane
HS – Current
Resource Status
Comparison
between
WHLHS &
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
School Characteristics
School Configuration 9-12 9-12
School Size 600 2,205 3.6 x bigger
Core Class Size 25 35
10 more than
EBM
Number of teacher work
days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
187, including 3
inservice days
Only 3
inservice days,
6 less school
days
Number Disabled
(w/IEP)
242 (10.9%)
Number Poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
189 (8.6%)
Number English Learner 46 (2.1%)
% Minority 26.5%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 24 per 600 students 56.6
EBM suggests
86.4 for 2,205
students
2. Specialist Teachers
33% of core teachers
(8)
16.8
EBM suggests
28.5
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
3
(1 for every
200 students)
0
EBM suggests
11.0
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
0
EBM suggests
1.9
5. Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students
0
EBM suggests
0.5
6. Extended Day
1 teacher for every 15
poverty students
(based on half the
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary
1.6 FTE
EBM suggests
1.6 FTE
extended day
teachers
178
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
White Hart Lane
HS – Current
Resource Status
Comparison
between
WHLHS &
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
7. Summer School
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary
3.4 FTE
EBM suggests
1.6 FTE
School Characteristics
8. Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions for 600
students
10.2 Inclusion and
Resource Room
Teachers
EBM suggests
14.7 teachers
for 2,205
students
9. Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
1.8 FTE teachers
and 3 aides
Based on need
10. Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
Gate budget of
$10,380.00
EBM suggests
funds of
$55,125
11. Vocational
Education
1/3 more per student
enrolled
0 N/A
12. Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher
for illness and 3 PN
3 more days
than EBM
suggests
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance per 250
students
8.0 Counselors
2.0 attendance
1 Nurse, 1 Psych,
Speech
(13.0 FTE)
EBM suggests
10.7 positions
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
3.0 to relieve teachers
and provide
supervision
0
EBM suggests
11.0
15. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 Librarian and
1.0 Library Tech
1 Librarian &
1 Library Tech
EBM suggests
3.7 Librarians
and 3.7 Library
techs
16. Principal 1 Principal
1 Principal and
3 Assistant
Principals
EBM suggests
1 Principal and
3.7 Assistant
Principals
179
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
White Hart Lane
HS – Current
Resource Status
Comparison
between
WHLHS &
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
Principals
17. School Site
Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
4.0 Secretaries &
3.0 clerks
EBM suggests
3.7 secretaries
& 11.1 clerks
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
3 PD summer days
in calendar;
$8,329.00 school
business funds for
PD expenses –
trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
EBM suggests
10 days PD in
summer and
$220,500 for
other PD
expenses.
19. Technology $250 per pupil
1.0 technology
coordinator.
Resources vary
EBM suggests
$551,250
20. Instructional
Materials
$175 per pupil $112,490
EBM suggests
$385,875
21. Student Activities $250 per pupil
1 section ASB,
Leadership Skills
EBM suggests
$551,250
Lessons Learned
White Hart Lane High School is continuously creating a school atmosphere built
upon the belief that all students will graduate prepared for college. With the recent
change in administrative leadership, White Hart Lane is working towards developing a
positive, collaborative environment where teachers and support staff work together to
generate a school mission and vision statement focused on strategies for improvements in
student achievement. There are currently strong efforts being made to diminish tensions
amongst the staff that existed when the prior principal was present. With new leadership
180
in place, most of the staff is already warming up and ready for positive growth in
relationships and student learning.
Technology is one resource that is beginning to impact the development of
curriculum and assessments at White Hart Lane High School. Teachers have received
training regarding how to put grades online and how to develop a website. 80% of the
teachers have their grades online and about 40% have websites. The district offers
monthly technology workshops for teachers who need help with online grades and
websites. Most teachers also make use of an LCD projector for Power Point
presentations within the course curriculum. Students in the new Telecom elective course
are being educated on how to use Final Cut Pro and other digital editing software to
create movies and newscasts. Furthermore, teachers are beginning to use the Edusoft
program to aid in analyzing course assessments. Only a few teachers use the software
regularly, and others are attending workshops to learn how to develop and use Edusoft to
impact student achievement.
Using data analysis to drive instruction is another area White Hart Lane staff is
progressively working on. Biology and Mathematics are using the Edusoft system to
develop assessments and gather data concerning what areas of the curriculum need
improvement and what students might be struggling. Both departments are also
developing better interventions based on the data they collect. English is beginning to
use the Edusoft system for similar purposes. The English PLCs are also working on
developing common, standards-based, grade-level rubrics. Most subject areas still rely
heavily on individually developed formative and summative assessments. PLCs are
181
working on developing common assessments that will help drive instruction and improve
student learning.
There are many extra help strategies for struggling students in place and being
developed by the guidance team and individual teachers. After school tutorials with
certificated teachers, the Pals Program, the Freshmen Mentoring Program and the “Ready
to Learn” curriculum not only offer remediation in specific subject areas, but also provide
students with role models, study skills and life skills. Summer school is another option
for students to make-up credits or to move ahead in the curriculum. Class size reduction
is in place for freshmen Math and English students. Counselors also try to keep class
sizes low in English Learner and Remedial core courses. All interventions are teacher
driven and with a new administrative team, teachers are beginning to feel supported in
their efforts.
Future Implications
There are additional resources that would be necessary to continue to develop and
deliver a successful instructional program for all students at White Hart Lane High
School. More time and support is needed to develop a single achievement plan for every
student is necessary to ensure every student graduates with a post-secondary plan. More
time and support is also needed to develop operational soundness within all school
operations. Additional funding is necessary to reduce class sizes in all core courses at all
grade levels. In addition, more funding would be necessary to provide professional
development for all staff focused on team-building, collaboration, PLCs, technology and
differentiated instruction.
182
CASE STUDY FOUR:
Villa Park High School
A case study of Instructional Improvement Strategies and Resource Use
Villa Park High School is a comprehensive public high school in a large high
school district in East San Diego County, serving grades 9-12. The surrounding
attendance area is primarily composed of suburban residential neighborhoods and serves
2,123 students. Approximately eighty percent of the students live in single-family
homes, with the other twenty percent living in condominium and apartment complexes.
Villa Park High School is one of eleven comprehensive high schools in the Premiere
Union High School District. All six of the sample schools in this study are located in this
same high school district.
The surrounding community continues to grow and develop; however, the student
demographics at Villa Park High School have remained rather constant. The student
body is currently comprised of 67.8% Caucasian, 17.2% Hispanic or Latino, 4.4%
African American, 2.7% Filipino and the remaining 7.9% of students are from various
ethnic groups including Asian, American Indian, Pacific Islander and a growing
Chaldean population. The student population is still predominantly Caucasian, with only
small, recent increases in the number of Hispanic/Latino students. Figure 4.1 shows the
changing trends in student demographics from 1994 to 2008.
183
Figure 4.1 – Villa Park High School Demographics from 1994 to 2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
% of Student Population
Caucasian Hispanic/Latino African American Filipino
Even though the student demographics have remained rather constant since 1994, the
individual academic needs of the student population continues to change and challenge
the staff at Villa Park High School.
From a socio-economic perspective, Villa Park High School serves students that
come primarily from middle class and upper class areas. The percentage of students
attending from lower socio-economic areas has increased slightly over the last five years.
The percentage of students on free and reduced price lunch is 12.4% (263 students).
Villa Park High School does not qualify to receive Title I funds as a result of the low
percentage of students receiving free and reduced price lunch. Furthermore, about six
percent of the student population are English Learner (EL) students. The primary
languages within this EL population are Spanish and Chaldean. Another significant
subgroup is the disabled student subgroup. Currently, 207 (9.7%) students within the
student body are classified as disabled with an Individual Education Plan (IEP).
184
As the student population at Villa Park High School continues to develop and the
school continues to grow, it is important to see how the school is performing
academically on the Academic Performance Index (API), Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) scores and the California High School Exit Exam scores. As a school,
Villa Park’s API has improved 64 points since 2003 from 736 to 800. Villa Park is one
of the highest performing schools in the district and is the only school to have reached an
API score of 800, which is the goal for all California schools and significant subgroups.
Table 4.1 summarizes the whole school and significant subgroup API scores from 2003
to 2008 for Villa Park students.
Table 4.1 – Villa Park High School API Scores 2003 to 2008
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Change
2003 to
2008
All Students 736 734 739 763 760 800 +64
Caucasian 747 746 756 775 777 818 +71
Hispanic/Latino 684 679 698 718 690 740 +56
Low Socio-
economic
N/A 575 596 660 657 690 +115
Special Education N/A N/A N/A 524 528 576 +52
Hispanic/Caucasian
Gap
63 67 58 57 87 78 +15
The most impressive gains are the improvements made by the low SES subgroup,
improving 115 API points, from 575 in 2004 to 690 in 2008. Other important
improvements have been made by other significant subgroups, including Caucasian
students, Hispanic/Latino students and special education students who have all improved
by at least fifty API points since 2003. Figure 4.2 shows trends in the API scores for all
subgroups from 2003 to 2008.
185
Figure 4.2 – Villa Park High School API Scores 2003 to 2008
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API Scores
All Students Caucasian Hispanic/Latino Low Socio-economic Special Education
One disappointing feature shown in the trends above is the increase in the achievement
gap between Caucasian and Hispanic/Latino students. This gap has increased by fifteen
API points from 63 API points in 2003 to 78 API points in 2008. The API gains are slow
and steady, with small increments of improvement being made each year.
While all students and subgroups at Villa Park High School continue to improve
API scores, the gains being made are still somewhat stagnant in comparison to the
statewide and similar schools index ratings. Table 4.2 summarizes Villa Park’s statewide
and similar school rankings from 2003 to 2008.
Table 4.2 – Villa Park High School Statewide and Similar Schools Ranking 2003-2008
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average
2003 to
2008
Statewide Rank 9 8 8 8 8 8 8.1
Similar Schools
Rank
6 3 2 4 3 3 3.5
186
Villa Park’s average statewide rank is 8.1 and represents the decile where the base API
falls in comparison with the base APIs of all other schools statewide of the same school
type and demographics. Villa Park’s average similar school rank is 3.5 and represents the
decile where the base API falls in comparison to the base APIs of 100 similar schools of
the same school type and demographics. The average statewide rank shows Villa Park is
achieving better than most other similar schools in California. However, the average
similar schools rank is only 3.5 and shows that Villa Park is not progressing as well as it
should be for its specific school type and demographics.
Another measure that illustrates the somewhat stagnant academic growth of Villa
Park High School students are the California Standards Test (CST) scores in the core
subject areas of English/Language Arts, History, Mathematics and Science. Table 4.3
shows the percent of students scoring advanced or proficient in the four core areas. The
English/Language Arts scores reflect students who scored advanced or proficient in
grades 9-11 standards. The History scores reflect students who scored advanced or
proficient in World History and US History. The Math scores reflect students who
scored advanced or proficient in General Math (grades 6 & 7 standards), Algebra I,
Geometry, Algebra II and Summative High School Math (grades 9-11 standards). The
Science scores reflect students who scored advanced or proficient in Earth Science,
Physics, Biology, Chemistry and General Science (Physical Science).
Table 4.3 – Villa Park High School CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
English/LA 55.0% 51.3% 51.3% 52.3% 52.7% 62.0%
History 45.0% 43.5% 49.5% 45.0% 45.5% 57.5%
Math EOC 18.6% 13.2% 17.4% 21.5% 25.3% 29.5%
187
Science EOC 43.0% 27.5% 24.7% 31.4% 34.8% 51.4%
Overall, the percent of students scoring advanced or proficient in the four core subject
areas have increased by at least seven percent from 2003 to 2008. Figure 4.3 shows the
achievement trends for each subject area from 2003 to 2008.
Figure 4.3 – Villa Park High School CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
% Advanced or Proficient
English/LA History Math EOC Science EOC
The English/Language Arts have remained rather consistent since 2003, showing small
increments of growth reaching 62% in 2008. History and Science scores have not shown
this same consistency, but have instead displayed a sharp increase in the percentage of
student scoring advanced or proficient from 2007 to 2008, in Science from 34.8% to
51.4% and in History from 45.5% to 57.5%. Math scores have shown strong, consistent
growth from 2004 to 2008, increasing from 13.2% in 2004 to 29.5% in 2008.
An examination of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores at
Villa Park High School shows that students have consistently scored at proficient or
188
advanced levels, thus contributing to over a 90% pass rate on both the English and Math
portions of the exam since 2005. Table 4.4 shows the percentages of students from
various subgroups that have passed the English and Math portions of the CAHSEE from
2005 to 2008 on the first attempt.
Table 4.4 –Villa Park CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup 2005 – 2008.
English % Passed Math % Passed

2005
n=490
2006
n=524
2007
n=492
2008
n=485
2005
n=468
2006
n=486
2007
n=463
2008
n=454
All 10th Grade 89% 92% 89% 92% 91% 93% 92% 94%
Hispanic/Latino 83% 88% 77% 86% 85% 85% 86% 88%
Caucasian 91% 93% 91% 94% 93% 94% 93% 97%
African American 74% 83% 89% 88% 79% 83% 87% 81%
English Learner 28% 48% 44% 46% 52% 61% 69% 59%
Low SES 65% 78% 71% 75% 72% 76% 82% 85%
Special Education 64% 70% 56% 74% 67% 87% 86% N/A
The most significant gains have been with English Learner (EL) students and low SES
students. EL students have increased their pass rate on the English portion from 28% in
2005 to 46% in 2008 and on the Math portion from 52% in 2005 to 59% in 2008.
African American students have also shown significant gains, increasing their pass rate
on the English portion from 74% in 2005 to 88% in 2008. Other subgroups have shown
minor increases in the percentage of students passing both the English and Math portions,
but still remain rather stagnant in terms of any significant improvements. Figures 4.4 and
4.5 show patterns of improvement in the English and Math passing rates on the
CAHSEE.
189
Table 4.4 – CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup for the English portion
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 n=490 2006 n=524 2007 n=492 2008 n=485
% Pass Rate English
All 10th Grade Hispanic/Latino Caucasian African American
English Learner Low SES Special Education
Table 4.5 – CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup for the Math portion
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2005 n=468 2006 n=486 2007 n=463 2008 n=454
% Pass Rate Math
All 10th Grade Hispanic/Latino Caucasian African American
English Learner Low SES Special Education
The data summarized show that Villa Park High School has had a stagnant past in
terms of student academic performance, but has recently made significant improvements
190
with most significant subgroups in the CSTs and CAHSEE. Villa Park has never been in
Program Improvement, even though the district is, and has continued to meet and exceed
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) growth goals since 2005 for the school and all significant
subgroups.
One area of concern the data clearly identifies is student achievement scores in
Math. The percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in Math is below 30%
and has shown only small increments of improvement since 2003 (Figure 4.3). Upon
further investigation into the course offerings in mathematics, it was discovered that
almost 20% of the courses being taken are remedial and consist of students enrolled in
Basic Algebra and Algebra either for the first time or even second and third time. Figure
4.6 compares the percentage of courses offered at the remedial, college preparatory and
advanced levels for core subject areas.
Figure 4.6 – Villa Park High School Course Level Offerings by Subject Area
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
English Math Science History Foreign
Language
Total
% Courses Offered
Remedial College Preparatory Advanced
191
Overall, about seven percent of the courses offered at Villa Park High School are
remedial. In comparison to the CST scores in the core subject areas, there may be a link
between the lack of interventions and remediation within the remedial courses and the
low percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on the CSTs in Math.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
The mission statement that serves as the foundation for learning at Villa Park
High School is “success for all students”. The core values guided by this mission aim to
graduate students who are critical and curious thinkers challenged by a rigorous
curriculum, collaborative learners who belong to a diverse community, conscientious
planners and goal setters and comprehensive researchers who use a variety of resources.
All instructional programs are designed to improve student achievement on an annual
basis. Villa Park High School supports cultural awareness on a daily basis through its
diverse literature selections and integrated English and Social Science curriculum in the
Humanities program. Students are offered a full-range of co-curricular and
extracurricular activities in which to participate. The curriculum is based on the
California State Content Standards and Frameworks and is reviewed monthly at subject
matter council meetings in order to insure alliance with state standards, district goals and
the statewide assessment program.
Curriculum and Instruction
The current focus at Villa Park High School is the CAHSEE and as a result, there
are significant efforts being made towards improving student achievement in English and
Mathematics. Intervention strategies are being developed to help improve CAHSEE
192
English and Math scores within the English Learner and Special Education subgroups.
New instructional materials have been adopted to supplement curriculum for these two
subgroups. English Learners are using the Accelerated Reader and EDGE program that
are both precursors to the High Point program. These programs help EL students with
vocabulary, reading comprehension and writing skills. For the Special Education
population, Kaplan materials are being used to help students with vocabulary, reading
and writing. Both subgroups use an accelerated math program called “Renaissance
Learning” to help master basic Mathematic operations and pre-Algebra skills.
With a focus on improving assessment scores for individual subgroups and as a
school, all Villa Park mainstreamed courses integrate SAT vocabulary preparation
materials, CST released test questions and CAHSEE released test questions. In addition
to these mainstreamed materials, all English courses are using the California Partnership
for Achieving Student Success (CALPASS) writing process which bridges writing
expectations between the high school and local universities and community colleges.
This resource is designed to help educators improve student achievement by identifying
and reducing barriers to successful student transition in all levels of education, from
kindergarten to college. This data system collects and analyzes student-level data to track
performance and improve student academic success. Data is collected once a year and
provides educators with student scores that can be used to align curriculum, provide
necessary student interventions and help students progress to the next level in their
education. Currently, Villa Park High School is using the Cal-PASS system for
English/Language Arts. This is the second year using the program and administrators
193
hope to see more improvements in student performance on the English CSTs and the
CAHSEE.
To help support the implementation of these various curricular programs, Villa
Park High School has developed subject matter professional learning communities
(PLCs). This PLC movement was initiated by the district but has quickly become a
teacher-driven improvement process. The master bell schedule has been restructured to
allow time for teachers to meet with their PLC once a week for one hour during the
school day. Humanities teachers also have common prep periods, which allow for daily
collaboration time. Within the PLCs, teachers have focused on developing common
achievement goals that are aligned to the school and district goals. These goals have
driven efforts to soundly align curriculum to state standards and differentiate curriculum
to meet the needs of struggling students. Recently, PLCs have worked together to
develop lessons around expository writing skills. The district and Cal-PASS supports
these efforts to create expository writing rubrics and curriculum.
As a whole staff, there has not been any dialogue defining strategies and
characteristics of effective teaching. Teachers are evaluated every two years and at that
time are involved in discussions with the administrative team about the characteristics of
effective teaching. Cal-PASS provides teachers with effective lesson ideas and strategies
to incorporate into the classroom, but it is up to each individual teacher to implement it.
One department that has engaged in conversations regarding effective teaching practices
is the Math department. With a significant focus on the CAHSEE, this department has
developed lessons within all subject specific PLCs and are using “lesson studies” to
194
further engage in reflective conversations and improve curriculum and instructional
strategies. Math teachers participate in the lesson studies three times per year. However,
one thing the Math PLCs are finding is that there are more questions being raised that
answers being discovered! The humanities team is another department on campus that is
beginning to engage in important dialogue about effective teaching strategies. Using the
PLC design as a forum for these conversations, teachers are currently focused on
developing pacing guides for the current curriculum. These guides will not only bridge
gaps between courses and curriculum, but will also serve as a great tool to identify
struggling students and weak areas in the curriculum and instructional process.
The instructional vision driving the improvement efforts described above
emphasizes teaching what is essential (based on the California Standards) versus what is
nice to know. PLCs are beginning to fine-tune curriculum to cover what is essential and
as a result, students are showing improvement on the CSTs. Specific teaching strategies
being used to support this vision are still very traditional. The majority of teachers use
and rely on direct instruction to deliver the essential content of a course. The leadership
team and PLCs are working on developing and implementing more student-to student
collaborative engagement in the classroom.
Intervention Strategies
Villa Park High School is continually developing and implementing interventions
that target specific subgroups of struggling students. After school tutorials are offered by
certificated teachers in various subject areas. Students voluntarily attend these tutorials
and receive one-on-one or small group assistance relating to the curriculum of the course
195
or test and absence make-ups. On average, about 15-20 teachers offer tutorials once or
twice a week for one to two hours. Teachers report having about eight to twenty students
that regularly attend tutorials. Summer school is another option for struggling students.
About 90% of students who attend summer school are taking courses they have
previously failed. The other 10% are looking for enrichment opportunities and are also
participating in band camp and football camp. Summer school is offered in two, three-
week semesters and students are required to attend for five hours a day.
Another intervention strategy for struggling students is the design of the master
schedule. There are support classes built in for Science, Math, English and History.
Students that begin to struggle with the mainstreamed curriculum are scheduled into a
support class in order to get back on track. Certificated teachers manage support classes.
Peer tutors are available in the support classes to help struggling students. Humanities
teachers also have common prep periods that help support fluidity within the course and
provide time for developing and implementing differentiated curriculum. The master
schedule also provides EL students with intermediate support classes (a low-level
English, high-level English, and then college prep) that help to move students between
levels with ease. A certificated EL teacher teaches EL support classes and the academic
performance of students is constantly monitored so the teacher can advocate for
movement between the different levels of the curriculum based on individual student
needs.
196
Professional Development
Professional development in the district requires certificated teachers to attend
three days of professional development activities during the summer, directly before the
school semester begins. The agenda for these three days time to collaborate and prepare
for WASC visitations, time to work on teacher websites and learn the Edusoft data
assessment system, and time for the guidance and counseling department to do logistical
updates. In addition to these three days, teachers meet in WASC focus groups once a
month. Once a year, staff participates in a presentation provided by the Special
Education department relating to differentiation, full inclusion strategies and goal-setting
strategies for full inclusion students. In addition, staff has currently been involved in
assisting the guidance department in developing a Post Secondary Plan for every student
that graduates from Villa Park High School. Additional professional development
opportunities are needed to meet the needs of individual teachers, however, the current
budget does not support providing teachers with such opportunities.
School Culture
The staff at Villa Park High School is very supportive and works collaboratively
to connect to students and improve academic achievement. The formation of PLCs have
supported these efforts and continue to improve learning on a daily basis. Even with a
new principal, the staff and leadership team work very closely to provide every student
with a meaningful and rigorous educational experience. The Parent Teacher
Organization (PTO), School Site Council, Booster Club and the Associated Student Body
(ASB) have positively influenced these relationships. There are other parent foundations
197
that help support extracurricular and co-curricular activities on campus. This foundation
has even help fund a technology movement that provided every teacher with a new
laptop.
Although part of a large high school district, Villa Park High School has remained
very autonomous in terms of making decisions for what is appropriate for their specific
campus, staff and population of students. The district provides support for the growth
and development of many school programs. Past administrators have held a similar
vision in relation to student achievement; however, the new principal is more structured
and focused on developing specific goals and strategies aligned to that vision. The entire
staff is aware of the school vision and is apart of a collaborative effort to develop the
goals and strategies that will realize that vision. To support these efforts, there are
weekly meetings with a core group of individuals, including department heads (leaders),
the principal and the head counselor, to discuss student achievement goals and develop
strategies to improve learning. This collaborative environment has fostered a culture of
distributed leadership that functions under a shared vision of instructional leadership.
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence Based Model
Developed upon research underlying proven methods and strategies for resource
use related to student achievement, the Evidence Based Model provides a framework
upon which to compare Villa Park High School resource allocation strategies to a
prototypical school supported by the model. Table 4.5 provides a comparison of the
resource use at Villa Park High School to the Evidence Based Model (EBM). The fourth
column shows the difference between the Evidence Based Model and Villa Park High
198
School resource use and indicates how the Evidence Based model would staff a school of
2,123 students with the characteristics and demographics of Villa Park High School
(VPHS).
Table 4.5 – Villa Park High School and Evidence Based Model Resource Use
Comparison
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Villa Park HS -
Current Resource
Status
Comparison
between
VPHS &
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
School Characteristics
School Configuration 9-12 9-12
School Size 600 2,123 3.5x bigger
Core Class Size 25 35
10 more than
EBM
Number of teacher work
days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
187, including 3
inservice days
Only 3
inservice days,
6 less school
days
Number Disabled
(w/IEP)
207 (9.8%)
Number Poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
263 (12.4%)
Number English Learner 128 (6.0%)
% Minority 32.2%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 24 per 600 students 54.4
EBM suggests
84.9 for 2,123
students
2. Specialist Teachers
33% of core teachers
(8)
21.8
EBM suggests
28.0
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
3
(1 for every
200 students)
0
EBM suggests
10.6
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
0
EBM suggests
2.6
5. Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students
2.0
EBM suggests
1.3
199
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Villa Park HS -
Current Resource
Status
Comparison
between
VPHS &
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
6. Extended Day 3.6 FTE
EBM suggests
1.8 FTE
extended day
teachers
7. Summer School
1 teacher for every 15
poverty students
(based on half the
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary 2.8 FTE
EBM suggests
1.8 FTE
School Characteristics
8. Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions for 600
students
7.0 Inclusion and
Resource Room
Teachers
EBM suggests
14.2 teachers
for 2,123
students
9. Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
2 FTE teachers and
5 aides
Based on need
10. Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
Gate budget of
$10,174.00
EBM suggests
funds of
$53,075
11. Vocational
Education
1/3 more per student
enrolled
0 N/A
12. Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher
for illness and 3 PN
3 more days
than EBM
suggests
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance per 250
students
9.0 Counselors
2.0 attendance
1 Nurse, 1 Psych,
2.0 Speech
(15.0 FTE)
EBM suggests
11.1 positions
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
3.0 to relieve teachers
and provide
supervision
0
EBM suggests
10.5
15. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library Tech
1 Librarian &
1 Library Tech
EBM suggests
3.5 Librarians
and 3.5 Library
techs
200
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Villa Park HS -
Current Resource
Status
Comparison
between
VPHS &
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
16. Principal 1 Principal
1 Principal and
3 Assistant
Principals
EBM suggests
1 Principal and
3.5 Assistant
Principals
17. School Site
Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
4.0 Secretaries &
4.0 clerks
EBM suggests
3.5 secretaries
& 10.5 clerks
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
3 PD summer days
in calendar;
$8,200.00 school
business funds for
PD expenses –
trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
EBM suggests
10 days PD in
summer and
$212,300 for
other PD
expenses.
19. Technology $250 per pupil
1.0 technology
coordinator.
Resources vary
EBM suggests
$530,750
20. Instructional
Materials
$175 per pupil $111,500
EBM suggests
$371,525
21. Student Activities $250 per pupil
1 section ASB, 5
sections Life Skills
EBM suggests
$530,750
Lessons Learned
Villa Park High School is continuously striving to improve student achievement.
Recent gains in the API scores are believed to be apart of these efforts. School
achievement goals have been narrowed to focus on the importance of CST scores and
grade D/F rates. These goals became the focal discussions within subject area PLCs and
drive subject area learning goals for the school year. Individual student CST scores now
201
appear on student transcripts and have motivated students to perform well on the CSTs,
knowing colleges might see these scores. Another recent change is the CST testing
schedule. Students take subject tests with the teacher that teaches that subject.
Furthermore, teachers have changed their dialogues and messages about the CSTs and are
constantly emphasizing the importance of the test to the students.
The use of data to drive instruction is in its beginning stages at Villa Park High
School. Teachers rely heavily on individually developed, traditional unit summative
assessments. PLCs are working towards developing more common summative and
formative assessments, however, training and professional development is needed to
facilitate these efforts. Edusoft is a data processing tool that some PLCs are beginning to
use to analyze summative assessments. However, professional training is also needed
teach instructors how to develop appropriate summative and formative assessments and
how to use the software. In addition, the English and Math departments are utilizing
diagnostic assessments to help understand the academic levels of the students and to meet
the needs of individual students.
The school day has been restructured to support collaboration within PLCs and
common prep periods for humanities and support class teachers. Collaboration time
allows teachers to meet weekly and develop goals for student learning and strategies for
achieving those goals. Curriculum pacing guides and assessments are also developed
during collaboration time. The school schedule also allows numerous support classes to
be added to individual struggling student schedules. These courses are designed to get
struggling students back on track with the mainstreamed, college prep curriculum. There
202
are numerous extra help strategies for struggling students in place that are managed by
the leadership team, the guidance staff and individual teachers. One-on-one and small
group tutorials, summer school, and support classes offer remediation in core subject
areas.
Future Implications
There are additional resources that would be necessary to continue to develop and
deliver a successful instructional program for all students at Villa Park High School.
Additional funds to reduce class sizes in all core subject areas and support the
development of more support classes for struggling students would improve student
achievement. Additional funding for technology would also be necessary to build a
computer lab and provide teachers with more instructional tools for the classrooms.
More professional development time and financial support for teachers to work within
PLCs is crucial to continue to build relationships and support the development of a
rigorous curriculum. Professional development is also needed to educate teachers on
differentiation, effective teaching strategies, data-drive decision-making and how to use
the Edusoft software.
203
CASE STUDY FIVE:
Craven Cottage High School
A case study of Instructional Improvement Strategies and Resource Use
Craven Cottage High School is a comprehensive public high school in a large
high school district in East San Diego County, serving grades 9-12. The surrounding
attendance area is primarily composed of low-income, suburban neighborhoods and
serves 1,925 students. Students live in a variety of neighborhoods, including single-
family homes, and large apartment and condominium rental complexes. Craven Cottage
High School is one of eleven comprehensive high schools in the Premiere Union High
School District. The high schools in the district range in size from 1,500 to 2,900,
serving a total of 24,447 students. All six of the sample schools in this study are located
in this same high school district.
The growth of the surrounding community over the past ten years has directly
affected the student demographics at Craven Cottage High School. The student body is
currently comprised of 16.0% Caucasian, 49.3% Hispanic or Latino, 20.4% African
American, 4.9% Filipino and the remaining 9.4% of students are from various ethnic
groups including Asian, American Indian and Pacific Islander. The student population
has drastically changed from being predominantly Caucasian to predominantly
Hispanic/Latino. The number of African American students has also increased over the
past ten years. Figure 4.1 shows the changing trends in student demographics at Craven
Cottage High School from 1994 to 2008.
204
Figure 4.1 – Craven Cottage High School Demographics from 1994 to 2008
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
% of Student Population
Caucasian Hispanic/Latino African American Filipino Asian American Indian
These changing demographics have challenged the staff and faculty at Craven Cottage
High School to reform educational goals and practices in order to meet the growing needs
of their diverse student population.
From a socio-economic perspective, Craven Cottage High School serves students
that come primarily from lower class to middle class areas. The percentage of students
eligible for free and reduced price lunch is currently 38.9%. Craven Cottage High
School does not currently qualify to receive Title I funds despite this high percentage of
students. Furthermore, about 18.3% of the student population are English Learner (EL)
students. The primary language within this EL population is Spanish. Another
significant subgroup is the disabled student subgroup. Currently, 179 (9.3%) students
within the student body are classified as disabled with an Individual Education Plan
(IEP).
205
As the student population at Craven Cottage High School continues to grow and
the demographics continue to change, it is important to see what impact these changes are
having on the Academic Performance Index (API) scores, Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) scores and the California High School Exit Exam scores. As a school,
Craven Cottage’s API has improved 16 points since 2003 from 618 to 634. The goal for
all California schools is to achieve an API score of 800 for all students and all significant
subgroups. Table 4.1 summarizes the whole school and significant subgroup API scores
from 2003 to 2008 for Craven Cottage students.
Table 4.1 – Craven Cottage High School API Scores 2003 to 2008
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Change
2003 to
2008
All Students 618 618 641 637 634 634 +16
Caucasian 685 675 707 698 703 678 -7
Hispanic/Latino 594 576 611 600 603 606 +12
African American 553 569 610 616 604 591 +38
Low Socio-
economic
547 560 597 597 607 615 +68
English Learners N/A N/A N/A 619 572 575 -44
Special Education N/A N/A N/A 413 433 439 +26
Hispanic/Caucasian
Gap
91 99 96 98 100 72 -19
African
American/Caucasia
n Gap
132 106 97 82 99 87 -45
The most impressive gains are the improvements made by the low SES subgroup,
improving 68 API points, from 547 in 2003 to 615 in 2008. Other important
improvements include the progress made by the African American subgroup and thus the
significant decrease in the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian
students by 45 API points. Two subgroups that have not shown improvements in API
206
scores since 2003 are the Caucasian and English Learner populations. EL students have
shown no improvement, decreasing their API score by 44 points from 619 in 2006 to 575
in 2008. Figure 4.2 shows trends in the API scores for all subgroups from 2003 to 2008.
Figure 4.2 – Craven Cottage High School API Scores 2003 to 2008
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API Scores
All Students Caucasian Hispanic/Latino
African American Low Socio-economic English Learners
Special Education
Although minor, the achievement gap between Caucasian and Hispanic/Latino students
has also closed by 19 API points, decreasing from 91 API points in 2003 to 72 API points
in 2008. The API gains are slow and steady, with most significant subgroups showing
improvements while the demographics of the student body continue to change and
become more diverse.
While most students and subgroups at Craven Cottage High School continue to
improve API scores, the gains being made are still somewhat stagnant in comparison to
the statewide and similar schools index ratings. Table 4.2 summarizes Craven Cottage’s
statewide and similar school rankings from 2003 to 2008.
207
Table 4.2 – Craven Cottage High School Statewide and Similar Schools Ranking 2003-
2008
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average
2003 to
2008
Statewide Rank 4 4 3 3 2 2 3
Similar Schools
Rank
8 8 4 6 2 2 5
Craven Cottage’s average statewide rank is 3 and represents the decile where the base
API falls in comparison with the base APIs of all other schools statewide of the same
school type and demographics. Craven Cottage’s average similar school rank is 5 and
represents the decile where the base API falls in comparison to the base APIs of 100
similar schools of the same school type and demographics. The average statewide and
similar school rankings indicate that Craven Cottage High School is not progressing as
well as it should be in order to meet the ultimate goal of an 800 API score for the school
and all significant subgroups. In fact, the statewide ranking score suggests it is growing
more slowly than the average California school.
Another measure that illustrates the stagnant academic growth of Craven Cottage
High School students are the California Standards Test (CST) scores in the core subject
areas of English/Language Arts, History, Mathematics and Science. Table 4.3 shows the
percent of students scoring advanced or proficient in the four core areas. The
English/Language Arts scores reflect students who scored advanced or proficient in
grades 9-11 standards. The History scores reflect students who scored advanced or
proficient in World History and US History. The Math scores reflect students who
scored advanced or proficient in General Math (grades 6 & 7 standards), Algebra I,
208
Geometry, Algebra II and Summative High School Math (grades 9-11 standards). The
Science scores reflect students who scored advanced or proficient in Earth Science,
Physics, Biology, Chemistry and General Science (Physical Science).
Table 4.3 – Craven Cottage High School CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
English/LA 24.7% 24.7% 28.3% 25.0% 25.7% 25.7%
History 25.5% 23.0% 29.5% 23.0% 22.5% 24.0%
Math EOC 17.2% 11.0% 14.8% 13.0% 14.8% 19.8%
Science EOC 19.0% 18.0% 15.7% 10.3% 14.8% 16.3%
While the percent of students scoring proficient or advanced in English/Language Arts
and Math have increased by only about one to two percent from 2003 to 2008, the
History and Science scores have decreased by about one to two percent from 2003 to
2008. Figure 4.3 shows the achievement trends for each subject area from 2003 to 2008.
Figure 4.3 – Craven Cottage High School CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
% Advanced or Proficient
English/LA History Math EOC Science EOC
209
All subject area CST scores have remained stagnant over the past six years, showing very
inconsistent patterns with only small fluctuations in growth, primarily in 2005. There
was no explanation provided for the sudden increase in student scores in 2005.
An examination of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores at
Craven Cottage High School shows that students have not consistently scored at
proficient or advanced levels, thus contributing to and average of only a 69% pass rate on
both the English and Math portions of the exam since 2005. Table 4.4 shows the
percentages of students from various subgroups that have passed the English and Math
portions of the CAHSEE from 2005 to 2008 on the first attempt.
Table 4.4 –Craven Cottage CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup 2005 – 2008.
English % Passed Math % Passed

2005
n=447
2006
n=462
2007
n=466
2008
n=476
2005
n=443
2006
n=461
2007
n=459
2008
n=470
All 10th Grade 74% 72% 62% 67% 74% 72% 69% 67%
Hispanic/Latino 69% 64% 55% 62% 70% 69% 67% 66%
African American 73% 76% 63% 59% 63% 62% 57% 51%
Caucasian 82% 78% 72% 73% 85% 83% 81% 77%
Filipino 85% 92% 88% 92% 77% 85% 96% 88%
English Learner 41% 40% 30% 39% 56% 55% 56% 51%
Low SES 63% 65% 56% 63% 67% 68% 66% 66%
Special Education 26% 15% 19% 11% 30% 21% 16% 17%
The most significant gains have been with Filipino students, who have improved their
pass rate by 11% on the Math portion and 7% on the English portion since 2005. All
other subgroups and the overall pass rates on the English and Math portions of the
CAHSEE have declined. The most significant declines have been with special education
and African American students. Both subgroups have decreased their pass rates on the
210
English and Math portions by an average of 10% since 2005. Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show
patterns of improvement in the English and Math passing rates on the CAHSEE.
Table 4.4 – CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup for the English portion
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 n=447 2006 n=462 2007 n=466 2008 n=476
% Pass Rate English
All 10th Grade Hispanic/Latino African American Caucasian
Filipino English Learner Low SES Special Education
Table 4.5 – CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup for the Math portion
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2005 n=443 2006 n=461 2007 n=459 2008 n=470
% Pass Rate Math
All 10th Grade Hispanic/Latino African American Caucasian
Filipino English Learner Low SES Special Education
211
The data summarized show that Craven Cottage High School is rather stagnant in terms
of academic performance, with only a few recent gains within specific subgroups on the
CSTs and the CAHSEE. Craven Cottage High School is currently in year 1 of Program
Improvement and has not met Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) growth goals since 2006
for the school and all significant subgroups.
One area of concern the data clearly identifies is student achievement scores in
the core subject areas, but especially the low proficiency levels in Math and English. The
percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in English is below 25% and has
been stagnant with little to no growth since 2003 (Figure 4.3). The percentage of
students scoring proficient or advanced in Math is below 20% and has also been stagnant
with little to no growth since 2003 (Figure 4.3). Upon further investigation into the
course offerings in English and Math, it was discovered that 30% of the courses taken in
Math are remedial and almost 20% of the courses taken in English/Language Arts are
remedial. Most students enrolled in these courses are taking the class for the first or
second time. There is also a lack of advanced courses being offered in Math and
English. Overall, only about 11% of the courses on campus are advanced. Figure 4.6
compares the percentage of courses offered at the remedial, college preparatory and
advanced levels for core subject areas.
212
Figure 4.6 – Craven Cottage High School Course Level Offerings by Subject Area
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
English Math Science History Foreign
Language
Total
% Courses Offered
Remedial College Preparatory Advanced
Overall, only 17% of the courses offered in English, Math, Science and History are
remedial. In comparison to CST scores in these core subject areas, questions begin to
arise concerning the distinct parallel between the lack of rigorous, grade-level courses
being taken and the low, stagnant CST scores in the core subject areas.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Improving student achievement at Craven Cottage High School is a constant
focus that drives all instructional improvement efforts. The leadership team and staff
have worked collaboratively to develop a common vision for student achievement.
Under this vision, teachers and administrators are committed to providing an educational
program that will graduate students who are effective readers, competent writers,
articulate speakers, quantitative problem solvers and students who are prepared for
lifelong learning experiences. Students at Craven Cottage High School are offered a full
range of co-curricular and extracurricular activities in which to participate including a
213
Health Academy and Junior ROTC. The curriculum is based on the California State
Content Standards and Frameworks and is reviewed monthly at subject matter council
meetings in order to insure alliance with state standards, district goals and the statewide
assessment program.
Now in year one of Program Improvement (PI) status, Craven Cottage High
School is in the beginning stages of re-evaluating its current academic improvement plan
and making revisions for the implementation of further intervention and improvement
strategies. The current curricular focuses of improvement efforts at Craven Cottage are
in Math and English/Language Arts. Student achievement scores in these core areas on
the CAHSEE and CSTs have indicated that students are not achieving at the levels they
should be and are not mastering the standards in Math and English. Teachers and
administration have formed PLC focus groups in each core subject area and are first
working together to assure that all curriculum and assessments are standards based.
Curriculum and Instruction
Within the PLCs, teachers have focused on developing common achievement
goals that are aligned to the school and district goals. These goals have driven efforts to
assure that curriculum is soundly aligned to state standards. To support these goals, the
school has adopted a variety of curricula for various struggling subgroups. In Math, new
textbooks and supplemental materials have been adopted for Basic Algebra, Algebra I,
Geometry and Algebra II. The Math department has also purchased additional support
materials for Basic Algebra students who are struggling and not mastering the content
standards. The English department has adopted new reading and writing programs and
214
materials for the English Learner (EL) population. The EL students used to use High
Point curriculum and now use Edge, which focuses on language development, grammar
and also provides teachers with interactive teaching modules to use with individual EL
students who may be struggling with the mainstreamed English/Language Arts
curriculum. For the Special Education population, teachers are in the process of adopting
new curriculum and course books that are standards based and will focus on helping
students pass the CAHSEE.
As a whole staff, there have not been any structured dialogue defining strategies
and characteristics of effective teaching. Teachers are evaluated every two years and at
that time are involved in discussions with the administrative team about the
characteristics of effective teaching. Some PLCs have engaged in conversations about
effective instructional strategies and some strategies have also been discussed in staff
meetings. However, teachers have not received any specific training opportunities
concerning effective teaching strategies. The strategies that have been topics of
conversation include clinical instruction, direct instruction, guided practice, independent
practice and providing proper closing activities during lessons. The leadership team is
using the California Standards for the Teaching Profession as the basis for helping
teachers improve their instructional practices.
Overall, the instructional vision driving current improvement efforts is to raise the
level of rigor in all core courses and as a result, student effort and motivation within these
subject areas will increase. Through developing such high expectations, teachers hope to
create more student engagement inside the classroom. The next step in the instructional
215
improvement process is to provide more students with the opportunity to take AVID
(Advancement Via Individual Determination) courses. These courses will teach students
the necessary skills to be successful in rigorous courses and as a result, successfully
complete more college admission requirements (A-G requirements).
Intervention Strategies
Staff and administration at Craven Cottage continually work on developing
successful intervention strategies for struggling students. After school tutorials are
offered by certificated teachers in various subject areas. Students voluntarily attend these
tutorials and receive one-on-one or small group assistance relating to the curriculum of
the course or test and absence make-ups. On average, about 30 teachers offer tutorials
once or twice a week for one hour. Teachers report having about five to ten students that
regularly attend tutorials. Summer school is another option for students who need to
make-up credits. Almost all students attending summer school are taking courses they
have previously failed.
Another intervention strategy for struggling students is the After School Safety
and Enrichment Program for Teens (ASSETs). ASSETs is designed to fill important
achievement gaps by extending the school day with academic supports, and
implementing “Safe-House” alternatives for teenagers after school hours. This program
is in its second year of implementation and has built a strong student-to-school
connection through meaningful activities focused on recreational, career-based, tutorial,
and other meaningful dimensions. The program is monitored by a campus supervisor and
216
certificated teacher, and certificated teachers and peer tutors offer academic tutoring in
any of the core subject areas.
Craven Cottage has also developed support classes in Math, English and Social
Science to help struggling students. In its third year of implementation, the support
classes focus on pre-teaching and follow a block schedule, in which the same students
attend English and History courses together. The two courses are taught between three
teachers. This block schedule not only allows more time for students in these classes and
also reduces the class sizes so teachers have more opportunities for one-on-one
interactions with struggling students.
Professional Development
Professional development in the district requires certificated teachers to attend
three days of professional development activities during the summer, directly before the
school year begins. The agenda for these three days includes reviewing school academic
and discipline policies, time to meet with PLCs and develop goals and strategies for the
school year, and workshops focusing on meeting the needs of special education and EL
students. Other optional workshops during these professional development days include
educating teachers about the literacy movement and the new district initiative to graduate
every student with a post-secondary plan for the future. During the school year, teachers
are allowed one school business day and one professional growth day of which teachers
can use to attend seminars and workshops specific to their needs. Schools do not
currently have instructional coaches to work with teachers, but the district has hired one
instructional coach that is available to work with individual schools, departments or
217
teachers. The district instructional coach collaborates primarily with PLCs at various
school sites.
School Culture
The school culture at Craven Cottage High School is becoming more
collaborative and engaged in working together towards improving student achievement.
The formation of PLCs and the administration’s shift towards becoming instructional
leaders has helped pave the foundation upon which teachers and administrators are
working more closely to create positive change in school academic programs and in the
lives of each student. Building positive relationships with parents, students and the
community is a priority, however, administrators are finding it difficult to get parents
involved in the academic arenas and with the PTSA and site councils. There are current
efforts amongst teachers and administration to develop strategies that will improve parent
involvement. The English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC) is a new establishment
on campus that is very dedicated to student learning and has already had a positive
influence on the academic development of English Learners. Another program on
campus that has had a positive influence on students is Camp Matador. Camp Matador is
designed to welcome new freshmen students through a campus tour, activities and a
barbeque. Incoming freshmen report that the camp helped make the transition from
middle school to high school, exciting, non-threatening and a very positive experience.
Although apart of a large high school district, Craven Cottage High School has
remained very autonomous in terms of making decisions for what is appropriate for their
specific campus, staff and population of students. Although it was originally a district
218
initiative, the PLCs at the high school decide how they want to function and what their
goals and instructional strategies will be. The district is supportive, providing staff with
opportunities for professional development concerning PLCs. Overall, the district and
school administration provides the PLC tools, but the rest is teacher-driven.
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence Based Model
Developed upon research underlying proven methods and strategies for resource
use related to student achievement, the Evidence Based Model provides a framework
upon which to compare Craven Cottage High School resource allocation strategies to a
prototypical school supported by the model. Table 4.5 provides a comparison of the
resource use at Craven Cottage High School to the Evidence Based Model (EBM). The
fourth column shows the difference between the Evidence Based Model and Craven
Cottage High School resource use and indicates how the Evidence Based Model would
staff a school of 1,925 students with the characteristics and demographics of Craven
Cottage High School (CCHS).
Table 4.5 – Craven Cottage High School and Evidence Based Model Resource Use
Comparison
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Craven Cottage
HS - Current
Resource Status
Comparison
between
CCHS &
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
School Characteristics
School Configuration 9-12 9-12
School Size 600 1.925 3.2x bigger
Core Class Size 25 35
10 more than
EBM
Number of teacher work
days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
187, including 3
inservice days
Only 3
inservice days,
6 less school
days
219
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Craven Cottage
HS - Current
Resource Status
Comparison
between
CCHS &
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
training 6 less school
days
Number Disabled
(w/IEP)
179 (9.3%)
Number Poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
749 (39.0%)
Number English Learner 353 (18.3%)
% Minority 84.0%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 24 per 600 students 51.4
EBM suggests
77.0 for 1,925
students
2. Specialist Teachers
33% of core teachers
(8)
20.2
EBM suggests
25.4
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
3
(1 for every
200 students)
0
EBM suggests
9.6
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
0
EBM suggests
5.6
5. Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students
2.4
EBM suggests
3.5
6. Extended Day 6.0 FTE
EBM suggests
6.2 FTE
extended day
teachers
7. Summer School
1 teacher for every 15
poverty students
(based on half the
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary 3.6 FTE
EBM suggests
6.2 FTE
School Characteristics
8. Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions for 600
students
10.2 Inclusion and
Resource Room
Teachers
EBM suggests
12.8 teachers
for 1,925
students
9. Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
1.2 FTE teachers
and 1.0 aides
Based on need
220
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Craven Cottage
HS - Current
Resource Status
Comparison
between
CCHS &
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
students reimbursement minus
federal funds
and 1.0 aides
10. Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
Gate budget of
$3,933.00
EBM suggests
funds of
$48,125
11. Vocational
Education
1/3 more per student
enrolled
0 N/A
12. Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher
for illness and 3 PN
3 more days
than EBM
suggests
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance per 250
students
5.0 Counselors
2.0 attendance
1 Nurse, 0.8 Psych,
1.0 Speech
(9.8 FTE)
EBM suggests
15.2 positions
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
3.0 to relieve teachers
and provide
supervision
0
EBM suggests
9.6
15. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library Tech
1 Librarian &
1 Library Tech
EBM suggests
3.2 Librarians
and 3.2 Library
techs
16. Principal 1 Principal
1 Principal and
4 Assistant
Principals
EBM suggests
1 Principal and
3.2 Assistant
Principals
17. School Site
Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
5.0 Secretaries &
2.0 clerks
EBM suggests
3.2 secretaries
& 9.6 clerks
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
3 PD summer days
in calendar;
$5,500.00 school
business funds for
PD expenses –
trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
EBM suggests
10 days PD in
summer and
$195,500 for
other PD
expenses.
221
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Craven Cottage
HS - Current
Resource Status
Comparison
between
CCHS &
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
conferences, travel,
etc.
19. Technology $250 per pupil
1.0 technology
coordinator.
Resources vary
EBM suggests
$481,250
20. Instructional
Materials
$175 per pupil $113,470
EBM suggests
$336,875
21. Student Activities $250 per pupil 1 section ASB
EBM suggests
$481,250
Lessons Learned
Craven Cottage High School has been focusing on making data and assessments
an integral part of the overall instructional improvement efforts at the school. Subject
area PLCs are working on building common assessments and must have a minimum of
four common assessments per year. Even though the common assessments are largely
summative, efforts are being made to build more formative assessments. Every Tuesday
when PLCs meet, the focus of the meetings is to begin to use assessment data to develop
interventions for struggling students and to drive instructional improvement efforts.
PLCs not only receive training on data-driven decision-making, but also receive training
in student engagement and changing instruction inside the classroom. The Math
department is working on developing more group activities in the classroom, instead of
relying on direct instruction and more traditional methods of math instruction.
222
Staff is educated and encouraged to use a variety of instructional strategies inside
the classroom in order to engage students and meet the needs of each individual student.
EL strategies, Cornell notes and AVID strategies, and Special Education teaching
strategies are taught in special seminars and workshops that teachers are encouraged to
attend. Administrative leaders walkthrough classrooms once a week and look for the use
of specific instructional strategies. Walkthroughs are then used to drive reflective
conversations about successful teaching strategies and techniques for improvement. Each
administrator is paired with a department for the entire year.
The school day has been restructured to support collaboration within PLCs.
Teachers meet once a week for one hour to develop goals for student learning and
strategies for achieving those goals. Curriculum calendars and assessments are also
common conversations of most PLCs on campus. Aside from this collaboration day,
Craven Cottage students attend on average, six 52-minute classes, five days a week.
Built into this traditional schedule are Humanities support courses for struggling students.
The support English and History courses are taught by three teachers, allowing students
to engage in more one-on-one interaction with a certificated teacher.
There are numerous extra help strategies for struggling students in place that are
managed by the guidance team and individual teachers. One-on-one and small group
tutorials, summer school, ASSETs and support classes are extended day programs that
offer remediation in the core subject areas. Class size reduction is in place for freshmen
Math and English students and in the support class humanities blocks. Furthermore,
technology has been a focus on campus for the past few years. There are currently two
223
smart boards, five computer labs and four computer carts that are shared amongst the
staff. Most staff agrees that the technology resources have helped improve student
engagement and motivation to be more successful in school.
Future Implications
There are additional resources that would be necessary to continue to develop and
deliver a successful instructional program for all students at Craven Cottage High School.
Additional funds to reduce class sizes in core subject areas for students in all grades
would help relieve teacher stress levels and would improve student learning. Additional
funding would also be necessary to provide more professional development opportunities
for teachers to work within PLCs and develop successful instructional programs and
intervention strategies for struggling students. In addition, more funding is necessary to
maintain current academic programs at the school and develop new programs to improve
student learning.
224
CASE STUDY SIX:
Old Trafford High School
A case study of Instructional Improvement Strategies and Resource Use
Old Trafford High School is a comprehensive public high school in a large high
school district in East San Diego County, serving grades 9-12. The surrounding
attendance area is primarily composed of suburban residential neighborhoods and serves
2,263 students. Approximately eighty percent of the students live in large rental
complexes with the other twenty percent living in single-family homes. Old Trafford is
one of eleven comprehensive high schools in the Premiere Union High School District.
The high schools in the district range in size from 1,500 to 2,900, serving a total of
24,447 students. All six of the sample schools in this study are located in this same high
school district.
The growth of the surrounding community over the past ten years has directly
affected the student demographics at Old Trafford High School. The student body is
currently comprised of 33.3% Caucasian, 49.2% Hispanic or Latino, 11.3% African
American and the remaining 6.2% of students are from various ethnic groups including
Filipino, American Indian, Asian and Pacific Islander. The student population used to be
predominantly Caucasian, but there has been a recent increase in the percentage of
Hispanic/Latino students, who are now the dominant subgroup at Old Trafford. Figure
4.1 shows the changing trends in student demographics from 1994 to 2008.
225
Figure 4.1 – Old Trafford High School Demographics from 1994 to 2008
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
% of Student Population
Caucasian Hispanic/Latino African American Asian
These changing demographics have challenged the staff and faculty of Old Trafford High
School to reform educational goals and practices in order to meet the growing needs of
the diverse student population. Furthermore, no explanation was provided concerning the
shift in the Caucasian and Hispanic/Latino population and decrease in enrollment in
2005.
From a socio-economic perspective, Old Trafford High School serves students
that come primarily from lower class areas. As a result, the percentage of students on
free and reduced price lunch has significantly increased over the past ten years to 53%.
Old Trafford qualifies to receive Title I funds due to the high percentage of low SES
students. They are also provided with a Title I coordinator who helps manage the
programs that the Title I funds are supporting. Furthermore, about forty percent of the
student population are English Learner (EL) students. The primary language within this
EL population is Spanish, however, the number of students speaking Arabic and
226
Chaldean increases every year. Another significant subgroup is the disabled student
subgroup. Currently, 216 (9.5%) students within the student body are classified as
disabled with an Individual Education Plan (IEP).
As the student population at Old Trafford High School continues to grow and the
demographics continue to change, it is important to see what impact these changes are
having on the Academic Performance Index (API) scores, Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) scores and the California High School Exit Exam scores. As a school,
Old Trafford’s API has improved 49 points since 2003 from 583 to 632. The goal for all
California schools is to achieve an API score of 800 for all students and significant
subgroups. Table 4.1 summarizes the whole school and significant subgroup API scores
from 2003 to 2008 for Old Trafford students.
Table 4.1 – Old Trafford High School API Scores 2003 to 2008
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Change
2003 to
2008
All Students 583 588 600 590 604 632 +49
Caucasian 614 608 635 613 632 660 +46
Hispanic/Latino 557 544 581 560 591 616 +59
African American 568 582 563 572 540 599 +31
Low Socio-
economic
548 555 575 575 588 613 +65
English Learners N/A N/A N/A 575 558 573 -2
Special Education N/A N/A N/A 431 432 473 +42
Hispanic/Caucasian
Gap
57 64 54 53 41 44 -13
African American/
Caucasian Gap
46 26 72 41 92 61 +15
The most impressive gains are the improvements made by the low SES and
Hispanic/Latino subgroups. Low SES students have improved 65 API points, increasing
227
from 575 in 2006 to 613 in 2008. Hispanic/Latino students have improved 59 API
points, increasing from 557 in 2003 to 616 in 2008. Other important improvements
include the decline of the achievement gap between the Caucasian and Hispanic/Latino
subgroups. Figure 4.2 shows how the achievement gap between most significant
subgroups is closing.
Figure 4.2 – Old Trafford High School API Scores 2003 to 2008
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API Scores
All Students Caucasian Hispanic/Latino
African American Low Socio-economic English Learners
Special Education
Although minor, the achievement gap between Caucasian and Hispanic/Latino students
has closed by 13 API points, decreasing from 57 API points in 2003 to 44 API points in
2008. The API gains are slow and steady, but it is important to point out that each
significant subgroup is improving while the demographics of the student body continue to
change and become more diverse. One subgroup that has not shown improvement in API
scores since 2003, are EL students. EL students have declined in terms of performance
on the API from 575 in 2006 to 573 in 2008.
228
While most students and subgroups at Old Trafford High School continue to
improve API scores, the gains being made are still somewhat stagnant in comparison to
the statewide and similar schools index ratings. Table 4.2 summarizes Old Trafford’s
statewide and similar school rankings from 2003 to 2008.
Table 4.2 – Old Trafford High School Statewide and Similar Schools Ranking 2003-2008
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average
2003 to
2008
Statewide Rank 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Similar Schools
Rank
5 5 3 3 1 1 3
Old Trafford’s average statewide rank is 2 and represents the decile where the base API
falls in comparison with the base APIs of all other schools statewide of the same school
type and demographics. Old Trafford’s average similar school rank is 3 and represents
the decile where the base API falls in comparison to the base APIs of 100 similar schools
of the same school type and demographics. The average statewide and similar school
rankings indicate that Old Trafford is underperforming in relation to other California
schools and is not progressing as well as it should be in order to meet the ultimate goal of
an 800 API score for all significant subgroups.
Another measure that illustrates the stagnant academic growth of Old Trafford
High School students are the California Standards Test (CST) scores in the core subject
areas of English/Language Arts, History, Mathematics and Science. Table 4.3 shows the
percent of students scoring advanced or proficient in the four core areas. The
English/Language Arts scores reflect students who scored proficient or advanced in
grades 9-11 standards. The History scores reflect students who scored advanced or
229
proficient in World History and US History. The Math scores reflect students who
scored advanced or proficient in General Math (grades 6 & 7 standards), Algebra I,
Geometry, Algebra II and Summative High School Math (grades 9-11 standards). The
Science scores reflect students who scored advanced or proficient in Earth Science,
Physics, Biology and Chemistry.
Table 4.3 – Old Trafford High School CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
English/LA 22.7% 23.3% 24.3% 22.0% 24.0% 25.3%
History 19.5% 16.5% 19.0% 14.5% 15.5% 17.0%
Math EOC 13.4% 9.4% 15.0% 12.6% 12.8% 15.2%
Science EOC 9.7% 9.0% 9.5% 6.8% 6.5% 13.0%
While the percent of students scoring proficient or advanced in English/Language Arts,
Math and Science have increased by about two to five percent from 2003 to 2008, the
History scores have decreased by about two percent. Figure 4.3 shows the achievement
trends for each subject area from 2003 to 2008.
Figure 4.3 – Old Trafford High School CST Scores – Percent Advanced or Proficient
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
% Advanced or Proficient
English/LA History Math EOC Science EOC
230
Overall, the CST scores in all four areas have not grown consistently over the past six
years and have remained rather stagnant, only increasing or decreasing a few percent
every year.
An examination of California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores at Old
Trafford High School shows that students have not consistently scored at proficient or
advanced levels, thus contributing to only an average pass rate of 66% on both the
English and Math portions of the exam since 2005. Table 4.4 shows the percentage of
students from various subgroups that have passed the English and Math portions of the
CAHSEE from 2005 to 2008 on the first attempt.
Table 4.4 –Old Trafford CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup 2005 – 2008.
English % Passed Math % Passed

2005
n=492
2006
n=510
2007
n=522
2008
n=512
2005
n=476
2006
n=513
2007
n=512
2008
n=505
All 10th Grade 64% 65% 62% 65% 70% 67% 63% 69%
Hispanic/Latino 57% 58% 56% 62% 64% 62% 57% 66%
African American 65% 63% 55% 67% 68% 58% 57% 70%
Caucasian 70% 74% 70% 68% 76% 74% 69% 73%
English Learner 38% 36% 37% 35% 52% 50% 43% 42%
Low SES 59% 65% 60% 59% 65% 65% 61% 65%
Special Education 19% 25% 33% 29% 44% 32% 23% 37%
The most significant gains have been with special education students, who have increased
their pass rate on the English portion of the CAHSEE exam, from 19% in 2005 to 29% in
2008. Other minor increases have been made by the Hispanic/Latino and African
American subgroups, which have improved their pass rates on both the English and Math
portions of the test by about three to five percent. Even though most subgroups have
shown minor increases in the percentage of students passing both the English and Math
portions, scores still remain rather stagnant in terms of any significant improvements.
231
Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show patterns of improvement in the English and Math passing rates
on the CAHSEE for Old Trafford students.
Table 4.4 – CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup for the English portion
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2005 n=492 2006 n=510 2007 n=522 2008 n=512
% Pass Rate English
All 10th Grade Hispanic/Latino African American Caucasian
English Learner Low SES Special Education
Table 4.5 – CAHSEE first attempt pass rates by subgroup for the Math portion
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2005 n=476 2006 n=513 2007 n=512 2008 n=505
% Pass Rate Math
All 10th Grade Hispanic/Latino African American Caucasian
English Learner Low SES Special Education
232
The data summarized show that Old Trafford High School has had a stagnant past
in terms of student academic performance, even though there has recently been small
increments of improvements with most significant subgroups on the CSTs and CAHSEE.
El Cajon is not currently in Program Improvement, but is receiving Title I School-wide
Program (SWP) funding. The school and significant subgroups have met Annual Yearly
Progress (AYP) growth goals since 2005, except for 2007.
One area of concern the data clearly identifies is student achievement scores in
the core subject areas, but especially the low proficiency levels in Math and English. The
percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in English is only 25% and has
been stagnant with little to no growth since 2003 (Figure 4.3). The percentage of
students scoring proficient or advanced in Math is only 15% and has also been stagnant
with little to no growth since 2003 (Figure 4.3). Upon further investigation into the
course offerings in English and Math, it was discovered that 38% of the courses taken in
Math are remedial and 31% of the courses taken in English/Language Arts are remedial.
Most students enrolled in these courses are taking the class for the first or second time.
There is also a lack of advanced courses being offered in Math and English. Overall,
only about 6% of the courses on campus are advanced. Figure 4.6 compares the
percentage of courses offered at the remedial, college preparatory and advanced levels for
core subject areas.
233
Figure 4.6 – Old Trafford High School Course Level Offerings by Subject Area
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
English Math Science History Foreign
Language
Total
% Courses Offered
Remedial College Preparatory Advanced
Overall, 24% of the courses offered in English, Math, Science and History are remedial.
In comparison to CST scores in these core subject areas, questions begin to arise
concerning the distinct parallel between the lack of rigorous, grade-level courses being
taken and the low, stagnant CST scores in the core subject areas.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Improving student achievement at Old Trafford High School is a constant focus of
all teachers and staff. The leadership team and teachers have worked collaboratively to
create a vision of learning in which all stakeholders will strive to improve students’
literacy, numeracy and connectivity so that they will become productive members of
society. This vision has served as the basis upon which staff and administration works to
create an educational environment that increases student achievement by integrating
rigorous, relevant core curriculum including technology, facilitating collaboration,
offering diverse career pathways, establishing connections within the community,
234
sustaining a student, parent/guardian and teacher support system and strengthening
accountability and assessment. Old Trafford High School is a place with excellent
teachers who engage students as creative learners and thinkers where learning is valued
and meaningful, thereby creating lifelong learners and responsible citizens prepared for
the 21st century.
Curriculum and Instruction
Instructional improvement efforts have been ongoing at Old Trafford High
School. The current curricular focus of these improvement efforts is in English and
Math. The first step in these improvement efforts have been to assure that all curriculum
is soundly aligned to the California State Standards. Professional Learning Communities
(PLCs) in the core subject areas have formed and have focused on aligning curriculum to
the standards and to school and district goals. Differentiating curriculum and
instructional strategies has also become a primary focus of PLCs in order to meet the
needs of the changing demographics at Old Trafford. The focus in English and Math
PLCs is to improve student performance on the CAHSEE and CSTs. The instructional
materials used in all courses have been reviewed by the district and are aligned to the
state standards. Just this year, EL courses have adopted an intensive reading curriculum
titled “EDGE” and is being used to bridge the gap between higher functioning EL student
curriculum and mainstreamed English (college preparatory) reading curriculum.
The instructional piece of the improvement efforts at Old Trafford High School
have begun to transpire over the past few years. There used to be little dialogue
concerning strategies and characteristics of effective teaching. Teachers were evaluated
235
every two years and only at that time were they involved in discussions with the
administrative team about the characteristics of effective teaching. With new changes in
the leadership team, there has been a definite focus on developing instructional standards
and goals for the school year. There are four instructional standards for the year and are
developed from research-based strategies of effective teaching. The four goals for this
school year are: (1) Demonstrate your ability to clearly articulate daily learning
objectives to students either verbally or by posting them prominently within the
classroom, (2) Demonstrate your ability to facilitate students working together in pairs or
groups of three and four, (3) Demonstrate your ability to check for understanding to
ensure student learning (includes effective use of questioning techniques), and (4)
Demonstrate your ability to use multiple methods of assessment to check for and ensure
student learning (includes both formative and summative assessments). Teachers have
been participating in book circles within their PLCs where they engage in reflective and
essential conversations concerning effective teaching strategies from their current book
by Marzano in relation to the four instructional goals for the year. There are professional
development opportunities to help teachers understand the effective teaching strategies
and develop goals for the year.
Furthermore, there is a navigation team that consists of a teacher leader from the
English and Math departments, the Title I coordinator, Principal and other department
chairs, that meets weekly and discusses progress made towards mastering the
instructional goals for the year and what areas of concern or needs that must be
236
addressed. There has been an overwhelming amount of positive feedback in regards to
the new direction that the staff is taking towards becoming more effective teachers.
Intervention Strategies
Old Trafford High School is continually developing interventions for struggling
students. After school tutorials are offered by certificated teachers in various subject
areas. Students voluntarily attend these tutorials and receive one-on-one or small group
assistance relating to the curriculum of the course or test and absence make-ups. On
average, about 15 teachers offer tutorials once or twice a week, for one to two hours.
Teachers report having about three to ten students that regularly attend tutorials. Summer
school is another option for students who need to make-up credits. Almost all of the
students who attend summer school are taking courses they have previously failed.
Summer school is offered in two, three-week semesters and students are required to
attend for five hours a day.
Another intervention strategy for struggling students is the After School Safety
and Enrichment Program for Teens (ASSETs). ASSETs is designed to fill important
achievement gaps by extending the school day with academic supports, and
implementing “Safe-House” alternatives for teenagers after school hours. This program
is in its first year of implementation and has built a strong student-to-school connection
through meaningful activities focused on recreational, career-based, tutorial, and other
meaningful dimensions. The program is monitored by a campus supervisor and
certificated teacher, and certificated teachers and peer tutors offer academic tutoring in
237
any of the core subject areas. There are about 60-70 students who regularly, voluntarily
attend the ASSETs program.
Struggling students also have the opportunity to attend “Night Library” to receive
one-on-one assistance from a certificated teacher and AVID tutors (college tutors) in the
core subjects of Math and English. Another strategy that has helped struggling students
is the school schedule. The school is on a block schedule, quarter system, which provides
more instructional minutes in the core subject areas and also gives students more
flexibility to take elective courses or support classes. The EL department also offers
struggling EL students with specific academic interventions. There are 4 levels of
sheltered EL reading courses and sheltered English classes that students gradually move
through until they are academically prepared to be successful in the mainstreamed
English curriculum. These classes have smaller class sizes and also have instructional
aides that help students individually or in small groups ion a daily basis.
Professional Development
Professional development in the district requires certificated teachers to attend
three day of professional development activities during the summer, directly before the
school year begins. The agenda for these three days includes reviewing the essential
purposes of PLCs, allowing time for PLCs to meet and develop goals for the year,
reviewing content area literacy strategies (active learning strategies) and providing
teachers with breakout training sessions concerning effective questioning strategies,
effective uses of formative assessments and developing effective learning goals. In
addition to these three days, teachers are provided with numerous opportunities
238
throughout the year to obtain more professional development in areas that meet their
specific needs, either as a PLC team or an individual. During the school year, teachers are
allowed one school business day and one professional growth day of which teachers can
use to attend seminars and workshops specific to their needs. Schools do not currently
have instructional coaches to work with teachers, but the district has hired one
instructional coach that is available to work with individual schools, departments or
teachers. The district instructional coach collaborates primarily with PLCs at various
school sites.
School Culture
The school culture at Old Trafford High School is a collaborative environment in
which the entire staff values each other’s strengths and works collaboratively to connect
to students and improve academic achievement. The change in administration towards
instructional leadership and the formation of PLCs has helped to make this shift towards
a collaborative environment. Building positive relationships with parents, teachers and
the community has become a priority. There are ongoing efforts to get parents involved
with their child’s education and to attend school events. The School Site Council
currently has 20 members and there is also a very active PTSA that is committed to the
school and students. Parent education classes are being offered annually for nine weeks
and provide an opportunity for parents from new immigrant families to attend and learn
about essential resources available for their child and for them. There have been fifty
graduates of the program so far.
239
Another forum that has become an essential part of the school culture at Old
Trafford is the English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC). There are currently 80
members who are all parents of present, past and future students. ELAC is very dedicated
to student learning and has already had a positive influence on the academic development
of English Learners. ELAC also offers one-on-one parent liaisons/mentors to help new
immigrant families have a smooth transition. Lastly, Brave Adventure is a program for
struggling ninth grade students and helps bridge achievement gaps in Math and English,
and also teaches students study skills and life management skills that will help freshmen
be successful in high school and in life. There are usually about 200 ninth grade students
who participate in the Brave Adventure program.
Although apart of a large high school district, Old Trafford High School has
remained very autonomous in terms of making decisions for what is appropriate for their
specific campus, staff and population of students. Although it was originally a district
initiative, the PLCs at the high school decide how they want to function and what their
goals and instructional improvement strategies will be. Thus, most efforts are
decentralized, but rely on centralized, district support and direction for student
achievement. The district does provide staff with professional development opportunities
in relation to PLCs.
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence Based Model
Developed upon research underlying proven methods and strategies for resource
use related to student achievement, the Evidence Based Model provides a framework
upon which to compare Old Trafford High School resource allocation strategies to a
240
prototypical school supported by the model. Table 4.5 provides a comparison of the
resource use at Old Trafford High School to the Evidence Based Model (EBM). The
fourth column shows the difference between the Evidence Based Model and Old Trafford
High School resource use and indicates how the Evidence Based Model would staff a
school of 2,263 students with the characteristics and demographics of Old Trafford High
School (OTHS).
Table 4.5 – Old Trafford High School and Evidence Based Model Resource Use
Comparison
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Old Trafford
High School -
Current Resource
Status
Comparison
between
OTHS&
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
School Characteristics
School Configuration 9-12 9-12
School Size 600 2,263 3.8x bigger
Core Class Size 25 35
10 more than
EBM
Number of teacher work
days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
187, including 3
inservice days
Only 3
inservice days,
6 less school
days
Number Disabled
(w/IEP)
216 (9.5%)
Number Poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
1200 (53.0%)
Number English Learner 900 (39.8%)
% Minority 66.7%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 24 per 600 students 71.9
EBM suggests
90.5 for 2,263
students
2. Specialist Teachers
33% of core teachers
(8)
27.3
EBM suggests
29.9
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
3
(1 for every
0
EBM suggests
11.3
241
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Old Trafford
High School -
Current Resource
Status
Comparison
between
OTHS&
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
200 students)
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
0
EBM suggests
12.0
5. Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students
4.3
EBM suggests
9.0
6. Extended Day 3.5 FTE
EBM suggests
10.0 FTE
extended day
teachers
7. Summer School
1 teacher for every 15
poverty students
(based on half the
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary 3.0 FTE
EBM suggests
10.0 FTE
School Characteristics
8. Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions for 600
students
11.0 Inclusion and
Resource Room
Teachers
EBM suggests
15.1 teachers
for 2.263
students
9. Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
2.0 FTE teachers
and 4.0 aides
Based on need
10. Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
Gate budget of
$5,016.00
EBM suggests
funds of
$56,575
11. Vocational
Education
1/3 more per student
enrolled
0 N/A
12. Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher
for illness and 3 PN
3 more days
than EBM
suggests
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance per 250
students
8.0 Counselors
3.0 attendance
1 Nurse, 1.0 Psych,
2.0 Speech
(15.0 FTE)
EBM suggests
21.1 positions
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
3.0 to relieve teachers
and provide
supervision
0 EBM suggests
11.3
242
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Old Trafford
High School -
Current Resource
Status
Comparison
between
OTHS&
EBM: EBM
Resource
Suggestions
Aides and provide
supervision
11.3
15. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library Tech
1 Librarian &
1 Library Tech
EBM suggests
3.8 Librarians
and 3.8 Library
techs
16. Principal 1 Principal
1 Principal and
3 Assistant
Principals
EBM suggests
1 Principal and
3.8 Assistant
Principals
17. School Site
Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
6.0 Secretaries &
8.0 clerks
EBM suggests
3.8 secretaries
& 11.3 clerks
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
3 PD summer days
in calendar;
$8,000.00 school
business funds for
PD expenses –
trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
EBM suggests
10 days PD in
summer and
$226,300 for
other PD
expenses.
19. Technology $250 per pupil
1.0 technology
coordinator.
Resources vary
EBM suggests
$565,750
20. Instructional
Materials
$175 per pupil $113,470
EBM suggests
$396,025
21. Student Activities $250 per pupil 1 section ASB
EBM suggests
$575,750
Lessons Learned
Old Trafford High School is continuously creating a school atmosphere built upon
the fundamental belief that all students can learn. Administrative leaders continue to
243
build a collaborative environment where teachers and support staff together generate a
school mission and vision statement, and strategies for improvement. Each staff member
is at a different level in terms of using effective teaching strategies. PLCs and
instructional leaders continue to provide resources for every teacher to access and grow
professionally.
The use of data to drive instruction is an area that staff members are working on
improving. Teachers are in different phases regarding the use of data. Instructional
leaders have developed workshops that PLCs and individual teachers can attend to: (1)
Learn the difference between formative and summative assessments, (2) How to develop
formative and summative assessments, (3) Building common assessments, and (4)
Learning how to use Edusoft to create and analyze standards-based assessments.
Implementing research-based instructional strategies is another area that
instructional leaders are in the process of developing. Teachers have four instructional
goals that they work on throughout the school year. There are professional development
opportunities that offer teachers help in understanding how to implement the strategies
inside the classroom. Instructional leaders visit classrooms often to see if the
instructional strategies are being used and what areas teachers may need additional
assistance with. Leaders will hold prep period meetings with teachers to discuss areas for
growth. These meeting count towards professional development hours, in which every
teachers must have 40 per year per the Quality Education and Investment Act (QEIA)
Grant that Old Trafford High School receives.
244
Furthermore, the school day has been restructured to support collaboration within
PLCs. Teachers meet once per week for one hour to develop goals for student learning
and strategies for achieving those goals. Coordinating curriculum calendars and
developing common assessments are also priorities in the PLCs. PLC quarterly reports
are given to administration providing information regarding the PLC’s progress towards
achieving the Smart goals for the year and progress towards “critical questions” the
administrative team provides to guide reflective conversations within PLCs.
There are numerous extra help strategies for struggling students in place that are
managed by the guidance team and individual teachers. One-on-one and small group
tutorials, ASSETs program, Night Library and summer school are extended day programs
that offer remediation in the core subject areas and opportunities to make-up credits.
Class size reduction is in place for freshman Math and English students, as well as EL
and most sheltered courses in the core subject areas.
Future Implications
There are additional resources that would be necessary to continue to develop and
deliver a successful instructional program for all students at Old Trafford High School.
Additional time for staff to develop a rigorous educational program for all students would
help improve student achievement. More professional development time and support for
teachers to work within PLCs is crucial to continue to build relationships and support a
positive school culture. Creating a longer school year and school day to help students
learn all essential standards and create more time for students who are struggling with the
core curriculum. This would also provide students with a variable schedule that may
245
better suit their individual needs, since most students attending Old Trafford also work
full time to help support their family. Lastly, more professional development concerning
effective use of technology in the classroom is needed to support curricular and
instructional development.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine how six comprehensive, public high schools in California utilized resources and implemented instructional strategies to organize, prioritize and plan for improved student performance. This study applied the Evidence-Based Model as a framework for collecting school expenditure data and analyzing what instructional and expenditure improvements schools can make in order to operate more effectively for students and improve student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Where does the money go?: an analysis of student level resource allocation at the school level

PDF

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Bryant, Megan Marie (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2009-05

Publication Date 04/28/2009

Defense Date 03/02/2009

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

Tag adequacy,Education,fiscal federalism,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email mbryant@guhsd.net,mbryant@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2116

Unique identifier UC194455

Identifier etd-Bryant-2762 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-229843 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2116 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Bryant-2762.pdf

Dmrecord 229843

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bryant, Megan Marie

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