University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

NAVIGATING TROUBLED WATERS:
CASE STUDIES OF THREE CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOLS’
RESOURCE ALLOCATION STRATEGIES IN 2010-2011

by

Brian Anthony Landisi

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Brian Anthony Landisi
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family whose support has been unwavering in all of
my educational pursuits. My parents, Anthony and Diane, have invested so much of their
energy into their children. I am grateful for your love and the sacrifice you have made
for both of us. My sister, Tracey, has been a source of inspiration for me as I have
endeavored to follow in her footsteps to become an excellent writer, leader and educator.
Thank you for contributing to my success and supporting this worthwhile project.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I extend my sincere appreciation to the members of my dissertation committee:
USC professors Dr. Lawrence O. Picus and Dr. Guilbert C. Hentschke and Associate
Superintendent of the Orange County Department of Education, Dr. John Nelson. Each
of you has provided our thematic dissertation group members with the insight, academic
knowledge, support and encouragement to pursue our individual studies.
Particularly, I wish to thank Dr. Picus for his expertise and enthusiasm. Most
importantly, thank you for reading drafts at all hours of the day and night and for being
available to answer questions and provide guidance by e-mail and even via Skype when I
was working on the initial stages of this dissertation while chaperoning a group of high
school students all the way in Germany. Dr. Picus, you have encouraged me during our
time together to be “comfortable with ambiguity” and to never fear—we will always
“make it work” and “get the job done.” These really are words to live by.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to work for two forward-thinking
principals and mentors, Mrs. Linda Evans and Dr. Michele Doll. You have trusted me
completely and given me such latitude in all the projects I have undertaken at Crescenta
Valley High School. Thank you for celebrating my success and reminding me to always
be willing to live and learn.
To my wonderful students, past and present, thank you for being self-starters and
pushing forward often in spite of the wild array of substitutes that have covered for me
while I took time to complete this project. You remind me daily of the importance of
being “real”—endeavoring always to be my best self. My wish is that the outcomes of
iv
this study will one day impact education in a way that better serves young people like
you. May you experience great success, and never forget the unique and nurturing nature
of the Crescenta Valley.
I will certainly never forget my colleagues in the USC Ed.D. program. The many
laughs we have shared during rushed dinners between classes, the ingenious presentations
we “knocked out” over the past three years and the collective work we still have yet to
see to completion are no doubt inspiring. Thank you for your friendship and
encouragement. We will make great things happen…because that’s how we roll.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES ix

ABSTRACT xi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Study 12
Importance of the Study 13
Limitations, Delimitations and Assumptions 14
Definitions 15

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 19
The History of Education Reform and Financing 20
Adequacy in Education Funding 27
Where Does the Money Come From and Where Does It Go? 36
Research-Based School Reform Strategies 39
Relationship Between the District and the Schools 56
The Current Climate in California 58
Conclusion 63

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 66
Sample and Population 67
Instrumentation and Data Collection 70
Data Analysis 73

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 76
Introduction 76
Findings 97
Current instructional vision and improvement strategies 98
Resources used to implement the instructional improvement plan 100
Resource allocation changes due to budget adjustments 118
Comparison of school resources to the Evidence-Based Model 121
Conclusion 129

vi
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 131
Summary 131
Conclusions 132
Implications 135
Recommendations for Future Research 136
Concluding Comments 137

REFERENCES 139

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE 144
APPENDIX B: IRB APPROVAL 146
APPENDIX C: DOCUMENT REQUEST LIST 147
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL - SAMPLE SCHOOLS 148
APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL - DISTRICT OFFICE 151
APPENDIX F: QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL 153
APPENDIX G: DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK 165
APPENDIX H: CASE STUDY - STRATUS HIGH SCHOOL 175
APPENDIX I: CASE STUDY - CUMULUS HIGH SCHOOL 200
APPENDIX J: CASE STUDY - CIRRUS HIGH SCHOOL 229

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Recommendations for Adequate Resources
from the Evidence-Based Model 34

Table 2.2: Comparison of Concepts Presented in
Marzano (2003) and Odden (2009) 47

Table 2.3: Average Teacher Salaries and Expenditures per Pupil, 2008-2009 62

Table 4.1: Sample Schools Special Program
Participation Comparison, 2009-2010 80

Table 4.2: Sample Schools Asian-White API Achievement Gap, 2006-2010 85

Table 4.3: Sample Schools Asian-Hispanic/Latino
API Achievement Gap, 2006-2010 86

Table 4.4: Sample Schools CAHSEE First Attempt Pass Rates, 2006-2010 95

Table 4.5: Sample Schools’ Implementation of
10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 118

Table 4.6: CUSD Cost-Saving Strategies and Budget Reductions, 2010-2011 120

Table 4.7: Comparison of Sample Schools and Evidence-Based Model
Allocations of Core and Elective/Specialist Teachers (FTEs) 123

Table 4.8: Comparison of Average Resource Allocations (FTEs) in
Sample Schools to Resources Generated by
the Evidence-Based Model 128

Table H.1: Stratus HS Special Program Participation Comparison, 2009-2010 176

Table H.2: Stratus HS CAHSEE First Attempt
Pass Rates by Subgroup, 2006-2010 180

Table H.3: Stratus HS’s Implementation of
10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 193

Table H.4: Comparison of SHS Actual Resources
and Evidence-Based Model 195

viii
Table I.1: Cumulus HS Special Program Participation
Comparison, 2009-2010 202

Table I.2: Cumulus HS CAHSEE First Attempt
Pass Rates by Subgroup, 2006-2010 207

Table I.3: Cumulus HS’s Implementation of
10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 222

Table I.4: Comparison of Cumulus HS Actual Resources
and Evidence-Based Model 223

Table J.1: Cirrus HS Special Program Participation Comparison, 2009-2010 231

Table J.2: Cirrus HS CAHSEE First Attempt
Pass Rates by Subgroup, 2006-2010 236

Table J.3: Cirrus HS’s Implementation of
10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 253

Table J.4: Comparison of Cirrus HS Actual Resources
and Evidence-Based Model 254
ix
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: The Odden & Picus (2008) Evidence-Based Model 31

Figure 2.2: California’s School Finance System 37

Figure 2.3: Graphical Representation of the Data Wise Process Elements 49

Figure 2.4: Schools that Met AYP Goals (AMOs)
from 2004-2005 to 2008-2009 59

Figure 2.5: California K-12 Proposition 98 Funding,
2007-2008 through 2009-2010 61

Figure 4.1: Sample Schools Demographics, 2009-2010 79

Figure 4.2: CUSD District API Trend, 2002-2010 81

Figure 4.3: Sample Schools API Ten-Year Growth 82

Figure 4.4: Sample Schools Asian Subgroup API Five-Year Trend 83

Figure 4.5: Sample Schools White Subgroup API Five-Year Trend 84

Figure 4.6: Sample Schools Hispanic/Latino Subgroup API Five-Year Trend 85

Figure 4.7: Sample Schools Low SES Subgroup API Five-Year Trend 87

Figure 4.8: Sample Schools ELL Subgroup API Five-Year Trend 88

Figure 4.9: Sample Schools English-Language Arts
CST Summary, 2006-2010 90

Figure 4.10: Sample Schools Math CST Summary, 2006-2010 91

Figure 4.11: Sample Schools History CST Summary, 2006-2010 92

Figure 4.12: Sample Schools Science EOC CST Summary, 2006-2010 93

Figure 4.13: Sample Schools NCLB Science CST Summary, 2006-2010 94

Figure 4.14: Sample Schools Total AP Exams Taken and Passed, 2006-2010 97

Figure B.1: E-mail Communication Indicating IRB Approval 146
x

Figure H.1: Stratus HS Demographics, 2009-2010 176

Figure H.2: Stratus HS API Ten-Year Growth 177

Figure H.3: Stratus HS API Five-Year Trend by Subgroup 178

Figure H.4: Stratus HS STAR Test Summary, 2006-2010 179

Figure H.5: Stratus HS AP Exams Taken and Passed, 2006-2010 182

Figure I.1: Cumulus HS Demographics, 2009-2010 201

Figure I.2: Cumulus HS API Ten-Year Growth 203

Figure I.3: Cumulus HS API Five-Year Trend by Subgroup 204

Figure I.4: Cumulus HS STAR Test Summary, 2006-2010 205

Figure I.5: Cumulus HS AP Exams Taken and Passed, 2006-2010 209

Figure J.1: Cirrus HS Demographics, 2009-2010 230

Figure J.2: Cirrus HS API Ten-Year Growth 232

Figure J.3: Cirrus HS API Five-Year Trend by Subgroup 233

Figure J.4: Cirrus HS STAR Test Summary, 2006-2010 234

Figure J.5: Cirrus HS AP Exams Taken and Passed, 2006-2010 238
xi
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to examine instructional strategies and resource
allocation in successful schools. The study was based on the analysis of three
comprehensive high schools in one school district in Southern California. Each of the
study schools increased students’ academic achievement over time as measured by
sustained growth on California’s Academic Performance Index. The efforts of these
study schools also contributed to narrowing the achievement gap.
Successful schools in this study were analyzed primarily through the lens of
Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. In addition to effective
organizational and instructional strategies, this study also analyzed human and fiscal
resource allocation at the sample schools. The study used the Evidence-Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008) to analyze how the schools allocated resources during 2010-2011,
navigating a catastrophic economic crisis facing California and the rest of the nation.
Interview data, student achievement data and information on school-level resource use
were included in case studies on each of these successful schools.
The findings indicate that although the resource use patterns of the study schools
were significantly fewer than what the Evidence-Based Model suggests, the improvement
strategies showed many commonalities to those suggested in the body of literature on
school improvement. Strong leadership from the district office supported the reform
efforts at each of the school sites. This leadership came in the form of a single district
focus combined with continuity of leadership, development and retention of talent within
the district and a common school improvement framework.
xii
A heavy investment of time and fiscal resources into professional development
created a collaborative culture within and between the high schools in the study. The
schools that were most successful in raising student achievement demonstrated a
commitment to collaboration and embraced the role of teacher leaders. The most
effective schools in the study had in place internal accountability structures to support the
implementation of the school and district focus. It is the effective implementation of
research-based strategies, not simply resource allocation that makes schools successful
and contributes to further growth in student achievement. Implications for policy and
practice are discussed.
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The complex environment in which schools find themselves situated today is one
that is characterized by high levels of interconnectedness, yet, at the same time, profound
isolation. The image of all schools being stuck “in the same boat,” learning how to use
limited resources more efficiently and effectively after the economic crisis struck
(EdSource, 2010f), is an accurate one. Some schools find themselves navigating troubled
waters, paddling valiantly toward far-off goals or simply trying to stay afloat. Yet, there
are other schools, defined as islands of excellence (Togneri & Anderson, 2003) that either
do not or cannot make contact with others to share their experiences and continue to
grow. Schools that find themselves in either of these circumstances, for all intents and
purposes, are marooned—stuck and unsure of how move forward.
These images lie in stark contrast to the much simpler times of past generations
when local control was the norm (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008).
Public schools and their administrators no longer have the option to remain isolated like
the little red schoolhouses that dotted the American landscape in the early days of this
nation. The innocence and anonymity enjoyed by earlier generations of school leaders
are now a distant memory. In this era of accountability, when politicians and the public
vow to provide oversight for public schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2010a), there
is increased scrutiny by many outside groups into how schools carry out daily functions
and deliver education to their students.
The dichotomous nature of public education today is confusing. While the federal
and state governments impose stricter accountability mandates (Stecher, Hamilton &
2
Gonzalez, 2003), educators at the local level are being asked to make investments in
educating students that take them to high levels with far fewer fiscal and human resources
than they had only a few years ago (EdSource, 2010f).
School districts are fighting to stay afloat financially, to keep class sizes
reasonable for the teachers they have not had to lay off and to avert public relations
nightmares that come with these challenges. At the same time, schools face the reality
that the driving education issue today is raising the levels of student achievement (Odden,
2003). Schools must set high and rigorous standards and teach students to those
standards. A question that policymakers and school leaders try to address is how to fund
this effort. Indeed, almost everything about public schools has become much more
public. Except for the perception of the world of school finance. There still exists much
confusion about where the funds originate, where they go and, ultimately, what it means
to provide funding for an equitable and adequate education.
This study was designed to identify effective educational strategies and resource
allocation practices in exemplary schools that improved student learning in the midst of
the current fiscal crisis and increasing accountability mandates. To better understand the
context in which schools currently find themselves, this chapter presents a chronological
history of school finance and the evolution of key issues that affect how money makes its
way to schools.
Background of the Problem
Until the 1950s, virtually all important decisions regarding K-12 schools and their
funding were made by elected officials of states and localities (Hanushek & Lindseth,
3
2009). In the early 1900s, schools in the United States received 80% of their funding
from local sources, but this fell to 50% by the end of the Second World War (Hanushek,
2006). Eventually, a shift in power became evident as the federal government became a
major participant through funding of programs for disadvantaged and special needs
students and through accountability systems like No Child Left Behind (NCLB). While
its role in policy creation and accountability structures has been enhanced over the years
through landmark court cases and legislation, the federal government now only
contributes 10% to the California education budget (EdSource, 2009a). Thus, the
complicated nature of school finance continues to evolve.
National trends in school finance. There have long been debates—even to this
day—about providing equal access to quality education in the United States. The 1954
United States Supreme Court Case Brown v. Board of Education raised awareness of the
unequal performance of students of color, and the courts focused on dismantling the
system of unequal, racially segregated schools (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009).
Not much desegregation took place in the decade following the Brown decision,
and the black-white achievement gap persisted. In 1964, the federal government funded
the Equality of Educational Opportunity report, also known as the “Coleman Report”,
which was eventually published in 1966. This report asserted that the apparent test score
gap was attributable to the widely varying social and economic conditions of black and
white citizens (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Around the same time, President Lyndon
B. Johnson’s War on Poverty took root. In one of his first pieces of legislation, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I funding on the federal level
4
began providing further financial assistance to districts with high concentrations of
economically disadvantaged families.
In addition, other events like the 1957 Russian launch of Sputnik and the 1983
report A Nation at Risk declared that America was in danger of falling behind its
international competitors because of the poor performance of its students (Slavin, 2005).
These events sparked the period of public concern regarding education that continues to
this day and has culminated in the establishment of multiple reform efforts, that authors
like Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) argue, have not resulted in significant improvements
in student outcomes. By 2002, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act had taken
on a new form and label—this time as NCLB.
In the No Child Left Behind legislation, educators were exhorted to use programs
and practices “based on scientifically-based research” more than 100 times (Slavin,
2005), which is an encouraging part of the reform movement designed to move
educational practice forward. At the same time, the federal NCLB Act adds new
compliance features for schools, including development of content standards,
assessments and measures centered on all students in schools making adequate yearly
progress (AYP). The annual accountability determination in NCLB is built into this
concept. Each unit—school, district, and state—must show improvement annually so
that achievement reaches a common target (Stecher, et al., 2003). Additionally, NCLB
requires that, by 2014, all students reach minimum proficiency in reading and
mathematics (Stecher, et al., 2003).
5
California school finance. In its own educational finance journey, California
parallels the history of the United States by defining equity in public education through
court decisions and legislation. For example, in 1976, the California Supreme Court
ruled in Serrano v. Priest that the existing system of financing schools was
unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the state Constitution
(EdSource, 2010c). As a result, this court decision mandated equalization of funding
across districts to eliminate disparities in educational access (Lindseth, 2006). The state
responded by instituting revenue limits to cap the amount of revenue districts could bring
in from taxes (EdSource, 2010c).
But the insistence on equity eliminated much of the incentive that local
communities previously had to tax themselves to support education and was one of the
factors driving California voters to approve Proposition 13 in 1978. Proposition 13
addressed tax inequities by limiting the property tax rates to 1% of the property’s
assessed value. As a consequence of passing, 60% of local property tax revenues were
lost (EdSource, 2010c). Considering that California’s public education system is
supported primarily by state sales and income tax revenue and by local property taxes,
the Legislature had to supplement the lost property tax dollars with money from the state
budget, including funds from categorical grants and the state lottery (EdSource, 2000).
In 1988, California voters brought another initiative to the ballot to improve and
stabilize funding for education. Proposition 98 earmarks a specific proportion (about 40
percent) of the state’s general fund revenues for K-12 schools and community colleges.
But when state revenues decline, the school-aid guarantee declines as well despite
6
Proposition 98’s original aim at stabilization (Kirst, 2006). All districts in California now
depend on the condition of the state’s economy and on the decisions of legislators for
funding. Like the rest of the nation, in its school finance evolution and in its response to
external pressure, California now has shifted its attention from finance to performance.
Moving from equity to adequacy. The notion of educational equity means equal,
and it implies that one district or school receives the same amount as another (Clune,
1994). The assumption, as demonstrated in the court cases referenced above, was that
equalization would level the playing field and narrow funding gaps between districts and
achievement gaps between races (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). The courts were busy
between the 1950s and 1990s issuing orders to eliminate racial segregation in schools, to
integrate faculty and staff and to ensure equal allocation of resources. But the 1973
Rodriguez v. San Antonio case sparked major change. In their suit, the plaintiffs from
Texas argued that the school district in which a child resides should not determine the
quality of the education he or she receives. The United States Supreme Court Case
rejected the plaintiffs’ claim in Rodriguez, holding that education is not a fundamental
right under the federal Constitution (Lindseth, 2006). This ruling shifted the authority on
matters related to education to the states. Undeterred, plaintiffs filed lawsuits in state
courts challenging each state’s constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal rights
(Lindseth, 2006). By the 1990s, as the public became more concerned with students
meeting state-defined standards, a real shift in funding cases occurred—changing the
focus from equity to adequacy (Rebell, 2007; Odden & Picus, 2008).
7
As this shift in history begins, Lindseth (2006) notes: “Adequacy cases are
another animal entirely. They have their roots not in equal protection, but in the so-called
education clause of most state constitutions” (p. 40). At the heart of the issue is the
nature of education—what it is, its quality and its outcomes. Clune (1994) describes true
adequacy as being adequate for some purpose, typically student achievement. This
definition links with the goals of the current aims of NCLB, which seek to educate more
students to high levels of achievement. To achieve such adequacy requires a “complete
integration of school finance, policy and organization, reflected in tight coupling between
all of the dimensions at the table” (Clune, 1994, p. 380).
For most of the twentieth century, school finance policy focused on equity—
issues related to widely varying education expenditures per pupil across districts within a
state caused by the uneven distribution of the property tax base used to raise local
education dollars. In the 1990s, new attention began to focus on education adequacy and
productivity—the linkages among the level and use of funds, and linkages to student
achievement. Court cases related to education funding were now initiated at the state
level and the legal backdrop for them was shifting from equity to adequacy (Lindseth,
2006). State leaders marked a similar shift in their response to education funding issues.
As the 1990s ended and the twenty-first century began, policymakers increasingly wanted
to know how much money was needed to educate students to high standards (Odden &
Picus, 2008). What follows is a summary of the dominant methods for costing-out an
adequate education that meets the goals of standards-based reform.
8
Four approaches to adequacy. School finance today encompasses not only
fiscal inputs but also their connection to educational programs and student achievement
(Odden, 2003). Under the adequacy framework, all districts and schools must spend an
adequate level on education, and states must determine what that adequate expenditure
level would be so that students can learn to the performance standards. There are four
approaches to making such a determination (Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007).
The successful district approach identifies districts that have met proficiency
standards. It then sets the adequacy level at the weighted average of the expenditures per
pupil of those districts. One of the criticisms of this method is that identifying the
standard for success is complex and “success” can be defined in different ways, yielding
different amounts of required resources (Rebell, 2007). Additionally, critics argue that
per pupil expenditures do not match the needs of urban or rural districts (Odden, 2003).
The cost function approach relies on current spending and achievement patterns
across all schools in a state to predict optimum spending solutions for an average district
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). This method relies on regression analysis with
expenditure for pupil as the dependent variable and student and district characteristics
and desired performance levels as independent variables (Odden, 2003). For any district
not considered average, the adequate expenditure figure is adjusted. Critics note that the
technical complexity of this approach is problematic and, while some states have
conducted cost function research, no state currently uses this approach (Odden, 2003).
The first two approaches draw connections between spending levels and
performance levels, yet they fail to provide educational strategies that would bring about
9
the desired level of performance (Odden, 2003). The final two approaches more clearly
link spending, performance and the strategies to meet performance goals.
In the professional judgment approach, a chosen panel of educators—teachers,
principals, superintendents and others—develops an educational program that would
produce certain specified achievement outcomes (Odden, 2003). The panel is
encouraged to “dream big” and select everything needed, in their professional opinion, to
provide an adequate education (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). While this has been the
predominant costing-out approach (Rebell, 2007; Odden, 2003), critics call into question
the strategies that the panel identifies for use in schools. The research base for these
strategies is often misleading or missing altogether and may or may not have a clear link
to actual performance levels.
In contrast to the other costing-out approaches, the evidence-based approach
relies on empirical educational research to design schools that have elements necessary to
meet desired performance outcomes. The most effective components of a quality,
comprehensive instructional program are identified, and then an adequate expenditure
level is determined by assigning a price to each element (Odden, 2003; Odden & Picus,
2008). Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) assert that this approach maximizes expenditures.
Still, an advantage of the evidence-based approach is that the identification of a set of
proven educational strategies is embedded in the instructional program and guides
schools in the most effective use of their dollars (Odden, 2003).
The current state of school finance. Lindseth (2006) traces California’s
financial troubles back to the 1970s, where the financial disaster began for California’s
10
schools. In its financial commitment to K-12 education, California has gone from the top
to the bottom of the fifty states in a little over one generation due to Serrano, Proposition
13 and the economic downturn in many parts of the state (Lindseth, 2006).
More recent history, however, shows severe budget cuts are impacting how
districts invest their human capital and financial resources in programs to further student
learning. By way of example, in 2006-2007, state revenues were strong, but in 2008 the
national economic downturn hit California, raising unemployment and creating a 14%
decrease in the state’s general fund between 2007 and 2010 (EdSource, 2010f).
Revenues for schools in the 2007-2008 budget totaled $71.1 billion and accounted for
$66.7 billion in the 2009-2010 budget, reflecting a decrease of more than $4 billion
(EdSource, 2010f).
In response to this crisis, EdSource (2010f) reports that the state has cut
categorical funding by 20% for special programs that serve special student populations.
In February 2009, lawmakers granted districts flexibility in how they spend these funds
by sweeping them into the general fund to pay for essential expenditures. Penalties for
exceeding class size reduction student-to-teacher ratio have also been reduced.
Lawmakers have also allowed local education agencies to reduce the school year by as
many as five days. The flexibility is designed to keep schools operational.
The finance system in California is more centralized than almost any state system
in the nation (Kirst, 2006), which creates great angst when district revenue streams are
connected to the ups and downs of the state budget. The federal government has
attempted to combat this by providing nearly $8 billion in funds to California through the
11
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or stimulus. This one-time money has helped
schools in the 2009-2010 school year, but is not available in subsequent recovery years,
presenting another challenge to schools. In times of such fiscal uncertainty, employing
an effective resource allocation model that is tied to student learning is imperative.
Statement of the Problem
Today, the key school finance issue is centered on adequacy (Odden & Picus,
2008). That is, whether there is a sufficient amount of dollars for districts and schools to
teach students to new and rigorous performance standards that have been developed as
part of the standards-based education reform movement. The combination of the reform
movements and stiffer accountability requirements of NCLB forces districts and their
schools to make strategic decisions about how to best use the limited and often dwindling
resources they have.
The current fiscal crisis that affects the nation and California has presented many
challenges for educators. In many cases, districts and schools have been forced to accept
reduced budgets. For the next several years, extremely lean education budgets will likely
be the new normal as the projections for California’s budget include deficits of $6.3
billion for 2009-2010, $14.4 billion for 2010-11 and about $20 billion each year for the
subsequent four years (EdSource, 2010f). Given that California’s education budget for
2009-2010 alone is $56.7 billion (Office of the Secretary of Education, 2010) and
represents the single largest state expenditure (EdSource, 2010f), the financial fate of the
public schools is linked to the state budget. Educators will be forced to make difficult
12
decisions. What choices will schools make to produce a desired level of student
achievement?
The four approaches to costing-out an adequate level of funding to achieve the
goals of a standards-based education are each unique. Yet, not one emerges as a
dominant model for use across states (Rebell, 2007). By studying the school-level
expenditures this study set out to understand resource allocation patterns and what link
they might have to educational strategies. The Evidence-Based Model identifies
components to deliver a high-quality, comprehensive, schoolwide instructional program
(Odden, 2003). If the recommendations of this model are truly the most effective in
raising student achievement, then it is necessary to investigate the choices schools are
making at the site level and understand how schools make this work in their local context.
Purpose of the Study
Historically and traditionally, measures of school finance have been taken at the
district level, but as education policy increasingly focuses on the school site, more
analyses at the school site level are needed. (Odden & Picus, 2008). In analyzing
resource allocation patterns at individual schools it provides a better sense of how school
leaders’ decisions and strategies impact children and their academic achievement. In
terms of making comparisons with the sample schools, this study used the Evidence-
Based Model to help inform how successful schools’ practices compare to research-based
practices that have increased student performance in other states. To this end, this
analysis of school-level data contributes to the discussion of which approach to adequacy
can best be used to improve schools.
13
To better understand the decisions and strategies used by schools, the study
sought to answer these four research questions:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response to
the recent budget adjustments, including overall funding reductions and changes
in the use of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based or other
Model?
Importance of the Study
The results of this study support districts and school site administrators in making
budget and resource allocation decisions in times of fiscal constraint. There are also
implications for policymakers who work to determine how to better utilize California’s
limited resources. This study, along with the information gleaned from eleven other
members of a thematic dissertation group at USC, provides leaders in government an
understanding of how schools are actually using the available funds to promote student
learning. The patterns that emerge in the study of successful schools inform how schools
in California can more efficiently use resources. While it is unlikely that future years will
see a major influx of cash into the education budget, this study provides district and
14
school site leaders as well as legislators with practical and valuable data that can be used
in future decisions on funding policies that better support California schools in their quest
to educate students and meet local, state and federal achievement goals.
Limitations, Delimitations and Assumptions
For this study, three high schools within the same school district were selected
based on their track record of increasing student achievement over an extended number
of years. The research methodology employed a multiple methods, case study design
including a combination of quantitative and qualitative data. Given the nature of this
particular research, there are some limitations, delimitations and assumptions to consider.
Limitations. This study is not generalizable beyond California because it
specifically focuses on a small sample of schools in one particular district, using student
achievement data as measured by the California Standards Tests and funding resources
provided by the State of California. In addition, since the study is not longitudinal, it
provides only a snapshot in time of how individual schools allocated their resources in
the 2010-2011 academic year. While the case studies undoubtedly share details of the
stories of the schools and the district in terms of their history and future planning, the
study is limited to this one year’s data. Finally, given the current fiscal crisis and the
limited per-pupil spending in California, there are limitations to making meaningful
comparisons with the Evidence-Based Model, which calls for significantly more
resources than are available to schools currently.
Delimitations. While evidence exists that many schools in California continue to
improve, the limited resources of the researcher dictated that the sample of successful
15
schools be limited geographically to the Los Angeles region. The individual schools and
the district leadership own their strategies for allocating resources and furthering
academic achievement, but this research study did not evaluate the implementation,
effectiveness or implications of these strategies or the instructional program. Finally, it is
important to bear in mind that this study used only one of the adequacy methods—the
Evidence-Based Model—as a theoretical framework. Nevertheless, this model was used
to make comparisons with resource allocation practices currently in place at the schools
and to contribute to the analysis and discussion in the study.
Assumptions. This study first assumes that API and AYP are valid and accurate
measures of student learning and achievement. Bearing this in mind, it is also assumed
that the quantitative data presented in the documents provided to the researcher for
analysis by the school leadership are an accurate reflection of the school’s strategy of
allocating resources. Finally, as qualitative data are used to augment this study’s
findings, a final assumption exists: the principals and school staff have provided details in
the interview portion of the study that are accurate and honest in their portrayal of actual
resource allocation practices at the schools and in the district.
Definitions
To clarify key terms that appear throughout this study, the following definitions
are provided:
1. Academic Performance Index (API): A number designated by the California
Department of Education (2009) that ranges from 200 to 1000 and is calculated
from student results on statewide assessments. California has set a target score of
16
800 for all schools to meet, and those that do not achieve a score of 800 are
required to meet annual growth targets set by the state.
2. Adequacy: The provision of a set of strategies, programs, curriculum and
instruction, with appropriate adjustments for special-needs students, districts and
schools, and their full financing, that is sufficient to provide all students an equal
opportunity to learn to high performance standards (Odden & Picus, 2008).
3. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A report required by the federal No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 and is used to measure how well individual schools
and districts are doing in meeting the following requirements: (a) student
participation rates on statewide tests; (b) percentage of students scoring at the
proficient level or above in English-language arts and mathematics on statewide
tests; (c) in California only, API growth; and (d) graduation rate (California
Department of Education, 2009).
4. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)/Stimulus Funds: The federal
stimulus package enacted by the U.S. Congress and President Obama in March,
2009 that allocated additional, one-time funds to school districts across the United
States. The act provided more than $100 billion for prekindergarten through 12th
grade schools nationwide, and nearly $8 billion for California. It was a one-time
infusion for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years (EdSource, 2010b)
5. California Standards Tests: A series of tests that measure students’ achievement
of California’s content standards in the areas of English-Language Arts,
17
Mathematics, Science, and History/Social Science (California Department of
Education, 2009).
6. Categorical Funds: Funds that are targeted to support specific groups and/or class
of students, such as students with special needs, low-income, or English learners.
There are four types of categorically funded programs: entitlement, incentive,
discretionary grants and mandated cost reimbursement (Timar, 2006).
7. Evidence-Based Model: School instructional improvement design grounded in
scientifically based research and widely documented effective practice based on
resource allocation associated with achieving desired student achievement
outcomes (Odden & Picus, 2008).
8. General Purpose Funds: As an accounting term, General Fund refers to all general
use expenditures not required or permitted by law to be accounted for in a
separate accounting category (EdSource, 2010b).
9. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act: The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). NCLB’s provisions represent a significant
change in the federal government’s influence in public schools and districts
throughout the United States, particularly in terms of assessment, accountability,
and teacher quality.
10. Title I: A federal program that provides funds for educationally disadvantaged
students. Funding is based on the number of low-income children in a school,
generally those eligible for the free/reduced price meals program. Title I is
intended to supplement, not replace, state and district funds. The funds are
18
distributed to school districts, which make allocations to eligible schools
according to criteria in the federal law (EdSource, 2010b).

19
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The United States spends $600 billion annually on K-12 education with the noble
goal of providing an education to even the poorest of citizens so that they may achieve
the American Dream (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). The prime education goal,
according to Odden (2009), is to educate these students to rigorous performance levels by
having students learn to “world class” standards. To this end, a variety of far-reaching
education reforms have taken root in the United States in the past two decades. This is
not to suggest, however, that education was a forgotten priority of past generations
because the reality is that much of the groundwork for today’s reforms are rooted in the
quest for equity and adequacy in how schools are funded and how they deliver education
to all students.
This chapter draws on lessons learned from history, educational research and
current events to support this study and its goals. The first section of this chapter focuses
on history by providing a brief summary of the court cases and legislation that have
impacted educational funding and reform efforts on the national level. An outline of the
key court rulings and political actions that have occurred in California is also provided.
The second section describes the shift from educational equity to adequacy in school
finance and discusses the four approaches to costing-out an adequate education.
Particular emphasis is placed on exploring the details of the Evidence-Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008), as it is the basis for comparison throughout this study. The third
section breaks down the funding structure and resource allocation in the world of
education—where the money for education originates and how it arrives at districts and
20
schools. The fourth section delves into nearly four decades of educational research to
reveal the most effective education reform strategies that move schools forward and
promote student learning. The fifth section investigates the research on district-level
support strategies for schools and the relationship between the central office and school
sites. Finally, the last section of this literature review addresses current events in
California and frames the relevance of this study as it investigates resource allocation at
the school site in challenging financial times.
The History of Education Reform & Financing
National trends. The federal government continued to expand its involvement in
and funding of education with the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) in 1965 (Odden & Picus, 2008). As part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s
War on Poverty, Title I of ESEA was designed to provide funds specifically to low-
income students. The latest of many reauthorizations of ESEA was passed in 2001,
known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB provided $13.5 billion in 2001-
2002 and added an array of new accountability measures (Odden & Picus, 2008).
The fight for equity and adequacy of funding. Prior to this legislation, however,
education was established as a common good with the Supreme Court’s decision in
Brown v. Board of Education. The court’s landmark decision abolished school
segregation and established the notion that all students deserve access to equal
educational opportunities. Since the Brown ruling, the courts have been active in
education equality and equity issues (Lindseth, 2006). One such case was Rodriguez v.
San Antonio, which made it to the Supreme Court in 1973. The plaintiffs argued that the
21
quality of education a child receives should not depend on their residence and, therefore,
local funding of schools should be equalized across districts in the state of Texas. The
Supreme Court decided that there is no provision in the federal constitution that holds
education as a fundamental right. The court decided that the Texas funding system based
on property taxes was a rational method of funding schools. The decision had the effect
of ending federal suits to equalize education funding in states based on equity (Lindseth,
2006). As a result of the Rodriguez decision, suits challenging inequitable state funding
systems moved to state courts and a new movement toward adequacy was born.
Additional large-scale funding mechanisms. Odden, Monk, Nakib and Picus
(1995) analyzed education spending patterns across all 50 states and found that there was
a considerable national investment in public education during the 20th century. These
funds, however, were distributed unfairly and used ineffectively (Odden et al., 1995).
The largest portion of increased spending on education has been used to hire more
teachers by reducing class size, all while increasing teacher salaries without being used
strategically to enhance teachers’ professional expertise (Odden et al., 1995). At the
same time, Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) report that there has been little improvement in
student outcomes, indicating little return on the investment into K-12 education.
In the first decade of this current century, economic trouble was brewing. By the
fall of 2008, the nation was facing an economic crisis—a recession (EdSource, 2010f).
Newly elected President Barack Obama acted swiftly by signing into law the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the federal stimulus, on
February 17, 2009. It was designed to jumpstart the economy and to create or save
22
millions of jobs. The education sector has benefited from the stimulus funds. As of May
14, 2010, approximately $84 billion in Education Recovery Act grants have been
awarded (U.S. Department of Education, 2010b). The influx of one-time stimulus funds
from the federal government was crucial to many school districts’ financial solvency, but
the funding came with new reporting demands and pressures to reform (EdSource,
2010f).
ARRA and Race to the Top as policy levers. As schools navigate the new
accountability structures that came with the stimulus funds they received, it is now clear
that ARRA is being used to influence education reform on a national level. The new
reform efforts were underscored as the reauthorization of ESEA came around in early
2010. President Obama and the United States Department of Education released A
Blueprint for Reform (U.S. Department of Education, 2010a) which outlines how the four
priorities of ARRA will fit into the reauthorization of ESEA: (1) improving teacher and
principal effectiveness, (2) providing information to families to help them evaluate and
improve their children’s schools, (3) implementing college- and career-ready standards
and developing improved standard-aligned assessments and (4) improving student
learning and achievement in America’s lowest-performing schools by providing support
and effective interventions.
Reform efforts are also being funded by competitive Race to the Top (RTT)
grants. This $4.35 billion program challenges states to meet the federal priorities
outlined above by providing funds to states to help implement reforms (U.S. Department
of Education, 2010c). The first round winners were Delaware and Tennessee, but many
23
states applied in mid-2010 for the second round of RTT funding, which was set aside for
states to develop new assessments, to build longitudinal data systems, to design initiatives
to enhance teacher recruitment and retention and to create alternative pay structures for
teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2010c).
Naturally, the programs have their critics. Specifically, some question the impact
of the stimulus on equity (McNeil, 2010). In an Education Week article, McNeil (2010)
describes how many school districts used stimulus aid to expand services by changing the
poverty threshold to make more students eligible, which creates benefits now but has a
downside when the money runs out. While some states and schools inevitably will find
the loopholes built into any legislation, there are students that stand to benefit from the
increased attention ARRA and RTT bring to the forefront about education reform.
Common core standards. The RTT program has also increased interest in the
effort to create a set of common core standards across the states (EdSource, 2010a). The
National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State Schools Officers led the
Common Core State Standards Initiative. States that adopt common standards receive
points through the RTT program (EdSource, 2010a). Supporters of the concept assert
that new standards will form the basis upon which states would build systems of aligned
curriculum and assessments (EdSource, 2010a). By adopting the common core, several
states would end up with more rigorous standards, but Baker, Taylor and Vedlitz (2008)
see many concerns and financial implications associated with common standards: If
common standards are set so absurdly low that all states were already in compliance,
there would be not additional cost of meeting the standards. On the other hand, if
24
standards are set so high that states would need to double, triple or quadruple investments
in education, other social projects would suffer.
Given that states receive more than $20 billion per year through ESEA and that
revamping standards is part of the current Blueprint for the reauthorization of the bill, it is
unlikely that the pressure to adopt common standards will dissipate. The final version of
the English-language arts and mathematics common core standards were released in June
2010, and all but two states ultimately adopted the common core standards. As it stands,
four of every ten new college students, including half of those at 2-year institutions, take
remedial courses and many employers comment on the inadequate preparation of high
school graduates (U.S. Department of Education, 2010a), which makes it even more
critical for states to reevaluate their current standards or adopt new ones in order to meet
federal performance expectations.
Trends in California. As the current reform climate suggests, federal
involvement in education—a responsibility delegated to the states long ago—is here to
stay. But the states’ role in public education changed dramatically as far back as World
War II (Timar, 2002). Increased state activism shifted the locus of decision making from
local school districts to the state level. Timar (2002) notes that the change from local to
central control has occurred without any clear vision as to how the K-12 system can best
foster high quality schools. While the federal government’s role has become increasingly
more significant in terms of setting policy and directing funds for education, still much of
the responsibility for educating America’s young people falls to the states. Particularly in
California, as the system of local control has been superseded by a system of centralized
25
state control, a long-term strategy never evolved (Timar, 2002). Rather, a series of
actions by the Legislature, by the courts and through ballot measures has attempted to
remedy perceived problems as they arise.
Court decisions and their impact over time. Timar (2006) notes that a majority of
the actions that altered California’s school finance system can be traced back to the
1970s. Up until this point, California relied on a foundation approach to school finance,
which guaranteed each district a fixed amount of revenue per pupil in exchange for
levying a certain tax rate (Picus, 2006). Districts that did not raise that amount through
local taxes received state aid to make up the difference. Picus (2006) explains that
because the foundation level did not always keep up with the financial needs of schools,
local districts were forced to rely on their own property tax base to raise the balance. The
Serrano case, which began in 1968, asserted that students in low-wealth districts were
denied an equal educational opportunity because there was inherent inequality due to the
huge differences in property values throughout the state (Timar, 2006).
Given that California’s wealthiest districts at the time were spending roughly four
times as much per pupil as its poorest districts, the California State Supreme Court
decision in Serrano looked to eliminate wealth-related spending differences and
transform the school finance structure (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Picus, 2006).
Anticipating an outcome that would demand that funding be equalized among districts,
state leaders passed Senate Bill (SB) 90 in 1972, creating the revenue limit system that
put a ceiling on the amount of general purpose money each district could raise
(EdSource, 2009b). The Serrano case returned in 1976, this time referred to as Serrano
26
II, and the court ruled that the changes made by SB 90 were not enough. As a result, the
state passed Assembly Bill 65 in 1977, which would result in a redistribution of state aid
based on differences in property tax revenues per pupil and the establishment of new
categorical programs (EdSource, 2009b).
Voters’ ballot measures create lasting change. In response to this high level of
state control over funding, voters initiated and passed a state ballot measure in 1978.
Designed to protect property owners by reducing and stabilizing their property tax
obligations, Proposition 13 limits the property tax rate to 1% of assessed value (Timar,
2006). As a result of Proposition 13, districts lost roughly 50% of their property tax
revenue (Timar, 2006). Picus (2006) explains that this action placed control of all
property taxes squarely with the Legislature and has left local school districts with no
revenue raising authority to speak of.
Concerned with the need to improve and stabilize funding for education, voters
approved another ballot measure in 1988—Proposition 98. This constitutional
amendment guarantees a minimum level of funding for K-12 and community colleges
from state and property taxes (EdSource, 2010c). The funding provisions under
Proposition 98 are determined by one of three “tests” (Timar, 2006). Test one ensures
that state aid for California public schools grows proportionately with state tax receipts
during years of robust revenue growth. Test two ensures that, at a minimum, state and
local funding keep pace with growth in student populations and economic growth. Test
three, increases prior-year funding by growth in attendance and per capita general fund
revenues. Picus (2006) argues that while Proposition 98 guarantees a theoretical floor for
27
spending—approximately 40% of the state’s general fund budget going to education—it
also limits legislative flexibility in budget decisions, sometimes creating a ceiling for
education spending.
Adequacy concerns spark courts and legislators to action. A more recent case
challenged California’s commitment to and investment in its public schools. Williams v.
State of California originated in 2000, and the plaintiffs alleged that the state was not
exercising its constitutional responsibility for oversight of K-12 education, and conditions
in schools throughout the state deprived children of equal access to education (Timar,
2002). They cited unqualified teachers, lack of textbooks and instructional materials,
deteriorating and unhealthful facilities, and the absence of adequate instructional
programs in their lawsuit (EdSource, 2010c). When the suit was settled in 2004, the state
agreed to spend upwards of one billion dollars to improve school facilities (Picus, 2006).
The Legislature responded by enacting five bills that provided accountability measures,
extra financial support and other help for low-performing schools (EdSource, 2010c).
The Williams suit turned out to be more than simply fixing broken-down schools. The
case raised questions about the capacity of the state’s governance structure and its ability
to provide California’s students with an adequate education (Picus, 2006; Timar, 2002).
Adequacy in Education Funding
The standards-based movement of NCLB has shifted the focus to student
performance outcomes. Schools across the country continue to face mounting pressure to
demonstrate improved student performance on standardized tests and other measures in
order to be in compliance with NCLB. Under the standards-based movement, the success
28
of a school’s finance policy is determined by its ability to educate an average student to
state-determined performance standards, as well as support students with special needs to
reach the same standards (Odden, 2003). The adequacy movement seeks to determine
what amount of money is needed to ensure that this goal is achieved (Picus, 2006).
Today there are four approaches for estimating school finance adequacy.
Four approaches to adequacy. Taylor, Baker and Vedlitz (2005) categorize the
adequacy models as either “performance-oriented” or “resource-oriented” based on the
type of data incorporated in the analyses. Performance-oriented studies focus on
performance outcomes of interest to policymakers, where as resource-oriented analyses
focus on categories of educational resource inputs. In every instance, the adequacy
studies found that current funding levels are inadequate to enable all children to meet the
state’s educational standards (Picus, 2006), so these models have been constructed to
change that reality. While there is no preferred method, and not one of the adequacy
models dominates the other, each has its strengths and weaknesses.
The successful schools approach estimates the costs of an adequate education by
identifying schools and districts that, based on certain specific criteria, are found to be
highly successful in regard to student achievement. The cost of adequacy is then
estimated based on the expenditures of these high performing districts and schools
(Chambers & Levin 2006). The primary strength of the successful schools methodology
is the direct, quantifiable link it establishes between education costs and desired
outcomes, which Rebell (2007) asserts is appealing to policymakers and the public. At
the same time, the successful schools approach uses a performance standard that some
29
schools already meet, which may estimate costs associated with a lower performance
standard than those used in other methodologies (Taylor et al., 2005).
Like the successful schools approach, the cost function model is performance-
oriented because the approach explores the relationship between educational costs and
student outcomes (Chambers & Levin, 2006). The cost function approach applies
econometric models used to analyze data from manufacturing and other production
processes in private industry to the education context (Rebell, 2007). Cost function
analyses differ from successful schools analyses in that they involve much more rigorous
attempts to determine the levels of spending associated with specific sets of outcomes
and how those levels of spending vary for districts with different student populations
(Rebell, 2007). The regression analysis used in the cost function approach sets
expenditures for pupil as the dependent variable and student population, district
characteristics and desired performance levels as independent variables (Odden, 2003).
Taylor et al. (2005) critiques the cost function approach because it is data intensive,
requiring high quality measures of school district performance and expenditures. Many
states lack the necessary data to conduct such analyses. Additionally, the cost function
approach estimates a statistical relationship between spending and outcomes without
providing specific insights into how districts should internally organize their resources to
effectively and efficiently produce outcomes.
The professional judgment model addresses the gaps in the previous two
approaches by shifting to a resource-oriented perspective on costing out an adequate
education. The professional judgment model uses panels of educators to design and
30
develop resource specifications and educational services (Chambers & Levin, 2006).
One major advantage of this approach is that it identifies specific strategies schools can
use to reach desired performance outcomes (Odden, 2003). At the same time, because
the analyses rest on the judgment of a panel of professionals, the list of recommended
strategies are vulnerable to the blind spots and biases of individual panel members
(Taylor et al., 2005).
The evidence-based approach draws from the literature in education research on
effective schooling practices to estimate the cost of achieving adequacy in school
funding. Specifically, this approach identifies a list of strategies that produce desired
results, and these strategies reflect best practices of comprehensive school design models
that currently show evidence of students achieving at high levels (Odden, 2003). The
evidence-based approach builds prototypical schools at the elementary, middle and high
school levels with a variety of resources dedicated to improving student performance.
Taylor et al. (2005) argue that, in applying the model, the greater the difference between
the prototypes and the actual schools, the greater the margin for error, which makes it
difficult to estimate costs. In any case, the evidence-based approach shows clear linkages
between resources and performance because funding is tied to specific strategies that
educate students to meet standards.
The evidence-based model. Because this study is interested in how the
combination of schools’ resource allocation practices and use of educational reform
strategies contribute to increased student performance, the Evidence-Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008) is the preferred approach for this research. The evidence-based
31
approach identifies a comprehensive set of school-level elements that are required to
deliver a comprehensive and high-quality instructional program within a school (Odden,
2003; Odden & Picus, 2008). Figure 2.1 graphically represents how the Evidence-Based
Model is built from the core with additional layers of support that are not considered add-
ons, but rather essential elements that lead to higher student achievement.
Figure 2.1: The Odden & Picus (2008) Evidence-Based Model

(Source: Odden & Picus, 2008)
The Evidence-Based Model is based on evidence from the following three
sources: (1) research with randomized assignment to the treatment, (2) research with
other types of controls or statistical procedures to break down the impact of the treatment,
and (3) identified best practices as evidenced in a comprehensive school design or
derived from studies of impact at the local district or school level. This evidence is then
32
compiled and used to identify a set of adequate resources for use in a prototype school
and then adjusts for school size and demographics (Odden & Picus, 2008).
For example, the prototype high school has a total of 600 students and an average
class size of 25 students (Odden & Picus, 2008). This high school would be staffed with
24 full time core teachers. A full time teacher is referred to as a Full Time Equivalent
(FTE). In addition to the 24 core FTEs, the model also provides resources for eight
specialist teacher FTEs and three instructional facilitators or coaches and a technology
coordinator. Coaches spend most of their time in classrooms giving feedback to teachers
and modeling lessons. They also coordinate the instructional program and provide other
staff development (Odden & Picus, 2008).
The Evidence-Based Model provides resources for extra support and staff to assist
low income and disadvantaged students. The resources allocated for extra help vary
according to the number of disadvantaged students. The model funds one credentialed
tutor for every 100 students on free or reduced-price lunch. The tutor provides one-on-
one tutoring for 20 minutes per student or for a group of three students for an hour. The
credentialed tutors are trained in specific strategies and the tutoring is intended to support
the regular curriculum to catch students back up and return them to the regular classroom
(Odden & Picus, 2008). The model also funds support to English Language Learners
(ELL) with one FTE teacher for every 100 ELL students to provide additional support
classes for these students. In addition to the support classes, ELL students receive
support through the tutoring program (Odden & Picus, 2008).
33
The Evidence-Based Model funds programs outside of the regular school day to
support struggling or disadvantaged students by funding one teacher for an extended day
program (five days per week for three hours) for every 15 free and reduced-price lunch
students, paid at 25% of the teacher’s annual salary (Odden & Picus, 2008). A summer
school program is resourced for 50% of the number of students in free or reduced-price
lunch program with teachers paid 25% of their annual salary. The recommended summer
program is eight weeks long with class sizes of 15 students for six hours a day (Odden &
Picus, 2008). For special education students, the model funds four special education
teachers for mild and moderate disability students. Services for students with severe
disabilities should be fully funded by the state and are not included in the Evidence-
Based Model funding formula (Odden & Picus, 2008).
The Evidence-Based Model funds student support, family outreach and guidance
counselors at the rate of one teacher level position for every 100 low-income students
plus one for every 250 students. The prototypical 600-student school would be resourced
with 5.4 counselors (Odden & Picus, 2008). The research does not support the use of
classroom instructional aides outside of the special education classroom. The Evidence-
Based Model proposes three aides in the prototype high school to help relieve teachers
and provide supervision, but not for instructional purposes.
There would be one principal for each school unit (Odden & Picus, 2008). The
school office would be staffed with one secretary and three clerks. The model also funds
one librarian and one media specialist in a prototypical school.
34
The Evidence-Based Model directs resources to ongoing, intensive and job-
embedded professional development (Odden & Picus, 2008). In addition to credentialed
core teachers, elective teachers and tutors, the model allocates five percent of all teacher
resources for substitute teachers in order to free teachers for staff development
opportunities and provide sick leave (Odden & Picus, 2008). The authors argue that all
the resources employed by this model will be worthwhile only if students are receiving
appropriate and effective instruction. This is only possible when teachers are being
exposed to high quality, content-rich and curriculum-relevant professional development.
Odden & Picus (2008) advise that professional development needs to be sustained
throughout the year, starting with intensive training in the summer, on-site coaching for
all teachers to help them incorporate practices into daily instruction and collaborative
work during planning and preparation periods throughout the regular school day.
Table 2.1 summarizes the elements included in the prototype high school, and
allocations for elementary and middle schools are included as well for comparison
purposes. The allocations in the Evidence-Based Model can be prorated up or down for
schools smaller or larger than the prototypical school, in accordance with the actual
number of pupils and their demographics (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Table 2.1: Recommendations for Adequate Resources from the Evidence-Based Model
School Element Elementary Schools
Middle
Schools
High
Schools
School Characteristics
School configuration K-5 6-8 9-12
Prototypical school size 432 450 600
Class size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
25 25
Full-day kindergarten Yes N/A N/A
35
Table 2.1, continued
School Element Elementary Schools
Middle
Schools
High
Schools
Number of teacher work days 200, including 10
days for intensive
training
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
% Disabled 12% 12% 12%
% Poverty (free or reduced-
price lunch)
50% 50% 50%
% English Language Learner
(ELL)
10% 10% 10%
% Minority 30% 30% 30%
Personnel Resources
1. Core teachers 24 18 24
2. Specialist teachers 20% or more: 4.8 20% or more: 3.6 33% or more: 8.0
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Coaches
2.2 2.25 3.0
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
One for every 100
poverty students:
2.25
One for every 100
poverty students:
3.0
5. Teachers for ELL students An addition 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students
0.43
An addition 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students
0.45
An addition 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students
0.60
6. Extended day 1.8 1.875 2.5
7. Summer school 1.8 1.875 2.5
School Characteristics
8. Students with mild
disabilities
Additional 3
professional teacher
positions
Additional 3
professional teacher
positions
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions
9. Students with severe
disabilities
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
10. Resources for
gifted/talented students
$25/student $25/student $25/student
11. Vocational education N/A N/A No extra cost
12. Substitutes 5% of lines 1-9 5% of lines 1-9 5% of lines 1-9
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance/250
students
3.25 total
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance/250
students
5.4 total
14. Non-instructional aides 2.0 2.0 3.0
15. Librarians/Media
Specialists 1.0 1.0
1.0 librarian
1.0 Library
technician
16. Principal 1 1 1
17. School site secretary 1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
36
Table 2.1, continued
School Element Elementary Schools
Middle
Schools
High
Schools
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators
Planning & prep time
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other
PD expenses—
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators
Planning & prep time
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other
PD expenses—
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
Included above:
Instructional coaches
Planning & prep time
10 summer days
Additional:
$50/pupil for other
PD expenses—
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
19. Technology $250/student $250/student $250/student
20. Instructional materials $140/student $140/student $175/student
21. Student activities $200/student $200/student $250/student
(Source: Odden & Picus, 2008)
Given that the Evidence-Based Model is not used in California, it is not likely that
the schools in this study will have the same resource allocation patterns; however, using
the model for comparison purposes provides insight into how some schools in California
choose to allocate the resources they receive.
Where Does the Money Come From and Where Does It Go?
The federal government, state business, personal and income taxes along with
parcel taxes and other miscellaneous dollars contribute to the California education
budget. These funds feed into school districts’ operating budgets for general and
categorical purposes. Figure 2.2 provides a graphical representation of the sources of
funding and how they are distributed.
37
Figure 2.2: California’s School Finance System

(Source: EdSource, 2009a)
As of January 2009, funding sources for education within California were
comprised of the following categories: 10% provided by the federal government, 60%
from state-generated taxes, 23% from local property taxes, 2% from the state lottery, and
about 6% from other miscellaneous sources such as parcel taxes (EdSource, 2009a). The
column on the right of Figure 2.2 shows that about two-thirds of the funds allocated are
for general purposes and nearly one-third is intended for categorical funding.
General purpose funds. The funding system that was developed in response to
Proposition 13 (1978) remains the basis for school funding today: Each district has a
revenue limit—a historically-based figure that is adjusted upward over time based on cost
of living adjustments and the number of students in a district (Picus, 2006). The revenue
limit is funded by a combination of property taxes and state funds (Picus, 2006). Timar
(2006) explains that the revenue limit for each school district is calculated by totaling the
base revenue limits plus any revenue limit add-ons and excess local property taxes. The
38
base revenue limit is the principal component (95%) of the general purpose fund (Timar,
2006). It is defined as the amount of general purpose funding per student (average daily
attendance figure). The remaining five percent of general purpose funds comes from
state “add-ons” such as incentive programs initiated through past legislation. In short,
general purpose funds pay for the general expenses of educating students—employees’
salaries and benefits, supplies, textbooks and regular maintenance (EdSource, 2000).
Categorical funds. Both the state and federal governments use the allocation of
categorical funds as a way to influence educational change by providing extra funds for
specific purposes or to serve specific groups of students. Timar (2004) enumerates a list
of categorical programs currently part of the state’s budget: funds for charter schools,
various provisions of the school accountability law, professional development, special
education, student services, school safety, vocational and occupational programs,
technology, curriculum and instructional improvement, class-size reduction and year-
round schooling. To ensure that these funds reach the students for whom they are
intended, districts and schools are held to strict spending rules and stringent reporting
requirements (Timar, 2004). Additional criticism of categorical funding centers around
issues like the politicization of categorical funding and the characterization of many of
these programs as pet projects (Timar, 2004). Picus (2006) reports that the categorical
funding program has led to considerable variations and inequities in the level of resources
available to children across districts. As a result, there are questions about whether a
relationship exists between the identified student needs and the targeting of these
revenues (Picus, 2006).
39
Research-Based School Reform Strategies
Transforming schools and increasing student achievement stretches far beyond
understanding the intricacies of school finance. A school’s resources need to be invested
in the right people with the right talents who know how to use the right strategies to
improve student learning. Because the trend toward adequacy requires the pooling
together of multiple resources to reach desired educational goals, it seems only
appropriate to identify additional research-based elements that contribute to environments
that support learning. Odden (2009) and Marzano (2003) have synthesized nearly four
decades of educational research and practical evidence from school sites, presenting clear
guidance as to the steps schools can take to be highly effective. Their findings are
summarized in this section.
Odden’s 10 Strategies. Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies to Doubling Student
Performance provides a comprehensive set of strategies for school improvement. This
book was written based on information obtained from numerous studies and reports by
prominent educators and researchers. The lessons learned as part of Odden’s (2009)
study of the literature and successful schools’ practice are even more relevant since they
have been reviewed since the inception of NCLB and can be applied to the Act’s
accountability requirements. Further, the 10 Strategies aligns with the Evidence-Based
Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) of school finance adequacy by focusing resources in such
a way that producing a positive change in student performance is a reality.
Odden (2009) defines “doubling” performance as making “large, quantum,
absolute gains in student achievement” (p. ix). As districts and schools have restructured,
40
made changes in resource allocation and increased student performance in the process,
Odden (2009) describes how they deployed these resources in ten steps all school
districts can begin to use immediately to achieve similar results.
The research-based strategies Odden (2009) recommends include: (1) analyzing
student data, (2) setting ambitious goals, (3) implementing an effective curriculum and
instructional program, (4) using benchmark and formative assessments, (5) employing
ongoing professional development, (6) using instructional time more efficiently, (7)
providing extra help for struggling students, (8) creating a professional and collaborative
school culture, (9) using research-based and proven strategies and (10) recruiting and
developing top talent.
Schools first must understand the performance challenge under which they
operate. Odden (2009) notes that NCLB, state standards-based reforms and pressure
from businesses and the local community have placed tremendous pressure and high
expectations on schools to produce students who can perform in a global economy.
Bearing in mind these challenges from the outside, Odden (2009) recommends turning
the attention back on the school and its students by analyzing state student testing data
and how the current curriculum aligns with the state tests. Odden (2009) reports that
schools that are successful do not spend much time critiquing NCLB or getting bogged
down by current performance levels or the nature of student demographics. Instead,
successful schools set very high performance goals for all students and believe they can
be attained (Odden, 2009).
41
Even if schools do not reach the specific goal, they typically will make progress
by engaging the community and adopting new strategies to boost performance. As
schools adopt new strategies, they also review evidence on good instruction and effective
curriculum. Odden (2009) acknowledges that many schools throw out old curriculum
and either buy or create new curriculum programs that are more rigorous—a move that is
often supported with the input and collaboration of teachers. Odden (2009) refers to this
as the “professional approach” where the change is systemic across all classrooms and
often across all schools in a district. To determine if the new curriculum is translating
into knowledge and achievement, schools need to measure student performance often and
adjust instructional practice accordingly (Odden, 2009). Formative assessments that
provide teachers in-depth information on a micro-level should be combined with end-of-
curriculum-unit tests that serve as a measure of the overall instruction and learning.
Odden (2009) recognizes that data-based decision making cannot be possible
without supporting teachers to make those decisions through systematic, intensive and
ongoing professional development. In successful schools, professional development
includes all teachers, and it is not voluntary (Odden, 2009). That is, professional
development is uniquely defined in this model as significant time embedded in the
regular school day, additional collaboration time, additional pupil free days and the use of
instructional coaches to lead change in instructional practice (Odden, 2009). In all cases,
professional development is focused on curriculum and instruction.
Successful schools that double performance protect and efficiently use
instructional time during the school day (Odden, 2009). In the schools studied by Odden
42
(2009) and other researchers, extending the school day or the school year was not
necessary because they simply restructured time in class to focus on core subjects like
English-language arts and math. As part of this restructuring process, Odden (2009)
finds that successful schools embed extra help for struggling students through individual
and small-group tutoring during the regular school day. Often schools will offer a rich
set of extra-help strategies that include double periods, tutoring, extended-day and
summer school classes. It should be noted that, in addition to changing instructional
blocks, successful schools also integrate collaboration time for teachers.
To implement each of the strategies described thus far requires a shift in culture
for many schools. To best achieve this, Odden (2009) finds that successful schools have
three things in common: a professional school culture, a collaborative culture and
distributed leadership. Schools that work in groups to develop curriculum, plan
instruction, analyze data, provide interventions, reflect on their work and modify their
practice are often called professional learning communities, or PLCs (Odden, 2009). As
Odden (2009) explains, there is a “density” of instructional leaders in effective
educational organizations that use current, research-based strategies. These organizations
double their performance by seeking out new ideas in order to improve.
In his final strategy, Odden (2009) indicates that an element of school
improvement that receives insufficient attention is that of human capital. The strategies
profiled here cannot be successfully employed without excellent teachers and
administrators to lead the process. Odden (2009) recommends recruiting top talent far
earlier than during the summer months and being focused on developing that talent.
43
Marzano’s What Works in Schools. Marzano (2003) asserts that American
schools are at the dawn of the best of times despite the criticisms of the last half-century.
Educational research that currently exists provides guidance on how schools can have a
tremendous impact on student achievement. Rather than using examples of specific
schools, Marzano (2003) synthesizes 35 years of research to outline steps schools can
take to be highly effective. After summarizing the research and organizing the findings
by the themes that emerged, Marzano (2003) identified three areas where schools can
direct resources to increase student achievement: at the school level, at the teacher level
and at the student level. The lessons gleaned from the literature translate into action steps
that Marzano (2003) recommends schools follow as they endeavor to increase student
academic performance. A summary of each of the areas and action steps follows:
School-level factors are primarily a function of school policy and schoolwide
decisions and initiatives. Marzano (2003) sorts the school-level factors in order of the
efforts that make the most impact on student achievement: (1) a guaranteed and viable
curriculum, (2) challenging goals and effective feedback, (3) parent and community
involvement, (4) a safe and orderly environment and (5) collegiality and professionalism.
To begin, schools must identify the essential content versus that considered supplemental
and then assure that it is sequenced appropriately and can be adequately addressed in the
instructional time available. Marzano (2003) notes that successful schools hold teachers
accountable by ensuring they cover the essential content and protect instructional time.
As schools revamp their curriculum, they also establish challenging goals for all students
and provide effective feedback that is specific and formative. Marzano (2003) advocates
44
the use of innovative report cards and formative assessments which allow achievement
goals to be set and monitored.
While these first two efforts focus on the school’s role in shaping goals and
curriculum, Marzano (2003) recognizes that it is necessary to create buy-in. The research
suggests that this can be achieved in three ways: good communication from schools to
parents and community and vice versa, effective parent and community involvement in
the day-to-day running of the school and a governance system that allows parents and
community some voice in key school decisions (Marzano, 2003).
Building on the notion that it takes a team of multiple stakeholders to move a
school forward, Marzano (2003) finds that creating a school and programs that
administrators, teachers, students, parents and community members can be proud is a
factor that contributes to improved student learning. To this end, Marzano (2003)
suggests establishing a safe and orderly school environment by developing a schoolwide
system of rules, procedures and consequences. In addition, schools that have high levels
of collegiality and professionalism will have teachers that interact with each other and
with students in collaborative and meaningful ways (Marzano, 2003).
Teacher-level factors are primarily under the control of individual teachers and
center around the use of: (1) specific instructional strategies, (2) classroom management
techniques and (3) a classroom curriculum design. Schools that achieve gains in student
achievement have developed an instructional framework that starts with clear learning
goals, input experiences that allow students to ask questions and link new and old content
and many opportunities for review, practice and applying content (Marzano, 2003).
45
Teachers are able to deliver content effectively and efficiently by establishing and
enforcing a comprehensive list of procedures, using disciplinary interventions,
establishing relationships with young people while maintaining emotional objectivity
toward students (Marzano, 2003). Once the curriculum goals and a classroom
environment conducive to learning have been established, Marzano (2003) recommends
that teachers remain transparent. That is, they should identify for students and articulate
to them the specifics of the content and the procedures to follow to ensure mastery of the
content (Marzano, 2003).
Student-level factors are generally associated with student background: (1) home
environment, (2) learned intelligence and background knowledge and (3) student
motivation. These factors are largely considered out of the control or the scope of
influence of the school. Not surprisingly, they account for the lion’s share of variance in
student achievement. Still, Marzano (2003) argues that the negative effects of these
factors can be overcome. First, a distinction needs to be made between home
environment and socioeconomic status. Marzano (2003) defines home environment as
“the specific, alterable set of behaviors that has a much stronger relationship with student
achievement than do household income, occupation and education” (p. 132). Schools
that have been successful at increasing student achievement partner with families by
offering a series of courses or trainings on parent education free of charge.
To supplement this, Marzano (2003) finds that schools reframe the prevailing
culture of schools by altering the competitive nature of classroom success. They achieve
this by engaging students in long-term projects that tap into their deeply held passions
46
and by providing them with information about motivation and training students to put
them in control of their own motivation (Marzano, 2003). Of particular interest is how
schools make the learning process more focused on the individual, providing students
with extensive feedback at multiple points of the instruction and assessment process.
The literature reviews and school studies conducted by Odden (2009) and
Marzano (2003) represent a coming together of the greatest minds in educational research
over a period of almost forty years. The strategies each author recommends are
summarized in Table 2.2. It is important to note that the absence of “leadership” as an
element in school reform strategies was not an oversight. In fact, Marzano states:
“Leadership should be considered the single most important aspect of effective school
reform” (p. 172). Odden (2009) sees leadership of district and school staff is the
overarching strategy that makes the delivery of the others possible. It is worth
emphasizing that the success stories of schools using both authors’ sets of strategies were
employed specifically at the school site, making “the school the proper focus for reform”
(Marzano, 2003, p. 10) and the rationale for this study at the site-level more significant.
47
Table 2.2: Comparison of Concepts Presented in Marzano (2003) and Odden (2009)
Marzano’s What Works in Schools
(2003)
Odden’s 10 Strategies
(2009)
School-Level Factors
Guaranteed and viable curriculum Step 3: Change the curriculum program and create
a new instructional vision
Challenging goals and effective feedback Step 2: Set ambitious goals
Step 4: Use benchmark and formative
assessments and data-based decision making
Parent and community involvement
Safe and orderly environment
Collegiality and professionalism Step 5: Provide ongoing, intensive professional
development
Step 8: Build a collaborative and professional
culture and use distributed leadership
Step 10: The human capital side: Recruit and
develop top talent
Teacher-Level Factors
Instructional strategies Step 1: Understand the performance challenge:
Analyze performance data
Step 9: Use research-based best practices and
external expertise
Classroom management
Classroom curriculum design Step 6: Use instructional time efficiently and
effectively
Student-Level Factors
Home environment
Learned intelligence and background knowledge Step 7: Extend time for struggling students
Student motivation
(Source: Odden & Picus, 2008)
Table 2.2 above indicates where the research-based reform strategies of Marzano
(2003) and Odden (2009) intersect. As the comparison indicates, schools and their
personnel bear much of the responsibility for improving their organizations and student
learning in general. While Odden’s (2009) list of strategies is light on addressing ways to
engage students, parents and the community, there is consistency and similarities with
Marzano’s (2003) analysis in broader categories. The alignment of the two can be
summarized in three take-away concepts for school leaders: (1) make data-driven
decisions in almost every aspect of the way a school functions, (2) employ a standards-
based assessment program that provides students with reliable feedback and (3) invest in
48
the development of teachers and their talents. The summary of relevant literature that
follows will provide support for these overarching themes and highlight additional
approaches schools might take in executing their plans to increase student achievement.
Data-driven decision making. The barriers to constructive, regular use of student
assessment data to improve instruction often seem insurmountable. There is just so much
data. A group of faculty and doctoral students at the Harvard Graduate School of
Education and school leaders from three Boston public schools worked together for over
two years to determine what school leaders need to know to improve student learning in
their schools. What originally started as a yearlong workshop at Harvard evolved into the
book Data Wise (Boudett, City & Murnane, 2005). The book outlines the steps of the
Data Wise process, which is grounded in research and reflects real practice that has
helped school leaders analyze data and enhance student learning. Boudett et al. (2005)
believes that the research and practice currently exists to help schools:
What effective schools look like is not a mystery. They have a coherent
instructional program well-aligned with strong standards. They have a
community of adults committed to working together to develop the skills and
knowledge of all children. They have figured out how to find the time to do this
work and are acquiring the skills to do it well. (p. 3)

Effective schools put research and practice into action. In line with what Marzano (2003)
and Odden (2009) suggest, schools need to place the focus on high-quality instruction.
As evidenced in the success stories of Boston schools that Boudett et al. (2005) reference
throughout Data Wise, when students receive consistent, high-quality instruction, scores
on high-stakes tests rise. While analyzing data from state standardized tests to improve
student test scores is clearly important, Boudett et al. (2005) notes that successful schools
49
move beyond this narrow focus to use the valuable information gleaned from test data to
help students develop skills they will need far beyond graduation.
The Data Wise improvement process (Boudett, 2005) is represented graphically in
Figure 2.3. Making data-driven decisions requires movement through various tasks that
do more than integrate data into the culture of the school. Schools can be transformed
into learning organizations capable of continuous introspection and improvement as they
complete these steps: explore an area of low student achievement, dig into multiple data
sources to illuminate learner-centered problems of understanding, investigate ways in
which instructional practices contribute to issues of understanding and collaboratively
come to a determination of better practice to improve student learning (Boudett et al.,
2005).
Figure 2.3: Graphical Representation of the Data Wise Process Elements

(Source: Boudett et al., 2005)
50
The authors have been very conscious about drawing the Data Wise improvement
process as an arrow curving back on itself. There is no “end” but rather a continuous
effort to repeat the cycle with further inquiry. Boudett, et al. (2005) acknowledge that
making data-based decisions may be stalled by structural and cultural barriers, including
the following: principals that are overwhelmed, teachers that often are not held
accountable for changing practice and the reality that giving critical feedback to peers is
usually uncomfortable. To combat this, research by Boudett et al. (2005) indicates that
principals’ leadership and endorsement of data-driven decision making is critical, but
delegating to strongly built teams in the school makes work more manageable and honors
the talents of teachers. Complementing the work of Odden (2009), Data Wise
researchers find that integrating instructional coaches and teacher leaders into the process
helps support teachers and holds them accountable for implementation of new strategies
(Boudett et al., 2005).
Standards-aligned assessment programs. As Boudett et al. (2005) emphasized
throughout their work with Boston schools, using summative assessment data provides a
broad overview of student achievement. Darling-Hammond (2002) also reports that in
her study of successful schools, integrating performance-based assessment was a key
component. When making decisions about how to best serve students, data needs to
come from a variety of sources. McIntire (2005) argues that perhaps the most effective
means of using data analysis to improve educational efficiency is through formative
assessments. McIntire (2005) explains how formative assessments have the power to
change instructional practice:
51
Sophisticated formative assessments provide a “neutral” source of aligned content
at the appropriate performance level. This is particularly important in schools
where there is a mismatch between the level of classroom teaching and
assessment and the level of the material assessed by the high-stakes test. In
chronically low performing schools, it is common for students who get As and Bs
on classroom assessments to perform below or at basic on state high-stakes
assessments. The problem is that teachers spend most of their time teaching
below “grade level” and below the level assessed by high-stakes state tests. (p. 3)

In its 2005 report Gaining Traction, Gaining Ground: How Some High Schools
Accelerate Learning for Struggling Students, the Education Trust defines high impact
schools as those that embrace external standards and assessments. Where these standards
and exams are unavailable, teachers at the school create them and use results to actively
monitor student performance and arrange for help if needed (The Education Trust, 2005).
Marzano and Waters (2009) cite districts that deploy formative assessments as part of
their assessment program in all schools create a value-added system that is effective for
several reasons: the assessments do not detract from instructional time; students and
teachers benefit by formative assessments focusing on specific elements of instruction;
and teachers can provide feedback to students who also can monitor their progress on a
consistent basis. The various reports referenced in this section indicate that internal
assessment programs that supplement state-mandated tests are another tool schools use to
help determine where to allocate resources to more effectively reach students, improve
instruction and move schools forward.
Professional development. Current research indicates that professional
development is a key element to improving schools (Marzano, 2003; Odden, Archibald,
Fermanich & Gallagher, 2002; Odden & Picus, 2008; Reeves, 2010). This is evidenced
by its inclusion in the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) with significant
52
resources dedicated to collaborative planning, job-embedded professional development and
ongoing curriculum development and review. In fact, Odden & Picus (2008) recommend
upwards of 200 hours of professional development annually in addition to daily planning and
preparation time, extensive coaching for teachers and the dedicated focus of all faculty and
administrators on content and curriculum aligned to content standards. This focus, suggests
Odden et al. (2002), will make professional development truly effective, producing a change
in teachers’ classroom-based instructional practice, which can be linked to improvements in
student learning.
To this end, Marzano’s (2003) analysis of the literature on effective professional
development notes three features with the strongest relationship to a change in teacher
behavior: (1) a focus on content and pedagogical strategies for teachers in the context of
their specific subject areas, (2) opportunities for active learning, which includes actually
using the strategies and examining their impact on student achievement, and (3) staff
development design that is seen as coherent and integrated with the instructional
program.
Effective teaching. Reeves (2010) reframes the concept of what educators
traditionally refer to as professional development and calls for a more consistent,
sustained professional learning environment for teachers and school leaders. In
particular, Reeves (2010) makes a distinction between “training” and “developing”
teachers. The latter sees teachers as resources that possess skills that can be used to
promote better teaching and student performance. By investing in the development of
53
teachers’ knowledge and influencing their practices, professional learning has the
potential to not only impact student learning but that of teachers as well.
High-impact professional learning has three characteristics: (1) a focus on student
learning, (2) rigorous measurement of adult decisions and (3) a focus on people and
practices not programs (Reeves, 2010). This model builds on the goals of current
accountability movements by aligning professional development programs to standards-
based instruction. Because the model is outcomes based, a sense of responsibility is
instilled in staff because they understand the investment in their learning must yield some
result.
The programs described by Marzano (2003) and Reeves (2010) are best
summarized in this way: “The more comprehensive the form, the longer the duration and
the greater the collective participation, the higher the cost—and, incidentally, the more
effective the program” (Odden et al., 2002, p. 71). The investment of resources in
developing professionals should translate into results. And, the extent to which a staff
member develops is measured by the effectiveness of his or her practice. In this case, the
accountability piece extends to both teacher and student.
Teachers as experts. Instructional coaches are key to making professional
development work (Odden & Picus, 2008). These coaches coordinate the instructional
program and provide critical ongoing instructional coaching and mentoring that is necessary
for teachers to improve their instructional practice. In the Evidence-Based Model (Odden &
Picus, 2008), coaches are represented as teachers that spend the bulk of their time in
classrooms, modeling lessons, giving feedback to teachers and helping improve the
54
instructional program. Still, leadership cannot rest in the hands of only a select few. As
school reform efforts take hold in schools, Odden (2009) explains: “Leadership emerges at
all levels in the system, and it is the combined effect of this distributed leadership that
helps improve instructional practice that produces ambitiously high student performance
results” (p. 107).
Distributed leadership focuses less on macro tasks and more on micro tasks
(Spillane, Halverson & Diamond, 2001). This approach allows educators who are
experts at specific tasks to share their expertise with others. Spillane, et al. (2001)
explain that leadership emerges in both thinking and activity when there is interaction
between leaders, followers and the right situations.
Collaboration. Resnick and Hall (2005) explain that establishing the context for
these interactions is critical if schools are to become learning organizations:
Environments in which a lot of strategic problem solving is going on are ones in
which people view themselves as getting smarter. And they actually are getting
smarter because they are learning a whole body of skills, processes, habits of
mind and attitudes that are what we now can define as intelligence. (p. 10)

DuFour, DuFour, Eaker and Many (2006) propose that schools create structures to
support collaboration, such as assigning teachers to teams or cohorts. In a Professional
Learning Community (PLC) model, collaborative teams work interdependently to
achieve common goals linked to the purpose of learning for all (DuFour et al., 2006).
PLCs create a team that relies on one another to accomplish goals set around data,
planning, analysis and reflection. Some schools have relied on peer observations to
improve collaboration and sharing of best practices. When educators observe each other
and allow themselves to be observed, they move back and forth between teacher and
55
learner, developing their knowledge about pedagogy (Resnick & Hall, 1998). Darling-
Hammond (2002) sees these observations as a type of positive peer pressure that results
from making teaching public and talking about it regularly.
School culture. Many of the strategies described in the sections above did not
automatically make schools successful. The change process involved a shift in school
culture. Most schools have to work through a set of shared convictions as a first step in
their reorganization process (Darling-Hammond, 2002). Those beliefs must then be
translated into action. Darling-Hammond (2002) reminds educators that high standards
and consistent curriculum alone cannot improve student performance. In successful
schools, teachers employ a variety of instructional and monitoring strategies that include
scaffolding, direct instruction and continued support for students who need assistance. In
effective schools, teacher learning is a continuous process. These schools invest heavily
in collaborative planning and ongoing professional development. Teachers work together
to develop the curriculum, to develop lessons and to evaluate student work.
Perhaps what is most interesting about the successful schools Darling-Hammond
(2002) describes is that they are small, close-knit school communities. A high-quality
education starts with relationships, and personalizing education helps build a sense of
strong family and community connections (Darling-Hammond, 2002). When schools are
structured to allow teachers to care for students effectively, students develop trust, and
students begin to believe that accomplishing the school’s goals will be important to their
own success (Darling-Hammond, 2002). An overall sense of respect permeates these
campuses because relationships are allowed to develop over time. By creating a culture
56
where all stakeholders are more intimately connected, there is more clarity when it comes
to identifying talents, strengths and resources, which certainly can help streamline the
process of allocating those resources efficiently and effectively to improve student
learning.
Relationship Between the District and the Schools
Resnick and Hall (1998) track the school reform efforts of the 20th century and
describe them as mere “tinkering” that has had little impact on established patterns of
teaching and learning. Districts and schools that are successful in raising student
achievement shift from this norm by becoming learning organizations (Resnick & Hall,
2008). An education system that is a learning organization must “treat the upgrading of
instructional competencies as a key part of its definition of professionalism. It should be
structured to inspire—and, when necessary, require—continuous learning on the part of
everyone in the system, from teachers to senior administrators” (Resnick & Hall, 1998, p.
109).
While the literature emphasizes using the knowledge and talents of staff at the
school site to lead reform efforts, they cannot do it alone. This is why Togneri and
Anderson (2003) state that districts need to adopt systemwide approaches to improve
teaching and learning and create support systems. A broader scope of vision and
strategies is required to transfer district-wide efforts into student achievement at each
school site. Marzano and Waters (2009) sought to determine if a relationship exists
between district-level administrative actions and student achievement. While the public
and even some in the field of education question the efficacy and impact of K-12
57
administrators, the study conducted by Marzano and Waters (2009) indicates that district
leadership has a measurable effect on student achievement.
After conducting a meta-analysis of educational research from 1970 to 2005, the
researchers have indentified five district-level responsibilities that most directly impact
student learning: (1) ensuring collaborative goal setting, (2) establishing nonnegotiable
goals for achievement and instruction, (3) creating board alignment with and support of
district goals, (4) monitoring achievement and instruction goals and (5) allocating
resources to support the goals for achievement and instruction (Marzano & Waters,
2009). Odden (2009) admits that in some cases, schools can produce dramatic
improvements in student learning on their own, but it certainly is facilitated if there is
support from the central office. Marzano and Waters (2009) take this notion further by
suggesting that district leaders should adopt a proactive stance that ensures certain
uniform behaviors occur in every school in every classroom.
While central office leadership may be needed to move all schools in a district
onto the pathway toward doubling performance (Odden, 2009), it is necessary to strike
the right balance between direction and school support (Marzano & Waters, 2009). To
accomplish this, the districts and school sites establish a unique relationship where they
shift from loosely coupled entities to tightly coupled networks focused on high student
achievement systemwide. Furthermore, the Marzano and Waters (2009) study finds that
when districts and schools adopt an attitude of “defined autonomy” as a norm in their
relationships, schools have flexibility to innovate while still adhering to the collaborative
goals set and monitored by the district.
58
Togneri and Anderson (2003) underscore the importance of extending leadership
traditionally held by superintendents and principals to assistant principals, teachers and
union leaders. When trust exists between these parties, there also develops an
understanding that making a difference takes time. Successful interplay between district
leaders and school sites requires a commitment to sustaining reform over the long haul
and growing together in their approaches to change and to better understanding each
other’s work (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). To this end, both Marzano and Waters (2009)
and Togneri and Anderson (2003) found in their studies of successful districts that
continuity of leadership in board member, superintendent and principal positions—tenure
lasting eight years or more—has a positive effect on student achievement. And, when
these leaders leave the district, boards often choose to hire from within, providing
additional stability and a way to sustain reform efforts after their departure (Togneri &
Anderson, 2003).
The Current Climate in California
California is under tremendous pressure to finance education at both legally and
politically adequate levels while also using the right strategies to get more students to
master the state’s content standards. This section outlines where California currently
stands on both fronts and underscores the importance of carrying out this study in such a
climate.
Student achievement. The federal NCLB law measures the academic success of
schools and districts based on their academic performance index (API), graduation rates,
and student participation rates and scores on standardized tests. The participation rates
59
and the test scores of students, both as a whole and as subgroups, must meet all the
benchmarks in order for districts and schools to attain Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
In 2008-2009, to have made AYP, schools must have: (1) tested 95% of students in each
significant subgroup, (2) had an API score of at least 650 or increased it by one point and
(3) for high schools, achieved a graduation rate of at least 83.1% (EdSource, 2010d).
Along the way, the state sets annual benchmarks called annual measurable
objectives (AMOs) for the percentage of students who should be proficient in English
and mathematics. Figure 2.4 indicates that for 2008-2009, only 56% of schools in
California met these AMOs.
Figure 2.4: Schools that Met AYP Goals (AMOs) from 2004-2005 to 2008-2009

(Source: EdSource, 2010d)
AYP is determined by how many students score proficient or advanced on
California Standards Tests (CST) in English-Language Arts and Mathematics and passing
scores of 75% and 70% on the English and Math portions, respectively, of the California
High School Exit Exam (EdSource, 2010d). The data in Figure 2.4 indicate that as
60
federal and state performance targets rise over time, the percentage of schools meeting
those targets drops considerably. This reality represents a major question about the
efficacy of California schools and their ability to meet the challenge of educating students
to the desired level of proficiency in state content standards.
EdSource (2010e) shares more troubling news about California students’
performance on California state assessments: only half of students are proficient in
English-Language Arts and less than half are proficient in Mathematics. The results of
the California High School Exit Exam offer a glimmer of hope. In order to graduate,
public high school students must pass this exam, which tests ninth and tenth grade
English standards and sixth and seventh grade mathematics standards. Ninety-one
percent of the students in the class of 2009 passed the exam by the time they reached
grade 12. Still, there are great disparities in achievement as indicated by the lowest pass
rates of Hispanic/Latino and African American students, with pass rates of 87% and 81,
respectively (EdSource, 2010e). How California schools choose to allocate resources to
reach these struggling student groups is the ever-present challenge.
School finance. As earlier sections of this literature review indicate, local school
districts’ fiscal stability has been challenged because their revenues are linked to the
state’s budget. The economic crisis that has affected schools since late 2008 has resulted
in public education in California receiving $18 billion less in state funding than
anticipated over the last two budget years (California Department of Education, 2010).
As part of the overall budget solutions affecting funding for both 2008-2009 and 2009-
2010, policymakers repeatedly cut funding for K-12 schools (EdSource, 2010f). As
61
Figure 2.5 shows, Proposition 98 funding—originally intended to provide a minimum
funding guarantee—has fluctuated since 2007-2008, resulting in a nearly $6 billion loss
in education funding.
Figure 2.5: California K-12 Proposition 98 Funding, 2007-2008 through 2009-2010

(Source: EdSource, 2010f)
Many categorical funds were cut as well, but lawmakers have allowed districts to
use funds from about 40 programs, referred to as Tier III programs, at their discretion
until 2012-2013 (EdSource, 2010f). California schools continue to learn how to make
their schools function despite receiving less funding. Pressure from both state and federal
agencies to increase performance has not eased during the recession, and fewer available
fiscal resources make it impossible to maintain previous spending patterns. California
districts have issued pink slips to more than 20,000 teachers, eliminated summer school,
increased class sizes and cut programs (California Department of Education, 2010).
62
The ever-changing political and economic pressures require educators to make
important decisions about how to reorganize and reallocate resources to meet the
challenge of less money but increased demand to raise student performance. In
California, though, there are still questions about what priority education has in this state.
Loeb, Bryk and Hanushek (2007) point out that California spends below the national
average in terms of per-pupil expenditures, while still maintaining teacher salaries that
are far higher than the national average. Table 2.3 compares California with the U.S.
average and the top- and bottom-ranking in teacher salaries and expenditures per pupil.
Table 2.3: Average Teacher Salaries and Expenditures per Pupil, 2008-2009
California
Rank in U.S.
California
Average
U.S. Average Highest Lowest
Teachers’
salaries
(2008-2009)
2 $68,093 $54,319
$69,118
(New York)
$35,070 (South
Dakota)
Expenditures
per pupil
(2008-2009)
43 $8,322 $10,190
$17,638
(District of
Columbia)
$5,912 (Utah)
(Source: NEA, 2009)
To rank near the bottom in per-pupil expenditures has frightened and astonished
many in the public. While the economic crisis has caused serious financial burdens for
the entire country, there are still concerns that California lacks the vision and funding
structures to assure education in the public school system will yield positive results in
student achievement.
Californians once again took the State to court on May 20, 2010 in a lawsuit
representing 60 individual student plaintiffs and parents and three statewide association
plaintiffs: the California School Boards Association, the Association of California School
Administrators and the California State PTA (California School Finance, 2010). The
63
Robles-Wong et al. v. State of California suit alleges that the State’s current school
finance system is based on outdated and irrational formulas and policies, which has
resulted in a failure to fulfill its constitutional obligation to support public schools. The
plaintiffs seek to have the State’s school finance declared unconstitutional and have a
new finance system developed (California School Finance, 2010).
The drift toward state centralization of education governance over the past 30
years has culminated in legislative micro-management of schools. Increasingly, policy
makers in Sacramento have come to believe that they can better target resources to
educational needs than district officials (Timar, 2004). The California public has a
different view, with the majority believing that the quality of K-12 education is a major
problem and that there is not enough state funding going to public schools (Baldassare,
Bonner, Petek & Willcoxon, 2010). With this lack of confidence in public officials to
make the right decisions, much is expected of educators at the local level to use their
current resources wisely to model the kinds of practices that can push students toward
mastery of standards and higher academic achievement.
Conclusion
In the world of education, nothing can exist in isolation. Particularly, for schools
to be successful and for students to achieve at high levels, a link must be made between
the financial resources, the professionals who work in schools and the educational
strategies they use to promote learning (Loeb et al., 2007; Odden & Picus, 2008). The
existing body of educational literature and successful school studies indicate that when an
64
effective combination of financial, human and programmatic elements exists, schools can
be transformed and students will perform at the desired level.
The studies referenced and the promising practices described by almost all the
authors pay particular attention to people and their talents by honoring the wisdom of
educators (Darling-Hammond, 2002; Odden & Picus, 2008). It is just a matter of getting
the right people and strategies in place in order to have the greatest impact. Fortunately,
the evidence-based approach (Odden, 2003; Odden & Picus, 2008) establishes this
critical link and provides specific guidance for teachers and leadership teams. Schools
can achieve this perfect combination—the ideal alignment of resources and strategies—
by adopting Marzano and Waters’s (2009) rational approach to school governance, which
includes a balance of centralization and local decision making.
As the literature indicates, the path to creating better educational opportunities is a
process. And, there often will be conflicting perspectives on how to engage that process.
Even when the public argues that schools need more money (Baldassare et al., 2010;
Odden, 2009), some experts assert that the increase of education spending over the years
has not led to any clear link between the spending and student achievement (Hanushek &
Lindseth, 2009). These conflicting views leave many to wonder if money really matters
at all and if there are any right approaches to many of the dilemmas facing public
education.
One thing is certain: the current state of the economy and the current level of
resources are, limiting, but also empowering. They force school leaders to work with
what they have and, in some cases, they innovate by trying new strategies and creating
65
networks of resources. The literature explored in this chapter on how to allocate
resources for an adequate education and the strategies that research proves works in
schools can give these leaders some sense of hope. There also exists limitless promise, as
this study intentionally exposes, in the lessons successful schools can teach in the ways
they work within fiscal constraints to lead students to mastery of standards and higher
levels of learning.
 

66
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This chapter presents an overview of how the study was conducted, including a
brief review of the purpose of the study and the research questions, how the sample
schools was selected, the instruments that were used and how data was collected and
analyzed.
Government and education leaders in California have long struggled to identify
the financial resources needed for students to meet academic standards. One approach
for estimating what those resources are is the Evidence-Based Model developed by Allan
R. Odden and Lawrence O. Picus (2008). This study was one of twelve studies that
explored school level data in California schools to determine how resources were used to
accomplish the vision of the schools. The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008)
was used as a means of comparison to examine how resources were used in the sample
schools compared to effective, research-based practices. In addition, Odden’s (2009) 10
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance was the framework for understanding what
strategies schools used at the local level to improve student performance.
To be better understand the decisions and strategies used by schools, the study set
out to answer these four research questions:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
67
3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response
to the recent budget adjustments, including overall funding reductions and
changes in the use of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based or other
Model?
This study utilized a multiple methods research design augmented by case studies
of the sample schools. The unit of analysis for this study was successful Southern
California high schools within one school district. While funds follow a complicated
path down from the state to county offices of education and local school districts,
ultimately the decisions about how to utilize staff and the significant decisions that affect
student performance take place at the local school sites. Principals and other instructional
leaders typically are responsible for setting the school’s instructional focus and working
with staff to achieve the goals they establish. Studying individual schools provided
information about how resources were directly used to reach students.
Sample and Population
In determining a sample for this study, it was important to identify schools with a
track record of success. That is, these were schools whose students showed continuous
improvement among all subgroups on state exams as evidenced by sustained growth on
the Academic Performance Index (API). A representative sample of California schools
was not a requirement of this study as the relevant information to be gleaned by studying
these schools was to come in the form of case studies of successful local high schools and
68
lessons learned about school resource allocation. There exists the potential to transfer
these lessons into tangible practice that may be used to achieve success at other schools
in the state.
As Patton (2002) describes, an intensity sample provides an information-rich case
that manifests the phenomenon intensely, but not extremely (p. 243). In this case,
sustained school improvement evidenced by increases in API in California schools is the
phenomenon. This study may also be defined as critical case sampling as “critical cases
are those than can make a point quite dramatically or are, for some reason, particularly
important in the scheme of things” (Patton, 2002, p. 236). As was the case here, the
schools studied demonstrated consistent improvement, which reflected the strategies they
had chosen and the decisions they had made in relation to resource allocation. Patton
(2002) advises: “Pick the site that would yield the most information and have the greatest
impact on the development of knowledge” (p. 236). Therefore, the schools selected for
this study were highly successful and had a history of making student achievement a
priority. In order to achieve a sense of consistency and to maximize efficiency, the
sample size consisted of three high schools within one school district. It should be noted
that due to the physical and financial constraints of the researcher, the sample was
restricted to the Los Angeles region.
Three high schools in Cloud Unified School District (CUSD) were identified for
this study as they met the requirement of sustained academic achievement over a series of
several school years. The schools were: Stratus High School, Cumulus High School and
Cirrus High School. These schools served a range of ethnically and linguistically diverse
69
students. Two of the schools were Title I schools and were located in areas with lower
socioeconomic conditions and neighborhoods with greater proportions of immigrant
families. While one of the schools demonstrated consistently higher student achievement
in terms of API scores, it should be noted that all schools in the sample achieved growth
in API well beyond the state’s targets. The CUSD as a district also experienced
tremendous growth in API—from 734 in 2002 to 842 in 2010. Of particular interest was
that approximately 30 USC Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) program alumni hold key school
leadership positions across the district, ranging from classroom teacher to Superintendent.
Like districts across the state of California, CUSD struggled with continuing to
provide quality academic and extracurricular programs despite the budget cuts. In an
effort to remain fiscally solvent, CUSD drastically cut administrative and support
positions, changed staffing ratios to increase class size and issued reduction in force
notices to approximately seventy teachers, which took effect in the 2010-2011 school
year. In addition, approximately seventy teachers and eleven administrators took
advantage of a generous early retirement package. The district was able to make
consistent student achievement gains despite experiencing drastic cuts in finances from
the state and the loss of hundreds of years of personnel leadership and experience. The
lessons learned from schools in this district provide insight into the practices, decisions
and strategies of educational leaders to continue to make strides even under the most
difficult financial conditions.
70
Instrumentation and Data Collection
In order to maintain a standardization of the data collection among the twelve
researchers collecting data from different schools in California, the researchers received a
full-day training by Lawrence O. Picus in March 2010. Dr. Picus trained the members of
the thematic dissertation group to use protocols and codebooks focusing on data
collection, site visit preparation, interviews, data entry and data analysis. The
instruments were designed to gather detailed information about how the schools used
resources to improve student performance and accomplish the school’s vision.
The University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed
information pertaining to this study and concluded that the project did not qualify as
Human Subjects Research. School site principals were then contacted by phone, e-mail
and in person to obtain consent to participate in the study. Because the study centered on
three high schools in the same school district, the researcher made contact with the
Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent, Educational
Services to secure permission to conduct the study and ensure participation of district
level administrators in interviews.
Quantitative data collection. To better comprehend the decisions made by local
leaders, first, an evaluation of existing documents was completed to gather quantitative
data and develop an initial picture of the priorities of the school. The quantitative data
collected was entered into a secure online data entry system created by Lawrence O.
Picus and Associates. The database houses specific school level resource indicators on
California schools, and it is aligned with the school expenditure structure model
71
developed by Odden, Archibald, Fermanich and Gross (2003). The quantitative data
collection protocol (Appendix F) supported the creation of a school and district profile
with appropriate contact information for school and district leaders and these data points:
1. School resource indicators
a. Current school enrollment
b. Number of English Language Learner (ELL) students
c. Number of students qualifying for Free or Reduced Lunch
d. Number of special education students
e. Total length of school day
f. Length of instructional day
g. Length of core classes
h. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
i. Academic Performance Index (API)
2. School expenditure structure
a. Core academic teachers
b. Specialist and elective teachers
c. Library staff
d. Extra help staff
e. Other instructional staff
f. Professional development staff and costs
g. Student services staff
h. Administration
72
The data collection instrumentation and practices were standardized among the twelve
researchers in a data collection codebook (Appendix G), which allowed for comparisons
to be made across the studies. Once the data collection process was complete, additional
conversations with school leaders tracked down missing and unclear data.
Qualitative data collection. To supplement the insight gleaned from the initial
document review, an interview with the school principal and related decision-makers at
the school was conducted. The researcher utilized a semi-structured, open-ended
interview. An interview guide was prepared to standardize the questions asked of each
principal. There was a predetermined sequence of themes and questions seeking specific
data regarding each school site’s strategies for improving student performance, but was
flexible enough to meet the unique circumstances of each school. The open-ended
interview questions that were developed as part of the interview protocol (Appendices D-
E) were aligned with the research questions and were used to generate descriptive
understandings of the schools. Nuances of the school’s resource allocation strategies
were clarified in the interview stage by answering these six overarching questions:
1. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy
2. What were the resource pieces of the strategy? How long have the resources
been in place?
3. Was the improvement effort centrist (central office orchestrated) or bottom
up?
4. What type of instructional leadership was present?
5. Was there accountability built into this improvement plan?
73
6. What additional resources would be needed to continue and expand your
efforts?
To further understand the strategies used by schools and to discover any potential
linkages between the sample schools’ strategies, interviews with school district
administrators were conducted with the goal of understanding the relationship of the
district leadership and their priorities and how they were related to the high schools in
terms of resource allocation and instructional vision.
Case studies. A case study of each school was generated after the document
analysis and interviews were completed. The case study included background on the
school, longitudinal API, CST and CAHSEE data, an introduction to the elements of the
school’s improvement process and lessons learned from the school’s approach to
resource allocation. In addition, the case study compared the actual resource use in the
school to that which would be provided in the Evidence-Based funding model.
Data Analysis
After data collection and entry was completed, case studies were written for each
sample school. The case studies presented the quantitative and qualitative data collected
through document analysis and administrator interviews in graphical and narrative form.
The purpose of the case studies was to tell the story of how each sample school
endeavored to achieve its instructional vision through specific resource allocation and the
use of research-based school improvement strategies. A summary of the administrator
interviews was integrated into Chapter Four to synthesize the district office perspective
on resource allocation and the carrying out of the districtwide instructional vision.
74
An additional benefit of the utilization of the case study process was that it
allowed for the identification of similarities, differences and trends across the schools
within the same district. Of particular interest was comparing how closely the schools
studied aligned to the Evidence-Based Model in their allocation of resources. In addition,
the relationship of the district office priorities and resource allocation strategies and their
alignment with site level resource allocation and school improvement strategies yielded
lessons on what strategies were working and their potential transferability to other
schools.
Given the impact of the current fiscal crisis on school districts throughout
California, the decrease of state funding for education has challenged school leaders to
allocate resources with more precision and efficiency than ever before. By creating a
detailed analysis of existing resources and using interviews of school site leaders, this
study described how these educators made strategic decisions to reorganize and reallocate
people, programs and priorities in light of decreased funding, yet increasing
accountability. This study also incorporated the perspective of the central office and its
approach to navigating these troubled waters by analyzing the level of vision, leadership
and support it provided to individual school sites as they endeavored to make a positive
impact on student achievement.
The resulting data from this study has important policy implications and practical
application at the federal, state, and local levels as legislators and educators work to
develop a network of resources that adequately educates all learners, improves student
75
learning and helps close the achievement gap. The next chapter will present the findings
of the individual case studies.

76
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine resource allocation practices that result
in improvements in student achievement. This section presents findings that were
obtained by case studies of three comprehensive high schools (Appendices H-J) within
one school district in Southern California. The strategies used at the schools and in the
district then were compared to the resource allocation strategies recommended by the
Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). Compounding the challenge of the
resource allocation question is the current fiscal crisis currently affecting the nation.
Funding for schools in California has been cut from previously anticipated levels by more
than $18 billion, or about $1,900 per student, over the past three years (EdSource, 2010f),
and more cuts are expected.
As school leaders make difficult decisions about how to reallocate their resources
in challenging economic times, the lessons learned from the sample schools and district
in this study may provide evidence of effective funding strategies that bring about desired
academic outcomes. In addition, Odden’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance framework was used to better understand the instructional and
organizational strategies that complemented the resource allocation piece at the schools
as they endeavored to improve student performance. The four research questions guiding
this study were:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
77
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation of resources at the school change in response to the recent
budget adjustments, including overall funding reductions and changes in the use
of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based or other
Model?
Sample overview. This study used a purposeful sample of three public
comprehensive high schools within the Cloud Unified School District (CUSD) in a
suburb of Los Angeles, California that had a strong track record of success. The gains in
student achievement at the sample schools and within the CUSD are a reflection of the
strategies they have chosen and the decisions they have made in relation to resource
allocation.
The CUSD has served students in the city of Cloud for over 100 years in its 20
elementary schools, four middle schools, three comprehensive senior high schools, one
continuation school, one magnet high school that emphasizes science and technology, a
developmental center for multi-handicapped students, and numerous preschool/childcare
centers that serve preschool and/or elementary school children. The District’s overall
student population is 26,500 students, and the high schools range in size from 2,000 to
3,000 students.
78
In many ways, the district and its three comprehensive high schools—Stratus
High School, Cumulus High School and Cirrus High School—mirror the demographics
of the county and the state. The schools serve a range of ethnically and linguistically
diverse students. While over half of students in CUSD schools are classified as White, it
is important to note that a significant number of these students identify as Middle
Eastern. Specifically, they are of Armenian descent. The next largest minority group in
the district is Hispanic/Latino. At Cumulus High School, Hispanic/Latino students make
up 31.0% of the student body and at Cirrus High School, this group accounts for 25.1%
of the student population. Stratus High School has few Hispanic/Latino students (9.7%),
but does have a significant Asian (31.8%) population. The students classified as Asian
predominantly self-identify as Korean; however, a number of other countries of origin are
represented in this group. The Filipino population at Stratus and Cirrus High Schools
fluctuate, but there is a steady group of Filipino students (11.3%) that are a part of
Cumulus High School. Figure 4.1 graphically shows the ethnic breakdown of all students
at the high schools compared to the district, county and state.
79
Figure 4.1: Sample Schools Demographics, 2009-2010

Cloud Unified celebrates the diversity of its students. Like many schools and
districts though California, the high schools in this study find that the complexity of
working with such diverse student populations presents various challenges. For example,
a quarter of students in CUSD are English Language Learners (ELL), and this also holds
true at Cumulus HS and Cirrus HS, with 22.2% and 23.4% ELL, respectively. Stratus
High School has far fewer ELL students—only 6.0%. In any case, almost all the ELL
students at the high school level in this district are new arrivals to the country and are the
focus of aggressive reclassification efforts. Over fifty percent of the student population at
both Cumulus HS and Cirrus HS comes from socioeconomically disadvantaged
backgrounds, as represented by their participation in the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch
Program. Again, Stratus HS serves a smaller (9.6%) population of socioeconomically
disadvantaged students. The special education population at the high schools is under ten
80
percent. Table 4.1 presents a breakdown of the students participating in special programs
at the sample high schools and a comparison of averages at the district, county and state
levels.
Table 4.1: Sample Schools Special Program Participation Comparison, 2009-2010

Total
Enrollment
%
ELL
% Free and Reduced-Price
Lunch
% Special
Education
Stratus HS 2,944 6.0% 9.6% 6.7%
Cumulus HS 2,847 22.2% 54.0% 9.3%
Cirrus HS 2,059 23.4% 53.5% 7.0%
District 26,506 24.0% 43.9% 8.4%
County 1,585,069 26.0% 65.5% 10.7%
State 6,143,159 23.7% 55.9% 10.3%

As the profile above indicates, Stratus High School serves a significantly different
population than Cumulus and Cirrus. Stratus HS is located in the northern city limits,
while Cumulus and Cirrus are located in the downtown area with higher concentrations
of lower socioeconomic conditions and neighborhoods with greater proportions of
immigrant families. Given these circumstances and the makeup of their student
populations, both Cumulus and Cirrus are Title I schools. Nevertheless, the high schools
and the district have worked to meet the challenge of serving the needs of a diverse
student population while also promoting high levels of academic achievement.
Each school and the district overall has demonstrated sustained growth on the
Academic Performance Index (API). Since 2002, the District API has grown 108
points—from 734 to 842. Figure 4.2 graphically represents the upward trajectory of the
CUSD’s API and the district’s commitment to student achievement over the years.
81
Figure 4.2: CUSD District API Trend, 2002-2010

Likewise, the three sample high schools have followed suit, raising their schoolwide API
scores significantly over the last decade. Cumulus High School has seen the largest
growth of all the high schools by gaining 160 points since 2001. The API at Cumulus
started at 594 in 2001 and steadied at 754 the past two years. Cirrus High School has yet
to see a leveling off in its schoolwide API score, but has suffered a couple of dips over
the years. Still, the 138-point growth schoolwide since 2001 has put Cirrus High School
closer to the state target of 800. Stratus High School started off much higher than its
counterparts in the district with an API of 754 in 2001. While schools with higher API
scores tend to make smaller gains from year to year, Stratus has had success in raising the
schoolwide API to 883 in 2010—an overall growth of 129 points. Figure 4.3 illustrates
the growth of API scores made by the sample schools over a ten-year period.
82
Figure 4.3: Sample Schools API Ten-Year Growth

Academic achievement data of sample schools. While it appears that Stratus
High School far outperforms Cumulus and Cirrus High Schools, a closer look at sample
school data indicates that significant subgroups at all schools are making academic
progress as measured by the California Standards Test (CST) scores. The dominant
ethnic groups—White, Hispanic/Latino and Asian—in all sample schools have
demonstrated positive gains in their API scores over the past five years.
The Academic Performance Index. Asian students continue to score the highest
API at each sample school. From 2006 to 2010, the Asian subgroup from all sample
schools increased an average of 26 API points (an average of 870 to 897), with Cirrus HS
demonstrating the most significant growth over this time span. Figure 4.4 indicates that
the Asian subgroup at each of the high schools lost some traction along the way with a
83
few dips, but increased performance overall: Stratus rose eight points, from 910 to 918;
Cumulus rose 28 points, from 860 to 888; and Cirrus climbed 44 points, from 841 to 885.
Figure 4.4: Sample Schools Asian Subgroup API Five-Year Trend

White students, who make up the majority of the population at each of the sample
schools, are the second highest performing subgroup. The average API score across the
three sample schools started at 778 in 2006 and rose to 796 in 2010, representing an
average growth of 18 API points. At Stratus HS, the White subgroup’s API rose from
855 in 2006 to 875 in 2010. Over those five years, Cumulus HS saw its White subgroup
grow from 722 to 747. Cirrus High School’s White subgroup grew from 757 to 766 since
2006. While Figure 4.5 demonstrates that the White subgroup has strong API scores and
shows a positive trend in achievement, there still exists an achievement gap between
Asian students and White students in these sample schools.
84
Figure 4.5: Sample Schools White Subgroup API Five-Year Trend

The Hispanic/Latino subgroup has demonstrated considerable growth in API
scores from 2006 to 2010. The average API for Hispanic/Latino students across the three
sample schools was 723 in 2006 and rose to 760 in 2010—an average increase of
approximately 37 points. At Stratus HS, the school with the greatest increase (46 points)
in Hispanic/Latino API of the sample schools, this subgroup’s API rose from 785 in 2006
to 831 in 2010. Stratus is the only school in the study whose Hispanic/Latino students
broke the 800 mark. Cumulus High School’s Hispanic/Latino API increased 43 points,
rising from 675 in 2006 to 718 in 2010. Over this same five-year period, the
Hispanic/Latino subgroup at Cirrus HS achieved a 21-point gain—moving from 709 to
730. Figure 4.6 indicates significant API growth for Hispanic/Latino students at each of
the sample schools and suggests that the achievement gap is even wider between this
group of students and the other top performing Asian and White students.
85
Figure 4.6: Sample Schools Hispanic/Latino Subgroup API Five-Year Trend

Despite positive gains made by the significant subgroups at the sample schools,
an achievement gap continues to exist between the Asian and White subgroups. As
indicated above, the Asian and White subgroups across the sample schools both increased
their API scores by an average of 26 and 18 points, respectively. However, the overall
API subgroup scores showed that the Asian subgroup continued to score approximately
between 43 and 140 points higher than the White subgroup over time. Table 4.2 shows
the gap between Asian and White subgroup APIs from 2006 to 2010.
Table 4.2: Sample Schools Asian-White API Achievement Gap, 2006-2010

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Change
2006-2010
Stratus HS 55 50 60 47 43 -12
Cumulus HS 138 110 114 140 141 3
Cirrus HS 84 91 115 134 119 35

Stratus High School was the only school that has narrowed the Asian-White achievement
gap. At Cumulus and Cirrus, this gap actually has increased over the past five years.
86
A similar trend has been noticed when comparing the high performing Asian
subgroup against the Hispanic/Latino subgroup. At each of the sample schools, these
subgroups have experienced growth in their API scores. On average, the Hispanic/Latino
subgroup fared better on the Academic Performance Index. The average Hispanic/Latino
API score across the three high schools in this study rose 37 points—from 723 in 2006 to
760. The average Asian API score rose 26. Table 4.3 indicates the difference between
the Asian subgroup API and the Hispanic/Latino subgroup API at each of the sample
schools from 2006-2010.
Table 4.3: Sample Schools Asian-Hispanic/Latino API Achievement Gap, 2006-2010

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Change
2006-2010
Stratus HS 125 106 108 93 87 -38
Cumulus HS 185 137 167 183 170 -15
Cirrus HS 132 152 155 177 155 23

The Asian subgroup continued to score far over 100 points higher than the
Hispanic/Latino subgroup over the past five years. Stratus HS made solid efforts to close
the achievement gap between these two subgroups. Cumulus HS narrowed the gap, but
demonstrates a significant difference in achievement between Asian and Hispanic/Latino
students. At Cirrus HS, both groups made gains, but Asian students are making more
rapid growth. This has widened the achievement gap, leaving Hispanic/Latino students
further behind.
The subgroup that appears to be benefiting the most in terms of academic
achievement across all of the sample schools is the socioeconomically disadvantaged
students (Low SES). The API scores of the Low SES group showed trends of consistent
improvement from 2006 to 2010. Cumulus and Cirrus High Schools’ Low SES subgroup
87
increased their API from the mid-600s to the 700s, and Stratus High School’s Low SES
subgroup broke the 800 mark. Figure 4.7 illustrates the trend of improvement exhibited
by the Low SES subgroup at the sample schools from 2006-2010.
Figure 4.7: Sample Schools Low SES Subgroup API Five-Year Trend

Of all the sample schools, the Low SES subgroup at Cumulus HS improved its API score
by the greatest factor—rising from 658 in 2006 to 711 in 2010. This represents a growth
of 53 points. Cirrus High School’s Low SES subgroup API grew by 44 points, from 688
to 732. Stratus High School serves far fewer Low SES students, but still made growth: a
38-point jump from 773 in 2006 to 811 in 2010. These data are evidence that students
coming from impoverished backgrounds are capable of achieving at high levels.
The one subgroup that struggled to make consistent academic progress was the
English Language Learners. At all the sample schools, the ELL subgroup API scores
fluctuated. This past year, the ELL subgroup’s API at each sample school site dropped.
At Stratus HS, where ELL students were making positive gains, the subgroup’s API fell
88
53 points from 831 to 778 between 2009 and 2010. Cumulus High School’s ELL
subgroup was also increasing in API, but dropped from 693 to 639 between 2009 and
2010—a 54-point drop. Cirrus HS experienced some fluctuation over time but also saw a
decrease in the ELL’s API—moving 33 points from 711 in 2009 to 678 in 2010. Figure
4.8 shows the ELL subgroup’s API five-year trend from 2006 to 2010, indicating the
dramatic decline at all sample school sites this past year.
Figure 4.8: Sample Schools ELL Subgroup API Five-Year Trend

Anecdotal evidence seems to support the theory that the reporting system the district was
using to identify ELL students’ English proficiency/classification level might be
connected to this drop in API scores. Given that ELL students comprise a quarter of the
student body in CUSD schools, this downward trend is a major cause for concern for all
schools in the district.
California Standards Tests. Another indicator of academic achievement is the
percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on the California Standards Tests in
89
the core subjects: English-Language Arts (ELA), Math, Science and History. The
English-Language Arts scores represent students who scored proficient or advanced in
grades 9-11 standards. The History scores represent students who scored proficient or
advanced in World History and United States History. The Math scores represent
students who scored proficient or advanced in General Math, Algebra I, Geometry,
Algebra II and Summative High School Math (grades 9-11 standards). The Science
scores represent students who scored proficient or advanced in Earth Science, Physics,
Biology and Chemistry. The CST data that follow are for the end-of-course (EOC)
exams, except the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Science test, which is administered to
all tenth graders regardless of the course in which they are currently enrolled.
All sample schools demonstrated trends of positive academic growth, as the
percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on the English-Language Arts CST
has increased steadily from 2006-2010. Cirrus High School made the largest growth,
starting at 42.7% of students reaching proficiency on the ELA CST in 2006 and moving
to 50.4% proficiency in 2010—an increase of 7.7%. Stratus and Cumulus High Schools
experienced similar growth trajectories over the past five years. Figure 4.9 shows trends
in proficiency for all students in ELA from 2006-2010.
90
Figure 4.9: Sample Schools English-Language Arts CST Summary, 2006-2010

The Math CST data indicate small improvement for the sample schools. While
Stratus and Cumulus High Schools experienced some degree of growth over the past five
years, Cirrus High School’s performance on the Math CSTs has been slightly erratic.
Cumulus HS experienced a period of stagnation between 2006 and 2008 before making
small, but positive growth in 2009 and 2010. Cumulus High School has grown by two
percentage points each year over between 2006 and 2010. Although this represents
steady progress, the overall proficiency rate in Math at Cumulus is only 35.6% across all
courses. Cirrus High School experienced a period of decreasing proficiency from 2006-
2008, but has seen some growth in the past two years. This growth is limited, however,
and there are still concerns that only 38.1% of Cirrus HS students are proficient in Math.
Figure 4.10 charts the trends for all students who scored proficient or advanced on the
Math CST between 2006 and 2010.
91
Figure 4.10: Sample Schools Math CST Summary, 2006-2010

History CST scores have also fluctuated over time for Stratus HS and Cirrus HS.
Both schools experienced a one-year decline in proficiency between 2006 and 2007.
Stratus HS did increase proficiency in History by nine points from its lowest data point of
62.0% proficient or advanced in 2007 to 73.0% proficient or advanced in 2010. Cirrus
HS students’ proficiency in History has leveled off with scores remaining at 43% for the
past two years. The most dramatic growth was seen at Cumulus High School, where
students scoring proficient or advanced on the History CST has risen by 21.4% over the
past five years—a major leap from 30.5% proficient or advanced in 2006 to 51.9%
proficient or advanced in 2010. Figure 4.11 displays the scores for all students who
scored proficient or advanced on the History CSTs from 2006-2010.
92
Figure 4.11: Sample Schools History CST Summary, 2006-2010

All sample schools showed similar net gains for students scoring proficient or
advanced on the End-of-Course Science CSTs. Cirrus High School was the only school
in the study to experience a dip in proficiency rates in Science over a five-year period.
Cirrus HS experienced growth between 2006 and 2007, and then dropped in 2008. The
proficiency rates picked up again in 2009, but fell in 2010. The net result for Cirrus HS
was a rise in proficiency of 5.6%—from 35.2% in 2006 to 40.8% in 2010. Stratus and
Cumulus, on the other hand, experienced positive gains in Science overall. Since 2006,
Stratus HS moved 10.5% more students (from 59.3% in 2006 to 69.8% in 2010) to score
proficient or advanced on the Science EOC CST. Cumulus High School increased its
percentage of proficient or advanced students in Science from 25.8% to 37.4%, yielding
an 11.6% jump in proficiency. Still, only 37.4% of Cumulus High School students are
93
proficient in Science overall. Figure 4.12 shows the trend for all students who scored
proficient or advanced on the Science EOC CST for the past five years.
Figure 4.12: Sample Schools Science EOC CST Summary, 2006-2010

Some of the biggest gains in proficiency for all sample schools have been seen in
students’ performance on the NCLB Science CST. In 2010, 83.0% of Stratus HS tenth
graders scored proficient or advanced on this test, up twelve percentage points from
2006. The growth for Cumulus HS was even higher at fifteen percentage points,
indicating a jump from 31.0% proficient or advanced in 2006 to 46.0% in 2010. The
NCLB Science CST at Cirrus HS netted a thirteen percentage point jump, up from 47.0%
proficiency in 2006 and landing at 57.0% in 2010, after a one year decline. Figure 4.13
tracks the positive gains for the students scoring proficient or advanced on the NCLB
Science CST over the past five years.
94
Figure 4.13: Sample Schools NCLB Science CST Summary, 2006-2010

Overall, each of the sample schools has had success moving more students toward
proficiency in each of the core subjects. Stratus High School students continue to
outperform their counterparts in the CUSD with proficiency rates 20% to 30% higher on
almost every CST. Cirrus HS students have struggled the most of the three sample
schools, as indicated by their fluctuating proficiency rates on almost every test. While
gains in proficiency at Cumulus HS have been slow, there is sustained growth from year
to year. One area where all three of the District’s high schools show significant room for
improvement is in Math. Between 35.6% and 62.0% of students score proficient or
advanced on the Math CSTs. Achievement varies between schools, and it also varies in
each individual school.
California High School Exit Exam. A look at the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE) scores of the sample schools indicates that, on average, approximately
95
90% of tenth grade students in the CUSD’s three comprehensive high schools pass the
test the first time. Table 4.4 shows the percentage of students from sample schools that
have passed the Math and English-Language Arts portions of the CAHSEE over the past
five years.
Table 4.4: Sample Schools CAHSEE First Attempt Pass Rates, 2006-2010
Math % Passed English-Language Arts % Passed

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Stratus HS 97% 97% 98% 98% 99% 95% 96% 95% 96% 97%
Cumulus HS 87% 82% 84% 84% 85% 80% 80% 80% 77% 79%
Cirrus HS 89% 86% 88% 86% 89% 83% 81% 82% 81% 83%

Despite the overall high pass rates on the CAHSEE, the sample schools have not
experienced any significant improvement on either portion of the test. There are slight
fluctuations from year to year at each site. Stratus High School has the highest pass rates
among the three schools on both portions of the CAHSEE, with 99% of students passing
the Math section and 97% passing the English section. Cumulus and Cirrus High School
have generally similar pass rate trends.
Particularly concerning is the performance of English Language Learners on the
English-Language Arts portion of the CAHSEE. For two years in a row, ELLs at
Cumulus HS and Cirrus HS did not met the Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) in
order to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). This has caused these two sample
schools to enter Program Improvement (PI) Status. ELLs at Stratus HS also failed to
meet the AMO of 55.6% in 2010 on the ELA portion of the CAHSEE, but the school
does not receive Title I funds, which makes Stratus ineligible for PI status.
Currently, 46.7% of ELLs at Stratus HS are not proficient in English as measured
by the CAHSEE. This percentage at Cumulus is 76.7%. And, at Cirrus, 71.0% of ELLs
96
are not proficient on the ELA section. The lack of proficiency demonstrated by ELLs on
the Math portion is not as pronounced, but still problematic, as an average of 43.0% of
ELLs have not yet reached proficiency in Math. The lower academic achievement of
English Language Learners is a persistent issue facing CUSD and the sample schools.
Advanced Placement Program. An area that has shown significant growth and
promise across the CUSD is students’ participation and performance in the College
Board’s Advanced Placement (AP) program. In five years, the number of tests given to
students at the three sample high school has increased by 919—up from 2,533 AP exams
in 2006 to 3,452 AP exams in 2010. As barriers to entry to the AP program were
removed between 2007 and 2008, participation increased markedly. More students are
attempting a rigorous academic schedule by taking these courses and exams. Even as
more and more CUSD students have taken AP exams, the pass rate has not been seriously
affected. Approximately 60% of CUSD students pass these exams. Stratus HS offers
more AP classes in its master schedule and has a pass rate of 76%, but Cumulus HS and
Cirrus HS are soon to follow their sister school’s example as more students demand
access to AP courses.
97
Figure 4.14: Sample Schools Total AP Exams Taken and Passed, 2006-2010

Each of the sample schools has demonstrated academic progress for all students.
Several of the schools have demonstrated a marked increase in the performance of their
significant subgroups and have managed to narrow the achievement gap that has persisted
in these schools. The next section of this chapter will address the findings associated
with the research questions using data from the sample schools. Specifically, the findings
will cite the successful strategies used by these schools that have contributed to gains in
student achievement.
Findings
The sample schools are using a variety of instructional and organizational
strategies to achieve their school visions. The improvement strategies used in all of the
sample schools were evaluated through the lens of Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance. All the schools in the study employed the ten strategies
recommended by Odden, but the level of implementation varied from site to site.
98
Following is a comparative summary of the strategies these schools used to improve
student performance.
Current instructional vision and improvement strategies. Since 2005, the
Cloud Unified School District has contracted with consultants from Focus on Results
(FOR). The FOR school improvement framework endeavors to build internal capacity in
each school that leads to an increase in student mastery of standards. District leaders
mandated participation of the schools in CUSD with the largest gaps in achievement.
The first cohort of schools joined in the fall of 2005, and Cumulus HS and Cirrus HS
were among this group. Stratus HS, with its already high student performance levels,
was given flexibility to continue the course its principal and leadership team had set for
the school. It was not until the fall of 2008 that all schools in the CUSD, including
Stratus HS, were brought into the cohort structure of Focus on Results.
District leadership cites collaboration as a districtwide model. The history of high
expectations in the City of Cloud supports the district’s strong leadership when it comes
to student achievement. In the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, District
administrators believed that site-based management was critical to the success of schools.
As greater levels of external accountability through NCLB and more extensive state
testing, the Superintendent and his cabinet, in collaboration with the board of education,
felt a need to establish a framework that would build uniformity into the school
improvement process. While this effort represents a centrist approach to school
improvement since it was conceived of and implemented by the District office, it should
be noted that the design of the Focus on Results program gradually shifts responsibility to
99
individual school sites as they adopt and personalize the reform strategies to the culture
of their schools. Throughout the duration of the FOR process, this has indeed been the
case as schools have taken ownership of their selected reform efforts.
As FOR came onboard, the sample schools had to develop an Instructional
Leadership Team (ILT) to guide the process of selecting a school focus and lead the staff
through its selected reform efforts. The ILT model had already been in place at Stratus
HS since 2000 and was comprised of the principal and two Standards Resource Teachers
(SRTs) in Math and English. Cumulus and Cirrus created their ILTs as a result of
participation in the FOR process. The composition of the ILTs at Cumulus and Cirrus
was primarily administrators, until recently when teachers from each department were
encouraged to participate.
The Superintendent at the helm of CUSD for the past seven years adopted one
instructional vision during his tenure and a catchphrase to go along with it: “It’s all about
student achievement!” His successor, who started the position in July 2010, has kept the
same vision. District administrators and the board of education believe the school
improvement process revolves around critical conversations. They encouraged each
principal and their team to look at data and challenge themselves and the students.
District leaders assured the principal that if student performance does not meet the
specified goals, “we are OK with that” so long as schools use multiple measures to assess
student progress.
Also, the CUSD leadership’s core belief that all students will learn drives the
instructional focus for all schools. As each ILT began to look at data and craft their own
100
vision for their school, they were aware that the focus needed to be aligned with the
District priority for student achievement and operate on the premise that all students will
learn. To this end, Stratus HS identified its instructional vision: all students will
demonstrated growth in critical thinking as evidenced by a greater percentage of students
meeting the University of California /California State University (UC/CSU) a-g college
entrance requirements and increasing performance on state tests. Cumulus HS adopted a
similar instructional vision: all Cumulus High School students will demonstrate
measurable growth in their ability to think critically through content-specific writing and
reading comprehension tasks. At Cirrus, the school focus is to use academic language
and academic vocabulary to improve students’ English because the high school is the
primary place where Cirrus students use the language.
The FOR framework and the District philosophy is that each school needs to own
its own instructional vision. The process was not prescriptive, but it also has been fluid.
Schools are given the flexibility to revise their vision as needed. However, there is
evidence that each of the sample schools has chosen to stay the course with their
instructional vision, as each was adopted by their own faculty in a schoolwide vote. The
goal of creating such an instructional focus is to then align available school resources
around the focus statement for each school.
Resources used to implement the instructional improvement plan. District
leadership recognized that previously there were islands of excellence among the
CUSD’s high schools. Focus on Results provided a way for all schools to use the same
language when discussing student achievement. Perhaps the greatest change was taking
101
teachers out of their classrooms to collaborate. Doing this once a month in school ILTs
and in district collaboration days among secondary schools, it has been possible to
increase communication between and within schools. And, these conversations are
focused—the communication is constantly on instruction.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. School district
leadership also took a hard look at student performance districtwide. An analysis of the
data showed that 30.4% of CUSD students are not yet proficient in English-Language
Arts and 27.1% are not proficient in Math. There has also been a decrease in the
percentage of high school graduates within several subgroups who have met the UC/CSU
a-g requirements. This gap is more pronounced within the Hispanic/Latino subgroup.
Bearing this in mind, the District chose to commit resources in 2010-2011 to: (1)
academic language development, (2) providing professional development and
collaboration opportunities to explore effective teaching strategies and (3) promoting
student enrollment in a-g courses, the rigorous coursework necessary for post-secondary
success. The three sample schools’ vision statements are aligned with the District’s
priorities—a first step to ensuring the strategies used at each school will have a more
targeted impact.
Thanks to FOR, the individual schools in this study have been provided one full
day a month to spend considerable time analyzing student achievement data. On the
FOR pullout days, ILTs from each of the secondary schools come together to work
through a series of activities to better understand their students’ performance challenge
and how they can better achieve the goals of their instructional focus. The District
102
leadership has committed to using a $500 million grant to supporting the FOR process.
Two teacher substitutes are provided to each school site for these collaboration days, and
the schools pick up the remaining cost from site funds. This is a shared value.
It has become common practice for teachers and principals to start the year by
analyzing the state test scores in the opening faculty meeting. This year, each of the
sample schools followed a FOR protocol while looking at 2010 API, CST, CAHSEE and
AP data. They first identified the good news emerging from the data. Then, they
identified the urgent message, or the critical needs the data revealed. Finally, teachers
and staff drafted bold steps—the next logical moves, aligned with current resources, to
tackle the challenges revealed by the performance data. This model has been used at the
school sites throughout the year to tackle various challenges.
All members of the faculty have been trained to use the data analysis model
illustrated above, but at Stratus HS, the level of implementation is deeper. That is,
teachers use the model on their own in departments without prompting from site
leadership. Cumulus and Cirrus High Schools’ teachers continue to require support in
understanding data and how to act on its implications. In 2009, the Western Association
of Schools and Colleges (WASC) accreditation process helped Cumulus High School
become more comfortable with data analysis, and this process will be repeated for both
Stratus and Cirrus this coming year. In addition, data analysis continues to be used to set
goals published in the Single Plan for Student Achievement.
Setting ambitious goals. As the sample schools have become more accustomed to
using data to drive instruction, they also have used the urgent messages coming out of
103
their data analysis as part of their internal accountability systems. Each sample school
has identified SMARTe goals through their Instructional Leadership Teams. This
acronym stands for: specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and timely goals that reach
every student. As Cumulus and Cirrus HS moved into Program Improvement (PI) status
in 2010, the urgency to move more students toward proficiency became reality. Even
though Stratus HS does not run the same risk of becoming a PI school since it does not
receive Title I funds, the concerns facing its sister schools in the district also hit home.
Each school has set specific goals for 2010-2011. The ILT at Cumulus HS
adopted three internal goals: (1) implement interventions to decrease course failure rate
by 2%, (2) increase period attendance to 98.6%, and (3) increase critical thinking through
writing and reading comprehension on content-specific assessments. The staff came to
consensus on this external goal: increase CST and CAHSEE proficiency by five percent
for all subgroups and 10% for the ELL and Special Education (SPED) subgroups. At
Cirrus HS, the staff committed to increasing proficiency on the CSTs by five percentage
points this year. An additional goal is to reach an API of 800 by 2013. At Stratus, the
goals for this year include: increasing proficiency by two percent for each subgroup on
the CSTs and connecting the more than 10% of the students who are not involved at the
school or in the community to a program that interests them.
The implementation of this step at each of the sample schools is average. They
have used data to make decisions, but the large number of students who are not proficient
presents a major challenge. The “bold steps” selected may not be bold enough to move
enough students to the AYP AMO targets. In any case, each of the schools has made
104
efforts to better communicate their school improvement efforts by developing urgent
statements in easy-to-read formats that are published in school literature and posted
around campus.
Changing the curriculum and creating a new instructional vision. Each school
in the study focuses on implementing its adopted schoolwide focus with fidelity and
scaling it up through all classrooms. Stratus HS has been the most successful of all the
schools in agreeing on a school focus and sticking with it over the years. Cirrus HS has
made strong efforts to take their instructional focus on academic vocabulary and
implement it in every classroom and even through cross-curricular lessons. Cumulus HS
has struggled with the buy-in of such a focus. In the past five years, the instructional
focus at the school has seen four different iterations. This has caused confusion and
burnout among the staff with the school improvement efforts. Teachers retreat to their
own classrooms to implement the strategies they see best fit their teaching style. This
lack of cohesion, while not present at all sites in this study, has created a segmented
approach to carrying out the schoolwide goals.
In a situation like this, strong leadership from the principal has been necessary to
reorient the school. Efforts to build the team and stick with the current focus of critical
thinking through reading and writing are just starting this year. It is still too early to tell
to what extent the instructional vision will impact student achievement at Cumulus.
As far as curriculum is concerned, all materials used in the three CUSD high
schools are district- and state-approved. Where no content standards were available until
recently (i.e. foreign language), district teams met to create local standards and aligned
105
pacing guides and assessments to their content vision. Due to the recent budget crisis in
California, no new textbook adoptions will take place until 2013. However, the fact that
English Language Learners’ scores plummeted in 2010 on almost all state tests was
enough to prompt the District to take on a serious financial burden and adopt a new
curriculum for the English Language Development (ELD) courses. The Hampton-Brown
Edge series has been met with great enthusiasm by the teachers, but this is only its first
year of implementation, so there are no conclusive results available to gauge this new
curriculum’s effectiveness.
As indicated earlier in the student achievement data section, Math continues to be
an area where students across the three sample schools struggle. To better meet the needs
of math learners, Stratus HS developed a three-semester Geometry program where
students begin the course in summer and continue to learn the concepts throughout the
academic year. While the content standards are the same as a regular Geometry course,
the pacing has been adjusted to provide more time for teaching and learning the concepts
in-depth. When Stratus ILT members realized the benefits of this program, they
extended the concept to a three-semester Algebra class. Just this past year, Science
teachers have started a three-semester Chemistry program. The concept was so attractive,
that both Cumulus and Cirrus High Schools now offer similar three-semester math
programs.
With the district goal of increasing enrollment in UC/CSU a-g courses, the AP
program has expanded considerably at each of the high schools. Stratus HS offers 24 of
the College Board’s 33 AP courses. Cumulus and Cirrus HS expanded their offerings to
106
19 AP courses each. Cirrus HS is in the process of eliminating all courses that do not
fulfill the a-g requirements.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making. In 2006, it was the goal
of the then assistant superintendent to create common formative assessments (CFAs) for
every course at every school. Districtwide planning days were arranged on SB1193 days,
and teachers were trained how to unwrap standards and apply them to the CFAs they
were creating. The buy-in for the CFA process was met with resistance by the local
teachers association, which feared the data from the CFAs were to be used in teacher
evaluations. Stratus HS deeply implemented the use of common assessments over the
past five years as it was a schoolwide action plan as part of their accreditation process.
The follow-through at Stratus on the CFAs has created a culture of collaboration and has
yielded deep conversations about instruction and where teachers can provide
interventions for struggling students. At present, every single course, including all
physical education, the arts and career-technical education classes have quarterly CFAs.
Time at department meetings has been reserved for discussion of the CFA results using
common rubrics. Teachers then share best practices based on whose students earned the
best results or achieved the most growth over time. A protocol is in place to guide
discussions and track data. Currently, this internal accountability system is making CFA
results public with a reporting of results on a data board in the main office.
This level of implementation of the CFAs has not occurred or is only evident in
some courses at the other sites in this study. Despite the District’s dedication of
resources to this project over the years, Cumulus and Cirrus did not make common
107
assessments a priority. It was only until this school year that leadership at Cumulus and
Cirrus decided to move forward with the creation of quarterly common formative
assessments in each course. This coincides with their goal to create course binders to
bring greater uniformity from classroom to classroom and teacher to teacher. Stratus HS
has long used the course binders in all of the core subject areas and in some elective
courses like foreign language. It is unclear whether a timeline for executing the CFAs is
in place and has the necessary follow-up to be effective at Cumulus and Cirrus.
Despite the inconsistent use of common assessments across the sample schools,
there is evidence that a long-standing tradition of using district benchmark assessments in
all of the English classes has been effective. These benchmarks are developed annually
by a committee of teachers from the CUSD high schools and are administered twice a
year. The materials are disseminated and the results tabulated by a central office
coordinator. Teachers across the district receive a release day to do norming and grade
the essays of all the high school English benchmarks. The data are recorded in the
students’ permanent record. There is little evidence, however, that the data from these
English benchmarks are used to guide instruction.
Perhaps the most telling detail in all this is that Stratus HS chose formative
assessment as a best practice to be used to meet its instructional focus. Cumulus and
Cirrus High Schools place greater emphasis on high-stakes state tests rather than on
formative measures to inform practice and assess the instructional focus. This suggests
that a school that develops an internal accountability system is more likely to use the data
because the results are easily available, widely understand and communicated.
108
Ongoing, intensive professional development. The CUSD’s commitment to
providing solid professional development opportunities is unwavering. The
Superintendent and his cabinet credit the extensive professional development, especially
through Focus on Results, as one of the main factors that has contributed to an increase in
student achievement across the District. Each of the sample schools has developed their
own approach to providing staff development and, as a result, there are varying levels of
effective implementation of these professional development opportunities. Odden (2009)
identifies the three components necessary for effective professional development:
workshops or collaboration meetings that are job-embedded and relate to the curriculum
taught; ongoing support from an instructional coach; and teacher collaboration regarding
assessment and instruction. Stratus High School has integrated these three components
with fidelity into their staff development program. The teachers voted to “bank”
instructional minutes each day to provide two morning teacher collaboration days a
month. These are split between faculty and department meetings, and the activities are
led by Stratus HS teachers. The activities often tackle questions emerging from
achievement or student perception data. Almost every meeting includes a teacher sharing
a successful practice from his or her daily instruction.
Cumulus HS teachers also voted to bank minutes for biweekly collaboration time.
This year the time has been specifically targeted on the creation of the school’s common
formative assessments, common syllabi and pacing guides. Administrators lead these
meetings. Department meetings tend to be unstructured and the agendas vary from
meeting to meeting.
109
Cirrus HS teachers voted out the banking day structure at their site, so 2010-2011
is the first year the staff has not had embedded collaboration time as part of the school
day. This has limited the opportunities for professional growth the school can offer its
teachers to the ten after-school faculty meetings prescribed in the teachers association
contract. These meetings are led by administrators and include PowerPoint slides of data
to better equip teachers with the understanding of how to understand and use
achievement results. Despite the eight fewer collaboration times Cirrus was used to, the
ELD department has made efforts to work with general education teachers to share
strategies to meet the challenge of working with a high ELL population.
Some coaching is also present at Stratus HS as well. Two Standards Resource
Teachers receive one period a day (0.2 FTE each) to better communicate the state
standards to teachers, observe lessons and provide feedback on how to better deliver
instruction to meet the standards. Cumulus and Cirrus are looking to include this option
in their programs as well. Teachers at each of the sample schools are encouraged to
attend local and regional conferences of professional organizations, and some take
advantage of these opportunities. Stratus HS is leading the way for the District with its
participation in several workshops on how to implement the Common Core Standards.
The District was slow to support their efforts, but lately has started funding attendance at
these workshops. Currently, District leaders are focused on building capacity at the
school sites through involvement in the monthly Focus on Results professional
development days. Where Stratus has experienced positive results, there is a lack of
teacher leadership at Cumulus and Cirrus that is so necessary for creating a staff
110
development program that is valuable and effective for fellow teachers. As a result, their
professional development program is flawed.
Efficient and effective use of instructional time. Teachers at the sample school
sites are using standards-aligned textbooks and lesson plans to deliver instruction aligned
with each school’s instructional focus. This alignment is at various stages of
implementation at each of the sample schools. For example, all courses at Stratus HS
follow a structured common syllabus used in each course. The scope and sequence is
clearly constructed, and there are a variety of formative and summative assessments that
are embedded into the pacing of each course. At Cumulus HS and Cirrus HS, the faculty
is just coming onboard with collaborative planning. It is a goal at each of the sites this
year to develop instructional binders for each course that clearly lay out the pacing for
each course and provide resources for delivering the material.
As part of the FOR process, each sample school has selected two to three
instructional strategies that address current problems of practice faced by students, based
on student achievement data. Stratus HS uses formative assessments and reteaching.
Cumulus HS uses common assessments, Specially Designed Academic Instruction in
English (SDAIE) and content writing and reading comprehension tasks in all classes.
Cirrus HS uses English first with all students, not just ELLs, and promotes the use of
academic vocabulary in context.
All teachers using these strategies at their respective school sites are highly
qualified. Instructional aides are available in Special Education and ELD classes.
Students in the ELD program take a two-hour blocked English class and are programmed
111
into sheltered courses for Science and History. The District phased out class size
reduction in all classes except the 20:1 ratio that is still present in the Algebra I classes.
At Cumulus HS and Cirrus HS, teachers are using a common whiteboard
configuration to present the standards being addressed in the lesson and the objectives for
the day. This organizational structure has helped teachers strategize for the period and
make better use of instructional time. Instructional walkthroughs and informal
administration observations also have contributed to a greater sense of accountability at
each of the sample schools. Each school continues to make progress in this area in
providing more time on task and ensuring consistent delivery of the course content.
Extending learning time for struggling students. Appropriate interventions are
available for struggling students. Cumulus HS and Cirrus HS make use of Title I funds
to pay for peer tutors and provide extra hourly pay for teachers to provide tutoring and
extended instruction beyond the school day. Cumulus HS has enacted a more stringent
policy on which after school activities are eligible for additional pay. The lessons need to
be targeted and at least five students need to be in attendance with the teacher. This has
resulted in a dramatic decrease in the number of teachers providing interventions outside
of the school day. Stratus HS provides daily free peer-tutoring options for struggling
students through its Science and Medicine Academy.
During the school day, all of the sample schools have made available the APEX
online credit recovery program. Two sections (0.4 FTE) are offered at each school site
during the school day. At Cumulus, an additional 0.4 FTE are offered during 0 and 7th
Period. CAHSEE Prep classes are available as well. Most students eligible for the
112
Bridge program are identified between middle and high school and take the Literacy for
Success course, an additional support class for students not showing proficiency on the
English standards.
Cirrus HS has become increasingly concerned with its ELL population, which
continues to underperform in comparison with the rest of the student body. Specific
interventions have been designed with these students in mind. ELD sections are
organized by grade level to target ninth graders and build school culture and expectations
early on. Cirrus also collaborates with a local university whose Masters students provide
guidance counseling service and work to get the “Hot 36” struggling students plugged in
to the school. The intervention efforts of Stratus HS and Cirrus HS show a solid level of
implementation, but Cumulus HS continues to struggle with teacher morale issues and to
what level they are invested in assisting students who need additional support.
Collaborative, professional culture and distributed leadership. The
Superintendent asserts: “If you build it, they will come.” His belief is that Cloud Unified
has a reputation and the goal of the District must be to prepare and support those who
aspire to work in CUSD. Naturally, what complicates efforts to build a collaborative,
professional culture are human and interpersonal dimensions. Stratus HS is much further
along in developing a positive, professional culture. The establishment of an ILT nearly
six years before the other schools in the study put Stratus on track to creating a more
collaborative culture far earlier. By expanding its ILT to up to 30 members this year, the
principal has made a conscious effort to extend leadership to many teachers across many
disciplines while also increasing the reach of the ILT’s school improvement message. A
113
democratic approach to leadership also provides faculty and staff an opportunity for input
because communication is transparent. Staff often reflects on the effectiveness of staff
development and other improvement strategies through frequent surveys. Stratus HS has
become a model in the CUSD for how to move a school forward with the support of the
staff. It should also be noted that strong administrative leadership at this school has not
necessarily come in the form of directives from the principal or administration team.
Teacher leaders are responsible for carrying out the agenda and creating buy-in.
Cumulus HS and Cirrus HS have not enjoyed the same level of participation
among their stakeholders. Administrators at these two sample schools have endeavored
to involve more faculty members in the decision-making process, and have achieved
limited success. Teachers now play a more integral role in the ILTs at Cumulus and
Cirrus, yet administrators still bear much of the workload when it comes to leading the
activities that require teacher collaboration. There is a trust issue at Cumulus HS, as well.
The principal wants to build a better team, but also expresses doubt that teachers are
carrying out the schoolwide focus and delivering the standards with fidelity. At Cirrus
HS, the faculty’s vote to do away with embedded staff development time on banking
days calls into question their commitment to the school improvement process.
The District continues to make the resources and opportunities available to the
sample school sites for building this collaborative culture through the Focus on Results
process. To this end, a writing team composed of teachers from the schools comes
together to plan each of the monthly FOR days. In addition, at each of these meetings,
each school has to share their progress in their school improvement efforts. The
114
Superintendent explains this is not a competition, but an exercise in collaboration. There
is also greater accountability knowing that the school will need to analyze and present
progress over time. Monthly Curriculum Study Committee meetings are another
structure in place across the CUSD that provides collaboration time. The department
chairs of each subject—core and elective—come together to discuss issues and increase
articulation between school sites.
District management team members stay connected to the school sites through
regularly scheduled school site visits. By January 2011, four months into the school year,
the Superintendent had also visited every teacher’s classroom in the CUSD. Quarterly
walkthroughs between school sites has also added another dimension of accountability
and an opportunity to leave the isolation of the classroom to see other teachers in action.
Still, greater efforts to engage teachers, promote urgency and build trust are needed at
each of the sample schools.
Use of research-based best practices and external expertise. The CUSD has not
been bashful in its reliance on outside experts to assist in the districtwide improvement
process. The consultants from Focus on Results have provided guidance and coaching to
administrators and teachers. Little by little, there has been a release of control by these
consultants to the ILTs at the sample schools. The ultimate goal has been to convert
outside expertise and experience into internal capacity. Many of the protocols used
throughout the collaboration processes at the sample schools are rooted in solid research.
Each school also did extensive reading of relevant, current literature before deciding on a
school focus and the best practices they would implement.
115
Stratus HS continues to far outpace Cumulus and Cirrus with its innovations and
willingness to seek help in reaching more students and moving them toward proficiency.
After choosing critical thinking as a focus, the ILT began attending conferences by the
Foundation for Critical Thinking. Because the cost of sending teachers to the
conferences was so high, resources were pooled from various grants to bring one of the
principal consultants to the school to provide a full-day training for staff to deepen
implementation of the school’s focus on critical thinking. The principal at Stratus HS
tried to bring this effort to Cumulus HS as well because their focus is essentially the
same. The principal at Cumulus believed her staff “wasn’t ready”.
Cumulus HS continues to hold in-house staff development and sometimes relies
on a former teacher to provide training in areas of literacy and reading comprehension.
This currently reflects the staff’s comfort level. Cirrus HS operates in much the same
way. The distrust of outside experts has resulted in stagnation at these two school sites,
while Stratus presses forward because the leadership believes they cannot do this work in
isolation.
Recruiting and developing top talent. The CUSD leadership has been strategic
about the recruitment and development of human capital in the District. The
Superintendent says he also favors a no-nonsense approach to hiring and firing.
Certificated and classified staff must demonstrate progress in order to be retained. The
Superintendent stated: “Your success is my success…we are working as a team.” Over
the past decade, there has been a conscious effort to promote staff from within both from
a fiscal perspective and a talent perspective. As positions are vacated due to retirements
116
or other transitions, teachers have been promoted to administrative positions within the
District to save other teacher positions. The previous Superintendent was particularly
motivated to recruit candidates with excellent credentials. Over 30 administrators and
teachers in the CUSD earned the Doctor of Education degree from the University of
Southern California. The shared values of personal and collective mission, vision and
leadership have provided a strong sense of organizational management throughout the
District. It has also served as an excellent recruitment tool for educators looking to enter
the CUSD. When the Superintendent retired last spring, the board of education selected
the Deputy Superintendent as his successor. In an effort to stay the course and provide
continuity in leadership, this move also allowed for promotions to take place within the
District and save jobs through a trickle-down effect all the way to the classroom.
Of particular interest in this study is the fact that the principals at each of the
sample high schools are fairly new to the position. The principal at Stratus HS took the
job in July 2010, after serving as principal at the feeder middle school for two years and
at other schools in the CUSD for nearly 15 years. The principal at Cirrus HS is also new
to the position as of July 2010, but previously served at the school for four years as
Associate Principal. The principal at Cumulus is in her third year as principal there, but
was hired from outside the district. This principal, however, is also an alumna of
Cumulus, which she believes increases her motivation to move the school forward.
While it is likely too early to link their leadership with the effectiveness of their school
improvement efforts, it can be said that each principal possesses the confidence needed
for the role of principal and instructional leader. Support systems are also in place for
117
leadership because the Superintendent “envisions a place where professional dialogue can
be simple, easy, reliable and accessed at any time.”
Across the sample schools there exists a stability in the teaching staff that is not
always enjoyed by large public high schools. Teachers who come to CUSD tend to stay
in Cloud. A sense of personal care exists from site to site and is echoed by District
administrators. While these leaders recognize that resistance is a natural part of the
reform process, the belief remains that every student will learn and that teachers need
opportunities to grow.
The sample schools employ a variety of strategies to increase student
achievement, but some schools are more successful than others in how they implement
these strategies. Stratus HS has deep implementation of the strategies as evidenced by
the way they are embedded in the school culture. Cumulus HS and Cirrus HS, on the
other hand, have weak implementation in critical areas of professional development and
supporting a collaborative culture. Issues of adult motivation, accountability and current
policies have yielded a sense of fear on the part of teachers about embracing school
reform efforts. To this end, it is important to remember that there are limits to the efforts
of administrators. While providing vision and direction are important, teacher leadership
is a key element in moving a school forward. Stratus HS has experienced the most
success on this front, and they have continued to draw on the expertise of their staff and
outside resources. While Stratus has far fewer financial resources to pay for professional
development, the ILT has strategically funneled resources to meet students’ most
pressing needs. Despite the varying levels of implementation of these research-based
118
school improvement strategies across the sample school sites, there is evidence that the
District has made great strides in building human capital by growing and fostering
leadership locally. Table 4.5 summarizes the sample schools’ level of implementation of
each of the ten strategies that Odden (2009) recommends for doubling student
performance.
Table 4.5: Sample Schools’ Implementation of 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance
Implementation
Odden’s Steps
Strong Average Weak
Not
observed
STEP 1
Understand the performance challenge: Analyze
performance data
Stratus
Cumulus
Cirrus

STEP 2
Set ambitious goals
Stratus
Cumulus
Cirrus

STEP 3
Change the curriculum program and create a
new instructional vision
Stratus Cirrus Cumulus
STEP 4
Use benchmark and formative assessments and
data-based decision making
Stratus Cirrus Cumulus
STEP 5
Provide ongoing, intensive professional
development
Stratus
Cumulus
Cirrus

STEP 6
Use instructional time efficiently and effectively
Stratus
Cumulus
Cirrus

STEP 7
Extend learning time for struggling students

Stratus
Cirrus
Cumulus
STEP 8
Build a collaborative, professional culture and
use distributed leadership
Stratus
Cumulus
Cirrus

STEP 9
Use research-based best practices and external
expertise
Stratus
Cumulus
Cirrus

STEP 10
The human capital side: Recruit and develop top
talent
Stratus
Cirrus
Cumulus

Resource allocation changes due to budget adjustments. The sample high
schools have experienced some structural changes and personnel reductions as part of the
119
evolving budget challenges over the past few years. While all ninth grade English classes
were capped at 20 students since the 1990s, class-size reduction was eliminated and now
all ninth grade English classes hover with enrollment around 36. The only 20:1 classes
that remain are for students taking Algebra I.
In addition, school district officials reduced the number of senior administrative
secretaries at the school sites from two to one through retirements and attrition over the
past two years. Further, the school district reduced FTE allocations to each high school
by 3.0 to assist with cutting costs across the board. In 2009-2010, the District offered an
early retirement package to certificated, classified and management staff. Nearly 80 staff
members took advantage of this option, and not all of these positions were replaced with
new hires. In fact, the CUSD laid off over 100 teachers at the end of the school year.
With federal funding, however, they were able to reinstate these teachers a week before
the 2010-2011 school year began.
The CUSD has executed a number of cost-saving strategies this year. With
flexibility granted by the State Legislature, the CUSD has swept several Tier III programs
into the general fund, including: community based tutoring grants, instructional material
block grant, physical education teacher incentives, supplemental counseling program, arts
and music block grants, beginning teacher support block grant and deferred maintenance
match transfers and revenues. Table 4.6 enumerates the list of additional reductions for
2010-2011 and their related savings.
120
Table 4.6: CUSD Cost-Saving Strategies and Budget Reductions, 2010-2011
Reduction Savings Realized
Administration Reorganization (10 FTE) $1,100,000
Reduction in Maintenance Workers (7 FTE) $450,000
Reductions in Special Education (7.4 FTE) $500,000
School Safety Grants Sweep (one-time) $1,200,000
Restricted Lottery Utilization $500,000
Charge Food Services Department an Indirect Cost $350,000
Middle School FTE Reduction (1 FTE/1,000 students = 3 FTE) $300,000
High School FTE Reduction (1 FTE/1,000 students = 9 FTE) $900,000
Magnet School Adjusted to a Six-period Day (4 FTE) $400,000
Reduction in High School Administrative Secretary (3 FTE) $168,750
Reduce Continuation High School Counseling (1 FTE) $100,000
Eliminate Summer School Advancement Courses $1,000,000
Payments Shifted to Capital Fund $1,270,000
Redesign Current Health Insurance Plans $900,000
Savings from Contribution Cap on Health Insurance $4,400,000
Restructure Workers Comp Benefits $1,400,000
Increase Class Size Ratio in K-3 to 24.95:1 $3,400,000
TOTAL $18,338,750

Going forward, the CUSD is expected to lose an additional $26 million over the
next three years based on the current budget situation in California.
The certificated, classified and management bargaining units in the District have
worked to contain costs as much as possible. Administrators have nine rolling furlough
days in 2010-2011. Classified has five furlough days this year, while teachers were
spared furlough days due to one-time federal monies. In the next two years, furlough
days for teachers are expected to increase to three or four days.
In an effort to minimize the impact of the financial crisis, the CUSD board of
education has placed a $270 million General Obligation Bond measure on the April 5,
2011 ballot. The bond would extend the current property tax rate still in effect from the
previous bond measure passed ten years ago. The funds would be used to upgrade school
121
facilities and purchase instructional technology for classrooms. Ultimately, the goal is to
free up general funds to protect core academic instructional programs, retain qualified
teachers and maintain smaller class sizes. Should the measure pass, the District has
projected that it could save $20 million in ongoing cuts to CUSD schools. With the
realized savings, the Superintendent has three priorities: (1) No Additional Layoffs to the
base staffing, (2) reduce or eliminate furlough days in the future and (3) maintain K-3
staff at 24:1.
The sample schools used for this study have had to make some adjustments, but
overall not much changed over the course of time for students as the priorities of the
District have been to “keep the cuts away from the classroom.” Cumulus and Cirrus
High Schools have made strategic use of their Title I funds to backfill any reductions.
Plus, the financial support of the local educational foundation has offered considerable
relief to schools through programs and major donations. Over the last six years, the
Cloud Educational Foundation has raised $1 million and invested almost all of it back
into Cloud schools. This year alone, a record $750,000 will be donated back to CUSD.
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model. The resource
allocation model presented by the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) will be
used to analyze resource allocation at the sample schools. Staffing allocations will be
reported in actual totals and Full Time Equivalencies (FTEs). The Evidence-Based
Model (EBM) uses a prototype high school with an enrollment of 600 students to
estimate resource needs. Because the three high schools in this study range from 2,000 to
3,000 students, the EBM recommendations will be prorated accordingly based on the size
122
of the school to generate a suggested figure for each element of the model. The
following sections discuss each expenditure element in comparison to the EBM.
Core academic teachers and specialist/elective teachers. Core academic teachers
include the credentialed classroom teachers who teach these regular education courses in
self-contained classrooms: English-Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Science and
Foreign Language. In total, there were 195.2 FTEs allocated to core teachers in the
sample schools serving collectively 7,850 students, making the average student to core
teacher ratio 40.2:1. This ratio is considerably higher than the Evidence-Based Model,
which suggests core teachers to be funded at a ratio of 25 students to one teacher in the
prototype high school. This indicates that the sample high schools have larger average
core class sizes than the EBM suggests.
Specialist and elective teachers are those teachers who teach non-core classes
including, but not limited to: Art, Music, Physical Education, Drama, Technology,
Health, Career and Technical Education, Athletics and other electives. At the sample
schools, a total of 73.4 specialist/elective teacher FTEs were allocated. The Evidence-
Based Model suggests eight specialist/elective teachers for a prototype high school with
600 students. Scaling this up to the size of the sample schools results in a total of 104.2
FTE specialist/elective teachers. These data confirm a large gap between the schools’
actual and suggested allocation practices.
Table 4.7 compares the actual FTE count of core teachers and specialist/elective
teachers at the sample school sites compared with the allocations suggested by the EBM.
123
Table 4.7: Comparison of Sample Schools and Evidence-Based Model Allocations of
Core and Elective/Specialist Teachers (FTEs)
Core Teachers
FTE Allocations
Specialist/Elective Teachers
FTE Allocations
School Actual EBM Suggestion School Actual EBM Suggestion
Stratus HS 73.2 117.6 22.6 39.2
Cumulus HS 71.2 112.8 29.2 37.6
Cirrus HS 50.8 82.3 21.6 27.4
Total 195.2 312.7 73.4 104.2

Comparing the distribution of core and specialist/elective classes across the
sample schools presents an interesting phenomenon: Stratus allocates a larger percentage
of its teaching staff to core instruction than Cumulus and Cirrus. For example, at Stratus
HS 73.2 FTE teachers instruct core classes, representing 76.4% of the total sections
offered at the school. Specialist/elective FTE at Stratus number 22.6 FTE, or 23.6% of
the total sections. This breakdown even exceeds the 75-25 allocation of core to specialist
FTE evidenced in the EBM. Cumulus HS dedicates fewer resources to core classes, with
70.9% of the total class sections being core and 29.1% being specialist/elective classes.
Cirrus HS runs a similar master schedule with 70.2% of its class sections dedicated to
core and 29.8% dedicated to specialist/elective.
Library staff. Each of the sample high schools provides one librarian, but only
Cirrus High School adds a library aide/technician. The librarian is certificated and is
credentialed to instruct library media classes. The library aide is considered a classified
position that does not allow for student instruction. The aide assists the librarian in the
daily functions of the library, as well as supports students using the library. The
Evidence-Based Model provides 1.0 FTE librarian and 1.0 FTE library aide/technician
for the 600-student prototype high school. Prorating this up to the size of the sample
schools, the EBM would suggest 5.0 librarians and library aides for Stratus, 4.7 librarians
124
and library aides for Cumulus and 3.4 librarians and library aides for Cirrus. The sample
schools fall far below the suggested allocations.
Extra help staff. The extra help staff element includes teachers and support staff
that work with struggling students and students with special needs to access the school’s
regular curriculum. These positions include, but are not limited to: ELL teachers, special
education teachers, inclusion teachers, resource teachers, instructional or one-on-one
aides, Title I teachers, certified and non-certified tutors and summer school teachers and
staff.
Collectively, the sample schools serve 2,934 Low SES students, yet all together
they only allocate 1.0 FTE teacher and 4.0 FTE aides to assist these students. The
Evidence-Based Model would generate a total of 23.2 FTE teacher tutors to work with
this socioeconomically disadvantaged population across the three sample schools.
Considering that this population of students comprises 50% of the student body of both
Cumulus and Cirrus High Schools, there is a significant gap in the resources actually
available and that which the EBM would generate to support the instructional needs of
students in the Low SES subgroup.
To support English Language Learners, sample schools allocated a total of 10.2
FTE teachers to instruct 1,291 students. The Evidence-Based Model suggests an
additional 1.0 FTE teacher for every 100 ELLs in the school. This would generate 12.9
FTE ELL teachers. Although the sample schools are below the EBM allocation by
almost 3.0 FTE, they are far closer in this category than the current allocations for
students coming from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.
125
The sample schools fund a total of 29.2 FTE special education teachers and 34.4
FTE aides to directly serve a total of 607 special education students. The EBM suggests
an additional four professional teacher positions for a 600-student prototype high school,
or 52.1 FTE for these schools. The current allocation of certificated staff falls far under
what the EBM suggests, but the combined number of adults serving special education
students in the sample schools exceeds the EBM’s recommendation.
One element currently allocated at the schools that far exceeds the EBM’s
suggestion is summer school. The Cloud Unified School District struggled to keep the
summer school program going because it was so expensive. In the summer of 2010, the
District launched two programs: a free summer school program for students needing
remediation and a fee-based program for those students looking to take advancement
courses. The Cloud Educational Foundation was the financial partner in this, collecting
the $500 fee for the fee-based program. Ultimately, the District saved $1 million by
executing the fee-based summer school program. Nevertheless, there was a tremendous
investment of resources in remediation programs over the summer. In 2010, the District
allocated a total of 97.0 teacher FTEs to remedial summer school across the three sample
schools. For schools this size, the EBM would allocate a third of that—32.6 FTE. This
represents a major difference in how instruction is delivered and supported in the sample
schools compared to the Evidence-Based Model.
Professional development. The professional development expenditure element
includes the funds allocated to staff development and the resources required to support it.
This category consists of instructional facilitators, coaches, trainers, consultants and other
126
fiscal resources necessary to support professional growth. The Evidence-Based Model
allocates a total of ten days of intensive summer training, in addition to $100 per pupil for
other professional development expenses such as trainers, conferences, travel and other
elements.
For the sample schools in the CUSD, all certificated staff are required to attend
three professional development days—two during summer and one during the school
year. The District covers a significant portion of professional development expenses in
its efforts to support the Focus on Results process. Schools support the District’s efforts
by covering additional substitutes to attend Focus on Results collaboration days through
site funds. Title I and other categorical funds are used to pay for additional professional
development expenses. It became clear in the document analysis and interviews that
there are not reliable accounting controls in place to help schools accurately track their
professional development expenditures at the site level.
In comparison to the EBM, all sample schools provided seven days less than the
suggested number of professional development days. Additionally, the EBM suggested
an average expenditure of $130,000 to fund professional development opportunities for
certificated staff. This amount is nearly triple the amount Stratus HS has allocated and
$30,000 to $40,000 more than what Cumulus and Cirrus respective contribute to
professional development activities.
The Evidence-Based Model also calls for the allocation of one instructional coach
for every 200 students in its prototype high school to support teacher instruction and
student learning. Of the sample schools, only Stratus HS had instructional coaches
127
available in the form of Standards Resource Teachers, who are allocated a total of 0.4
FTE to support the English and Math departments.
Student services. The student services expenditure element includes any school-
based support staff including guidance and attendance counselors, social workers, the
school nurse, parent and community liaisons, school psychologist, speech pathologists
and other staff who provide support services. On average, the sample schools allocated
8.3 FTE positions to student services, which is well below the average 20.3 FTE
positions that would be generated by the EBM.
Administration. The administrative expenditure element includes the principal,
assistant principals, other administrators, clerical staff, technology coordinator, security,
custodians and any other staffing resources related to the administration of the school.
Each sample school provided one full-time principal, one associate principal and a range
of three to five assistant principals. The Evidence-Based Model funds 1.0 FTE principal.
In addition, the EBM allocates 1.0 FTE assistant principal for every 600 students. Each
school is fairly close to the recommended administrator allocation.
Each school is allocated 1.0 FTE senior administrative secretary, under the 5.0
that Stratus would receive under the EBM. The EBM would allocate 4.7 and 3.4
secretaries to Cumulus and Cirrus, respectively. At each of the sample schools, there
were an average of 12.3 FTE clerks to support the site administrative functions. The
positions included additional secretaries and textbook and student store clerks. This is
almost inline with the 13.0 FTE average the EBM would generate for the schools. In
contrast to the other schools in the sample, Stratus HS has allocated 0.7 FTE teachers to
128
serve as on-site technology coordinators, which is personnel not specifically accounted
for in the Evidence-Based Model.
Through the findings, it is clear that the Evidence-Based Model provides for more
resources than the actual allocations found at the sample schools. Overall, the sample
schools closely aligned with the number of school site administrators found at the
schools. However, all sample schools staffed fewer core and elective teachers, clerical
staff and student support staff than the EBM would generate. CUSD schools dedicate
more resources for summer school than the EBM calls for. Table 4.8 displays the
average school-level resources as compared to the suggestions of the EBM.
Table 4.8: Comparison of Average Resource Allocations (FTEs) in Sample Schools to
Resources Generated by the Evidence-Based Model
Expenditure
Element
Staffing Category
Average Actual
Allocation in Sample
Schools (FTE)
Average Allocation
Generated by the
Evidence-Based Model
for Sample Schools
(FTE)
Principal 1.0 1.0
Assistant Principals 4.0 4.4
Tech Coordinators 0.7 0
Secretaries 1.0 4.4
Administration
Clerical Staff 12.3 13.1
Core Academic
Teachers
Core Teachers 65.1 104.2
Specialist/Elective
Teachers
24.5 34.7
Specialist Staff
Librarians 1.0 4.4
Certified Tutors 0.3 9.8
Special Education
Teachers
9.7 17.4
ELL Teachers 3.4 4.3
Extra Help Staff
Summer School 32.3 10.9
Professional
Development
Instructional Coaches 0.13 13.0
Student Services
Staff
Pupil Support Staff 8.3 20.3
TOTAL All Staff 163.7 241.9
129
Due to the impact of the budget reductions caused by the current California
budget crisis, school districts and school sites across the state have been forced to make
staffing and resource reductions. These findings reflect a trend in downsizing typical
across the state. The projections for future years indicate that significant cuts will
continue to impact schools. The CUSD and the sample high schools will need to
continue to strategically organize human and fiscal resources to provide a comparable
level of quality in their core instructional program.
Conclusion
The current financial crisis has severely limited the ability of CUSD leadership to
plan for the future because there is such uncertainty about the level of funding coming
from the state. Despite the funding challenge, District leadership remains optimistic
because they have been forced to be creative with their resources, and this leaves plenty
of room for innovation. One item that remains off the table is money and time for
collaboration. This focus on staff development shows a link to increased student
achievement.
The recipe for success in CUSD has been fairly straightforward: Develop a clear
and unambiguous mission, have the right people in the right places to carry out that
mission, provide them with the time to collaborate, high levels of support and the
necessary resources to get the job done, and stick to it. While the sample schools use
significantly fewer resources than the Evidence-Based Model would suggest for schools
their size and composition, these CUSD schools are making academic achievement
possible for their students. Therefore, it can be said that it is the effective implementation
130
of key strategies, not simply resource allocation that makes these schools successful and
contributes to further growth in student achievement.
131
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Summary
This concluding chapter provides an overview and discussion of the resource
allocation practices of three sample high schools in the same school district in Southern
California in comparison to the resource allocation strategies recommended by the Odden
& Picus (2008) Evidence-Based Model. The purpose of this study was to analyze
resource allocation patterns during a time of fiscal crisis at individual school sites and, to
some extent, at the district level to understand how these strategies impact students and
their academic achievement. The Evidence-Based Model was used as a framework for
comparing the level of resources used across the sample schools. The findings of this
study may provide ways to determine more effective funding strategies in order to obtain
desired achievement outcomes. Furthermore, a discussion of the implications of this
study may also provide suggestions for future practice and research.
This study used a mixed methods research approach, where both quantitative and
qualitative methods were used to collect data for the development of case studies of the
sample schools. The data for each case study included: interviews with school site and
district administrators, academic performance data and school-level resource allocation
figures. Use of the comparative case study approach, along with an emphasis on the
Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the 10 Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance (Odden, 2009) helped to comprehend how schools’ practices
compared to research-based strategies currently used to increase student performance in
other states.
132
All sample schools were comprehensive high schools within the Cloud Unified
School District (CUSD) located in a suburb of Los Angeles, California that demonstrated
sustained growth in student achievement over the course of several years.
The four research questions guiding this study were:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation of resources at the school change in response to the recent
budget adjustments, including overall funding reductions and changes in the use
of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based or other
Model?
As this study sought to answer these research questions, the findings revealed several
areas of strength and a number of critical areas for follow-up at the sample schools.
These conclusions are outlined below.
Conclusions
Perhaps the most significant observation is the District’s unified approach to
school improvement. The efforts were spearheaded by the CUSD leadership but also
adopted at each of the sample school sites, providing a common language surrounding
their goals, strategies and professional collaboration time. A culture of isolation inside
133
individual teachers’ classrooms has been replaced by one where significant financial
resources are committed to funding monthly collaboration days between and within the
schools. The added accountability that comes with sharing progress has created an
internal structure for checks and balances and additional opportunities for leadership.
This focus on professional development at the District level has been mirrored at
each of the sample school sites through the establishment of Instructional Leadership
Teams (ILTs) that guide the schools’ improvement processes. Teacher leaders analyze
data, develop faculty meeting programs and activities and monitor the follow-up process.
This move by all schools in the study to bring more teachers into the decision-making
process has seen various levels of implementation and effectiveness. One school in the
study has had an ILT for ten years as opposed to the three to four years the other two
sample schools have utilized their new leadership structure. A more deeply rooted ILT
structure is supported by a more robust teacher presence and input from all departments.
In comparing the current resource use patterns of the sample schools to the
Evidence-Based Model, it is evident that the schools in the study are largely understaffed
with certificated and classified personnel. The Evidence-Based Model provides for more
resources than the actual allocations found at the sample schools. Overall, sample
schools made fewer allocations for core and specialist teachers, administrative and
student staff and teachers of special populations, including special education, English
Language Learners and students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.
Another element out of alignment with the recommendations of the Evidence-
Based Model is the District’s summer school program. The individual school sites
134
allocate nearly three times as many teacher resources to summer school than the
Evidence-Based Model suggests. This is an indication that intervention efforts are not
being targeted during the school year, and this has created an additional financial burden
for the schools in already difficult economic times. The use of summer school as an
intervention strategy forces students to play catch-up in the concentrated, fast-paced
nature of summer classes. Remediation efforts are falling short and an inefficient use of
class time during the school year may be the root cause.
Across the CUSD, the English Language Learner subgroup has long struggled
academically. Because of its legacy of high expectations and track record of improving
student achievement, the school district has been attractive for newly arrived immigrant
families. The sample schools also have struggled to find the resources to support these
students with language barriers. A lack of proficiency in English for this particular
subgroup has placed two of the sample schools in Program Improvement status. There is
not a clear plan at any of the sample schools for decreasing the proficiency gap for ELLs.
Finally, while professional development has been a predominant feature of the
improvement process at the sample schools and within the CUSD, there is little evidence
to support that all of the schools are able to accurately track and assess their collective
professional growth. As the sample schools worked to complete the quantitative protocol
for this study, which outlines the specific costs in terms of facilitators, trainers,
conference fees and travel expenses, it was clear that specific accounting controls were
not in place to help schools track their use of funds in this regard. Given that professional
development is a major priority for the District, there continues to be some uncertainty
135
about how targeted the professional development actually is and to what extent it impacts
teacher behaviors and student achievement if little monitoring is taking place.
Implications
Review of the literature and investigation of the sample schools provides a variety
of information for school administrators and policy makers. The analysis of the resource
use patterns and instructional improvement strategies employed by the sample schools
lends support to the school improvement literature. The literature on school finance
recommends school funding based on adequacy. The three case studies indicate that
schools can be effective and achieve some gains in student achievement even if resources
are not adequate. The unknown is whether modifying the resource allocation of schools
to be more aligned with the Evidence-Based Model would yield higher levels of student
achievement or perhaps accelerate growth in student performance.
Instead of being distracted by the latest quick-fix strategy or being derailed by
resistance from naysayers throughout the District, the leadership and staff have
committed to a single districtwide focus: “It’s all about student achievement.” Although
broad in scope, the intent is clear—the efforts of all employees and programs are targeted
on students’ showing growth. And, individual schools adopted specific schoolwide goals
that meet the needs of their specific populations and align with this vision. Unwavering
support for collective decision-making and collaboration within and between school sites
also has created a culture focused on student achievement.
The sample district’s strategy of cultivating leadership within the ranks of its own
teachers and administrators presents a valuable lesson learned. Respect for the expertise
136
of locally grown professionals is demonstrated through promoting from within to
maintain the continuity of leadership at the school and district levels. The sense of care
for the individual present across the district is underscored by the belief that data, facts
and figures are important, but they do not define human beings. When schools fall short,
they reflect, regroup and reconnect with multiple resources to support their future growth.
Under the current California model, education funding is directly tied to the state
and federal fiscal climate, which forces schools to regularly deal with the frequent
fluctuations in funding. This severely impacts the services a school can offer.
Policymakers should take note of the improvement strategies successful schools like
those in the sample are using to yield the maximum dividend with minimum additional
resource allocation.
As the common core standards and new assessment and accountability systems
are designed, policymakers, educational testing companies and school improvement
consultants might draw on the practices of these successful schools to serve as models for
structures that need to be in place on a larger scale to effectively move schools forward.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study adds to the growing body of research on school-level resource
allocation strategies. The focus of this study was on three schools in the same district
successfully that made higher levels of academic achievement possible for all students in
spite of the complications associated with reductions in funding due to the California
budget crisis. It would be helpful to study other schools and districts with similar
resources to determine if there are commonalities in terms of resource allocation and
137
instructional strategies employed. This kind of comparative study would clearly identify
which of the strategies are more critical for a school’s success.
This study identified the instructional focus and best practices adopted by the
sample schools. It would be helpful to conduct a more in-depth analysis to determine the
extent to which these strategies are implemented over time and establish their link to
student achievement. Such a study would chronicle the history of success in the schools
and district and provide critical institutional knowledge and background.
Finally, more research is necessary to understand the true impact of district
leadership and its relationship to improving student achievement. Further analysis of the
relationship between the district and the school sites and the alignment of vision and
strategies between the entities will likely yield myriad lessons on how to organize school
systems oriented toward success.
Concluding Comments
Fear seems to permeate the educational landscape at this moment in time. There
is uncertainty about the future of school funding and impending cuts. There is anxiety
about how the changes to assessment and accountability structures might impact the role
of teaching and learning and how they are evaluated in the coming years. There is
concern about the readiness of American students to tackle world challenges and compete
in a global society. The schools in this study have demonstrated that being debilitated by
fear is not an acceptable option. Instead, their attention on elements within their control
has yielded sharper focus on their practice and their students. The hope that can be
gleaned from these case studies on effective schools in this political end economic
138
climate is that targeted, efficient, research-based strategies can be used with existing
resources to improve student achievement.
139
REFERENCES

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

Baldassare, M., Bonner, D., Petek, S., & Willcoxon, N. (2010). Californians and
education. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

Boudett, K. P., City, E. A., & Murnane, R. J. (Eds.). (2005). Data Wise: A step-by-step
guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Education Press.

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

California Department of Education. (2010). Second interim status reports - year 2010.
Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved June 29, 2010, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr10/yr10re177.asp

California School Finance. (2010). Case summary. Sacramento, CA: Author

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

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

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

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

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

EdSource. (2009a). The basics of California's school finance system. Mountain View,
CA: Author.
140
EdSource. (2009b). Local revenues for schools: Limits and options in California.
Mountain View, CA: Author.

EdSource. (2010a). California and the common core: Will there be a new debate about
K-12 standards. Mountain View, CA: Author.

EdSource. (2010b). Glossary terms. Author. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from
http://www.edsource.org/glossary.html

EdSource. (2010c). History. Author. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from
http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_history.html

EdSource. (2010d). Percent of schools that met adequate yearly progress goals from
2004-05 through 2008-09. Author. Retrieved July 5, 2010, from
http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_history.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

141
Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. W. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right
balance. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

McIntire, T. (2005). Data: Maximize your mining - sustained student achievement is the
ultimate goal of data mining, but efficient analysis is key to getting there.
Technology & Learning, 25(9). Retrieved from
http://www.techlearning.com/section/MagazineArchive

McNeil, M. (2010). Concerns raised about impact of stimulus of equity. Education Week,
29(22). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org

NEA. (2009). Rankings and estimates. Washington, DC: National Education Association
(December).

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

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

Odden, A. R., Archibald, S. J., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H. A. (2002). A cost
framework for professional development. Journal of Education Finance, 28(1),
51-74.

Odden, A. R., Archibald, S. J., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education Finance,
28(3), 323-356.

Odden, A. R., Monk, D., Nakib, Y., & Picus, L. (1995). The story of the education dollar:
No academy awards and no fiscal smoking guns. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), 161-
168.

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

Office of the Secretary of Education. (2010). 2009-2010 Budget highlights: K-12.
Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ose.ca.gov/budget/.

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

Picus, L. O. (2006). Funding California's schools, Part I: Past, present, and future? In
PACE (Ed.), Crucial issues in California education 2006: Rekindling reform (pp.
15-26). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
142
Rebell, M. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement and judicial review: A proposal
for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. The Teachers College
Record, 109(6), 1303-1373.

Reeves, D. B. (2010). Transforming professional development into student results.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

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

Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M.W. (2005). Principles of learning for effort-based education.
Pittsburgh, PA: Institute for Learning, University of Pittsburgh.

Slavin, R. E. (2005). Evidence-based reform: Advancing the education of students at risk.
Washington, DC: Center for American Progress and the Institute for America's
Future.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.

Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
behind: Practical insights for school leaders. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

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

The Education Trust. (2005). Gaining traction, gaining ground: How some high schools
accelerate learning for struggling students. Washington, DC: Author.

Timar, T. B. (2002). You can't always get what you want: School governance in
California. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education, and
Access.

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

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

Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can
do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The
Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
143
U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). The economic recovery act of 2009. Author.
Retrieved July 11, 2010, from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/programs.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2010c). Race to the top fund. Author. Retrieved March
19, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html
144
APPENDIX A: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE
The following letter was sent to the sample schools’ principals and to the Superintendent
to invite them to participate in the study.

May 9, 2010

Dear Superintendent/Principal:

I am a student in the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) program at the University of
Southern California. As I embark on the dissertation process, I am seeking your
help. The topic of my dissertation is “Allocating Resources to Improve Student
Performance”, and I am working with my dissertation chair/adviser Dr. Lawrence
O. Picus.

As we discussed an appropriate sample for this study, Dr. Picus and I
determined that researching successful schools and school districts that have a
track record of continuous improvement is most important. The focus will be on
Stratus, Cumulus and Cirrus High Schools in Cloud Unified School District.
While data (CST and other testing data, information related to school staffing, the
daily bell schedule and professional development activities) will be collected from
each school site, we anticipate that it may be helpful to understand the
relationship and role of the District as it allocates resources to these schools.

I would like to work with you to gather information regarding the strategies that
have been and are currently being used to improve student performance. What
would be particularly helpful is to assemble several District administrators and
principals for individual or group interviews this fall to see what can be learned
about the strategies, practices and approaches to resource allocation that CUSD
has used.

Ultimately, CUSD is in a unique position to provide insight that may be
transferrable to other districts that struggle with resource allocation and
improving student achievement.

These are the four research questions I aim to answer in this study:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the
school’s instructional improvement plan?
145
3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in
response to the recent budget adjustments, including overall funding
reductions and changes in the use of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with
or different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based
or other Model?

I am currently writing chapters one through three of the dissertation in
preparation for the qualifying exam in June 2010. Once the qualifying exam is
successfully completed, I will be allowed to collect data. I would like to schedule
an interview with you and/or your leadership team at the beginning of next school
year. I have also communicated this request to your predecessor, as it may be
helpful to understand where the District has been to know where it is going. We
certainly can arrange a time and location that is convenient to you.

I hope that I can count on you to assist me in conducting this most important
research. Please know that the schools and the District in this study will be kept
completely confidential, and pseudo-names will be used throughout the
dissertation. I expect to learn a great deal of how CUSD staff is working to
further student achievement.

Please let me know if you would be willing to participate in this study. I am also
available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Brian Landisi

146
APPENDIX B: IRB APPROVAL
The USC Institutional Review Board approved the thematic group’s studies and also
determined that this study did not qualify as Human Subjects Research.
Figure B.1: E-mail Communication Indicating IRB Approval
147
APPENDIX C: DOCUMENT REQUEST LIST
To assist in the document analysis portion of this study, the following literature and data
were requested from each school site.

DOCUMENT REQUEST LIST

Below is a list of documents necessary to complete the school profile. All documents should
be current for the 2010-2011 academic year.

 List of Certificated and Classified Staff
The list should include any person who works in the physical space of the school. It
is necessary to understand the full-time equivalent status (FTE) of each employee, as
well as what their job entails.

 List of District Staff Assigned to the School
This list should include all district employees who do not appear on school staff
rosters, but who provide direct services to schools (guidance counselors,
psychologists, special education diagnosticians, etc.) and which schools they provide
services to, expressed in FTE units.

 School Bell Schedule
A copy of the bell schedule will be used to document the amount of instructional time
allocated for reading, math, etc.

 Master Schedule
A copy of the master schedule should include the class size for each section taught at
the school.

 Daily Substitute Rate
The daily rate should reflect pay earned by substitute teachers who replace sick
teachers (not those replacing teachers who are participating in professional
development).

 Budget for Consultants (School, District and State)
This budget should include the dollar amount for all other consultants other than
professional development contracted services.

 Budget for Staff Development
This budget should reflect the following:
• Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount for substitutes and
stipends that cover teacher time for professional development.
148
• Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services.
• Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
• Materials, Equipment and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development, including the cost of classroom materials,
equipment needed for professional development activities and rental or other
costs for facilities used for professional development.
• Tuition and Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or
reimbursement for college-based professional development and fees for
conferences related to professional development.
• Other Professional Development: Dollar amount for other professional
development staff or costs.

 Data on Budget Reductions/Cuts & Approaches
These documents should explain: (a) any loss of funding and (b) the process used for
determining cuts and any changes made in staff ratios.

 Approach to Dealing with Categorical Funds
149
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL - SAMPLE SCHOOLS
This list of questions was standardized among the thematic dissertation group study
authors. The questions were provided to the sample schools’ administrators prior to the
interview and asked in the following order.
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Following are open-ended questions intended to capture the school’s strategies for
improving student performance. The questions will be asked in the order that they
appear. The principal’s answers will be recorded as she gives them and the focus will be
on the key elements of the instructional improvement effort with less emphasis on the
process aspect.

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)
• Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy?
150
• 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 is the professional development days scheduled for?
(e.g. Summer Institutes, in-service days)
• What is the focus of the professional development?
• Do you have instructional coaches in your school? Were
there enough coaches? (Did you need more but couldn’t
afford it?)
5. “Interventions” or Extra Help Strategies for Struggling Students
• Tutoring: Specify 1:1, in small groups (2-4), or in medium
groups (3-5)
• Extended day: How frequently (Number minutes &
Number of times per week), Academic focus, Who
instructs (certified teachers or aides), Who participates
• Summer school: How Frequently (Number hours a day,
Number weeks), Who instructs (certified teachers or aides),
Who participates
• ELL
• Scheduling: (e.g. double periods in secondary schools)
6. Parent Outreach or Community Involvement
7. Technology

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

D. What type of instructional leadership was present?

E. Was there accountability built into this improvement plan?

F. What additional resources would be needed to continue and
expand your efforts?
151
APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL - DISTRICT OFFICE
This list of questions was used to interview the district administrators and aligns with the
questions asked at the sample school sites. The questions were provided prior to the
interview and asked in following order.
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Following are open-ended questions intended to capture the district’s strategies for
improving student performance. The questions will be asked in the order that they
appear. The answers will be recorded with the focus being on the key elements of the
instructional improvement effort with equal emphasis being placed on the process aspect.

Tell me the story of how your district improved student performance.

1. How do you explain the increase in student achievement in this
district?

2. What are the curriculum and instruction pieces of the
improvement strategy?

1. What is the instructional vision for your improvement effort?

2. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement effort?
• Does your staff have agreed upon goals for achievement and
instruction?

3. What were the resource pieces of the strategy? How long have the
resources been in place?

A. Professional Development
• What is the focus of the professional development?

B. Recruiting/Retaining Top Talent

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

A. How does the district office strike a balance between direction and
school support?

5. What type of instructional leadership was present?
152

6. Was there accountability built into this improvement plan?

7. How have the budget cuts affected your short-term and long-term
improvement plans?

A. What process did you follow when making cuts? Was anything off the
table?

8. What is the relationship between the district office and the school
sites?

A. How are resources allocated to the schools? What priorities/strategies
are in place?

B. What is the level of vision, leadership and support provided to
individual school sites?

9. What additional resources would be needed to continue and expand
your efforts?

10. What lessons can be learned from this district and its high schools
and the process you have used to improve student achievement
during difficult economic times?
153
APPENDIX F: QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
The following data were provided by each school site to develop a profile that would be
used in the writing of the case studies.
QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL

School Profile
School Name

School’s State ID #

Address

City

State

ZIP Code

Phone

Fax

Website

Notes

School Contact (1)
Title

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

154

District Profile
District Name

District State ID #

District Contact (1)
Title

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

155

School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment

Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment

Grade Span

Number of At-Risk Students (collect from district)

Number of ELL/Bilingual Students

Number of High Mobility Students (collect from district)

Number of Students Eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL)

Total Number of Special Education Students (IEPs)

Number of Special Education Students (Self-contained)

Total Length of School Day

Length of Instructional Day

Length of Mathematics Class

Length of Reading or English/LA Class

Length of Science Class

Length of Social Studies Class

Length of Foreign Language Class

AYP

API

Notes

156

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/LA

History/Social Studies

Math

Science

Foreign Language

Notes

157

Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning & Prep
(FTEs)
Art

Music

PE/Health

Drama

Technology

Career & Technical Education

Drivers Education

Study Hall

Athletics

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers Description

Notes

158

Library Staff
(FTEs)
Librarian

Library Media Specialist

Library Aide

Notes

159

Extra Help I
(FTEs or Dollars)
Certified Teacher Tutors

Non-Certified Tutors

In-School Suspension (ISS) Teachers

In-School Suspension (ISS) Aides

Title I Teachers

Title I Aides

ELL Class Teachers

Aides for ELL

Gifted Program Teachers

Gifted Program Aides

Gifted Program Funds
$
Other Extra Help Teachers

Other Extra Help Teachers Funded with Federal Dollars

Other Extra Help Classified Staff

Other Extra Help Classified Staff Funded with Federal Dollars

Notes

160

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

Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers

Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers

Special Ed. Self-contained Aides

Special Ed. Inclusion Aides

Special Ed. Resource Room Aides

Notes

161

Extra Help III
Number of Extended Day Students

Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program

Teacher Contact Minutes per Week

Extended Day Teachers (FTEs)

Extended Day Classified Staff (FTEs)

Description of Extended Day Classified Staff

Minutes per Week of Summer School

Length of Summer Session (# of weeks)

School’s Students Enrolled in Summer School

All Students in Summer School

Summer School Teachers (FTEs)

Notes

162

Other Instructional Staff
(FTEs or Dollars)
Consultants (other than PD contracted services)

Building Substitutes and Other Substitutes

Other Teachers

Other Instructional Aides

Funds for Daily Subs

Notes

Professional Development
(FTEs or Dollars)
Number of Professional Development Days in Teacher Contract

Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time)
$
Instructional Facilitators/Coaches

Trainers/Consultants
$
Administration

Travel
$
Materials, Equipment and Facilities
$
Tuition & Conference Fees
$
Other Professional Development
$
Description of Other Professional Development Funded with Federal Dollars

Notes

163

Student Services Staff
(FTEs)
Guidance

Attendance/Dropout

Social Workers

Nurse

Parent Advocate/Community Liaison

Speech/ O.T./P.T.

Health Assistants

Non-teaching Aides

Other Student Services Staff

Description of Other Student Services Staff

Notes

Administration
(FTEs)
Principal

Assistant Principal

Other Administrator

Description of Other Administrator

Secretary

Clerical Staff

Technology Coordinator/I.T.

Security

Custodians

Notes

164

Elementary School Class Sizes
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4
Special Ed.
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8

165
APPENDIX G: DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK
The Data Collection Codebook clarifies the specific data that was collected in the
quantitative data protocol.

DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK

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

I. School Profile
Each data item has a place for notes. This section is meant to be used for any
notations that you would like to record as a personal reminder. Notes fields will
not be used in data analysis.

A. School Name: In your training binder, there will be a group of schools for
which you are responsible. The school name and contact information are
located under the Schools tab.
B. School State ID: This is the identification number that the state has assigned
the school. You do not need to enter this; it has been entered for you.
C. Address Line 1: Street address of the school
D. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the school
E. City: City of the school
F. State: “CA” is automatically entered for you.
G. Zip: Postal zip code of the school
H. Phone: Main office phone number for the school
I. Fax: Main office fax number for the school
J. Website: School’s official website

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

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.
166
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “WY” is automatically being entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

III. District Profile

A. District Name: This is the name of the district where the school is located.
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 these individuals (e.g.
phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what
the data source is.

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

V. School Resource Indicators
School resource indicators should be collected for the 2009-2010 school year.
Enter personal notations pertaining to the data in the yellow notes fields.
167

A. Current Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled at the school on
the day of the site visit minus any pre-kindergarten students.
B. Pre-kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled in any
pre-kindergarten programs at the school on the day of the site visit. These
students should not be included in the previous category, Current Student
Enrollment. Make sure to also ask this question at secondary schools.
C. Grade Span: Range of grades that the school provides instruction in. (E.g. K-
5)
D. Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of the site visit, the number
of students eligible for services as an English language learner (ELL) as
defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
E. Number of Students Eligible for Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL):
Number of enrolled students who are eligible for the federal free- and
reduced-price lunch program.
F. Total number of Special Education Students (IEPs): As of the day of the site
visit, number of students in the school with an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) indicating their eligibility for special education services. (This
will most likely be a larger number than the number of students who are in a
self-contained special education classroom.) Does not include gifted and
talented students.
G. Number of Special Education Students (self-contained): Number of students
in the school with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) indicating their
eligibility for special education services.
H. Total Length of School Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
required to be present at school. If multiple grade spans are present for
different amounts of time, report the average length. (e.g. If the school day
begins at 8:30 am 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.
168
L. Length of Science Class: Number of minutes of science class periods per day.
These include periods when students are specially grouped for extended
science instruction. Report an average per day length.
M. Length of Social Studies Class: Number of minutes of social studies and
history class periods per day. These include periods when students are
specially grouped for extended history or social studies instruction. Report an
average per day length.
N. AYP: This is a measure as to whether the school made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) during the previous school year (2007-08). Enter “Y” or “N”
or “NA.”
O. API

VI. Core Academic Teachers
The classroom teachers primarily responsible for teaching a school’s core
academic subjects of reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science,
history/social studies, and foreign language. In elementary schools, core
academic teachers consist of the teachers in the self-contained regular education
classrooms. Some elementary schools may also departmentalize certain core
subjects such as math or science, especially in the upper grades. These teachers
are also to be included as core teachers. In middle schools, high schools, or any
other departmentalized school, core teachers consist of those teachers who are
members of the English/language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and
foreign language departments along with special education or ESL/bilingual
teachers who provide classes in these subjects. The teachers should be entered as
full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. (E.g. a half-time
teacher would be entered as 0.5) If teachers are assigned to multiage classrooms,
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), Courtney Cox (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
169
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.

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.
170
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 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 that
provides 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 does.
P. Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for students with severe disabilities):
Number of FTE licensed teachers who teach in self-contained special
education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled students for most
or all of the school day. These teachers may teach a modified version of a
school’s curriculum or other learning goals required by their students’
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who assist
regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical
or mental disabilities, or a learning problem. These students generally have
“less severe” disabling conditions.
171
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 provides 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 that
provided students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in
the regular curriculum during summer 2008.

X. Other Instructional Staff
172
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.
173
C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE instructional facilitators
and coaches. This may include on-site facilitators and district coaches
(though only the FTE for the specific school should be recorded). Outside
consultants who provide coaching should be captured in an estimated FTE
amount depending on how much time they spend at the school.
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services. If trainers are from the
district, convert to a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-level administrators of
professional development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the specific
school should be recorded).
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials,
equipment needed for professional development activities, and rental or other
costs for facilities used for professional development.
H. Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or
reimbursement for college-based professional development, and fees for
conferences related to professional development.
I. Other Professional Development: Either FTEs or Dollar amount for other
professional development staff or costs. (Use this category sparingly.)
J. Other Description: Specify what the “Other” professional developments are,
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.
174
G. Speech/OT/PT: Number of FTE licensed speech, occupational (OT), and
physical therapists (PT) who provide services to the school’s students
H. Health Asst.: Number of FTE health assistants
I. Non-teaching aides: Number of FTE non-teaching aides. (E.g. Lunchroom
aides, Aides who help students board buses; DO NOT include cooks – the
defining difference is whether the staff member is supervising students or
not.)
J. Other Student Services: Number of FTE other student services staff. (Use this
category sparingly.)
K. Other Description: Indicate what the “other” student services staff member
does.

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

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

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

Sometimes it is easiest to get this information when you get the staff list, but other
times the secretary can just copy the sheet that tells them how many students are
in each classroom (we don’t want student names). You want a (preferably
electronic) copy of the master class schedule to enter this data. When entering
the data online, make sure to enter the class size for every class that is taught at
the school. Click on the Class Size option from the main menu and a new menu
will be displayed on the left. This menu will have options for grades Pre-8 plus
Special Education. When you click on a grade, the page with that grade's sections
will be displayed where you can enter the individual class sizes.
175
APPENDIX H: CASE STUDY - STRATUS HIGH SCHOOL
Background
Stratus High School (SHS) is one of three comprehensive high schools in the
Cloud Unified School District (CUSD). This district, which recently celebrated its 100th
anniversary, serves approximately 26,500 students in its 20 elementary schools, four
middle schools, three comprehensive senior high schools, one continuation high school,
one magnet high school that emphasizes science and technology, a developmental center
for multi-handicapped students, and numerous preschool/childcare centers that serve
preschool and/or elementary school children.
SHS is located in a suburb just outside Los Angeles and was the last of the three
high schools in the district to open in 1960. The campus started as an elementary school
in the early part of the twentieth century, then became a junior high school in the 1930s,
and in 1960 became a high school when the population expanded in the northern part of
the city. For fifty years, Stratus High School has been recognized as the center of
community activity as well as a learning center. SHS was designated a California
Distinguished School in 1999 and again in 2005, a National Blue Ribbon School in 2000,
and the 2005 winner of the Los Angeles Music Center’s Bravo Award.
Stratus High School serves 2,944 students from a diverse ethnic background,
socioeconomic status and language abilities. The primary ethnic groups are White
(53.9%), Asian (31.8%) and Hispanic/Latino (9.7%). Specifically, many students of
Armenian heritage are classified under the White category, and nearly all students
176
classified as Asian at this school are Korean. Figure H.1 graphically shows the ethnic
breakdown of all students at Stratus High School.
Figure H.1: Stratus HS Demographics, 2009-2010

SHS is the only high school in CUSD that does not receive Title I funds, given
that 9.6% of its students participate in the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch program. Six
percent of the student population is classified as English Language Learner (ELL). The
school has only a handful of new arrivals and has a history of reclassifying its ELL
students within the school year. SHS has 198 students (6.7%) with Individualized
Education Plans (IEPs) as part of the special education program. Table H.1 indicates that
the percentage of Stratus High School’s students participating in special programs is far
below the averages at the district, county and state levels.
Table H.1: Stratus HS Special Program Participation Comparison, 2009-2010

Total
Enrollment
%
ELL
% Free and Reduced-Price
Lunch
% Special
Education
SHS 2,944 6.0% 9.6% 6.7%
District 26,506 24.0% 43.9% 8.4%
County 1,585,069 26.0% 65.5% 10.7%
State 6,143,159 23.7% 55.9% 10.3%

177
This case study is designed to provide analysis of school-level data and practices
as they relate to school improvement and higher achievement for all students.
Specifically, the case study will illustrate how the improvement process was initiated at
this school, the common themes that led to successful outcomes and the identification of
resources that were used to achieve the school’s goals.
Assessment data. Stratus High School has demonstrated impressive growth in
student performance. Over the past ten years, the schoolwide API has increased by 129
points. Figure H.2 shows SHS’s Academic Performance Index (API) growth from 2001
to 2010.
Figure H.2: Stratus HS API Ten-Year Growth

Examining the five-year API trend by subgroup shows some strong areas of growth and
some areas of stagnation. Figure H.3 shows the steady API growth of the whole school
178
and almost all the subgroups and demonstrates the closing of the gap between the white
students and other subgroups.
Figure H.3: Stratus HS API Five-Year Trend by Subgroup

Stratus High School celebrated in 2008 when the Hispanic/Latino subgroup
passed the 800 mark. This subgroup has continued to make gains in API and currently
stands at 831, making it the subgroup of students that has made the most significant
improvement in academic achievement across the school.
There is cause for concern among the faculty at SHS about the ELL and Special
Education (SPED) subgroups. The API for the ELL subgroup dropped by 53 points from
2008-2009 to 2009-2010. The SPED API dropped by 31 points in the same year. Staff
are currently investigating whether the way in which the district was reporting ELL
students’ English proficiency/classification level may be connected to this drop in API
scores.
179
The STAR scores for students at Stratus High School have grown consistently
over the past five years. Figure H.4 shows the California Standards Test (CST) scores for
the core subject areas of English, History, Math and Science. While growth in the
percent proficient or advanced has been slow over time—typical increases range from 5%
to 10% across the subject areas—there are still reasons to celebrate.
Figure H.4: Stratus HS STAR Test Summary, 2006-2010

Science has seen the greatest increase in proficiency. The End-of-Course (EOC)
Science test increased 10.5% and the NCLB Science jumped 12% over five years. This
can be attributed to the efforts of teachers and counselors to encourage students to take
three years or more of science. The addition of a Standards Resource Teacher in 2007
helped train social science teachers in the use of state content standards and
180
corresponding assessments, which led to an increase in the percent proficient or advanced
in History by 11% since 2007.
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores have remained strong since
2006 with over 97% of all students passing both the Math and English portions of the test
on their first attempt. As Table H.2 shows, the most impressive gains have been with
Low SES students with an 89% pass rate on the English portion, up from 69% in 2006.
In addition, the ELL pass rate has improved for the English portion of the exam with
scores growing from lows around 69% to near 80%. The fluctuations in CAHSEE scores
for the English Learner group are likely due to the small number of students in the ELL
category as an individual student’s performance has more of an effect on the whole
group.
Table H.2: Stratus HS CAHSEE First Attempt Pass Rates by Subgroup, 2006-2010
Math % Passed English-Language Arts % Passed

2006
n=729
2007
n=718
2008
n=774
2009
n=710
2010
n=703
2006
n=738
2007
n=730
2008
n=786
2009
n=716
2010
n=703
All 10th Grade 97% 97% 98% 98% 99% 95% 96% 95% 96% 97%
Asian 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 95% 94% 96% 95% 95%
Hispanic/Latino 90% 87% 95% 89% 96% 86% 92% 90% 93% 95%
White 98% 98% 98% 98% 99% 96% 98% 95% 97% 98%
SPED 79% 82% 77% 82% 82% 66% 79% 60% 91% 73%
ELL 95% 93% 98% 94% 98% 69% 82% 41% 67% 78%
Low SES 89% 94% 95% 94% 97% 72% 91% 85% 49% 89%

CAHSEE scores, which are a factor in the overall determination of Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP), have been a point of concern for the staff at Stratus High School.
A CAHSEE scale score of 350 is considered passing, but 380 is the minimum that can be
scored to be considered proficient for AYP. While there is evidence that the pass rate on
both sections of the exam has improved over time, it is the percentage of students scoring
proficient that is an indicator requiring closer attention. Schoolwide 86.1% of students
181
have met the proficiency requirement for ELA and 87.3% have met the proficiency
requirement for Math, far above the Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) for 2009-
2010. The AMO for ELA was 55.6%, and for Math it was 54.8% for 2009-2010. This
percent proficient increases dramatically every year until 100% proficiency is reached in
2014. Forty-two percent of the English Language Learners and 46% of Special
Education students have not met proficiency goals as indicated by AYP measures in
English-Language Arts. In addition, 47.8% of SPED students have not met proficiency
as indicated by AYP measures in mathematics. This is a cause for concern because these
two subgroups have not met the AMO for 2009-2010.
Despite these challenges, it should be noted that the school met all 18 of its AYP
criteria in 2009-2010, and since it is not a Title I school, Stratus High School is not
eligible for Program Improvement.
Taking into account all the available student achievement data, perhaps the most
impressive is the participation and performance of students in the College Board’s
Advanced Placement (AP) program. In five years, the number of tests given to Stratus
High School students has increased by 400 exams, indicating that more students are
attempting a rigorous academic schedule by attempting these courses and exams. As the
participation rate has increased, the pass rate has remained constant—around 72%.
Often, as barriers to an AP program are removed the pass rate decreases, but this trend
has not held true at Stratus High School.
182
Figure H.5: Stratus HS AP Exams Taken and Passed, 2006-2010

School Improvement Process
The origin of school improvement at Stratus High School can be traced back as
far as the late 1990s when the principal decided to share his role of instructional leader
and decision-maker with a co-principal. The creation of this position, supported by the
Board of Education of Cloud Unified School District and later adopted by the other high
schools in the district, was meant to provide instructional support for teachers and outline
the academic vision of the school once the California content standards were adopted.
By the early 2000s, a math and English teacher were tapped to take on the role of
Standards Resource Teachers (SRT) for one period a day. Their task would be to analyze
STAR data and the students who struggled with these and provide materials and coaching
for teachers who taught the standards in the core subjects. The co-principal and SRTs
183
became the first Instructional Leadership Team (ILT), responsible for decisions related to
academics schoolwide.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. By 2005, district
officials had phased out the co-principal model at all of the high schools—a cost saving
measure made in anticipation of looming budget cuts. The SRT positions remained intact
and funded at 0.4 FTE. It was becoming increasingly clear, however, that SHS would
have to continue to make academic progress with fewer staff resources. At this point,
FTEs designated for ROP courses were used to cover some career and technical
education courses, freeing up generally allocated FTEs. The principal made a decision to
use the remaining FTEs to her advantage by assigning two more SRTs—one in science
and another in social science. The SRTs shared a common planning period in which they
would analyze student performance data and plan faculty meetings.
It was during these conversations that it became increasingly clear that the school
lacked an instructional focus. While students had consistently performed well on CSTs,
there were still departments in the school whose subjects were not tested that left them
less connected and harder to engage because of the lack of urgency in regards to
accountability. If the school were to continue its success and move more students toward
mastery of standards, it would be necessary to engage all teachers in a single schoolwide
goal that could be applied in every classroom with every student every day.
Analyzing the CST, CAHSEE and AP data revealed a disturbing trend: Asian and
White students continued to outperform the Hispanic/Latino subgroup. In 2002, when
school leadership initially discovered this achievement gap, the difference between whole
184
school API and the Hispanic/Latino API was 137 points. A focus group of teachers,
counselors, students and parents assembled and determined that the level of expectations
for Hispanic/Latino students was not as high as it was for other students. They were not
taking nor were they encouraged to take rigorous classes. Understanding this data led to
a culture shift in the school—a change in beliefs that all students can learn. By 2010, the
gap between whole school API and Hispanic/Latino API narrowed to 52 points. While
this indicates some success, SHS leadership recognizes that an achievement gap is
exactly that—a gap in mastery of standards and student achievement.
This initial “ah ha” moment for the staff created a new reality: students and
teachers are responsible for and control their own academic destiny. This again became
clear at the end of the 2009-2010 academic year when both the ELL and Special
Education subgroups dropped in API scores and did not meet the AMOs for proficiency
on the CAHSEE. The two other comprehensive high schools in the district experienced
the same performance challenge, but were now facing Program Improvement (PI) status.
While Stratus High School was not in PI or in danger of moving that direction, the sense
of urgency to reach these subgroups became abundantly clear. As a result of the other
high schools moving into PI status, Stratus High School would now take on 60 transfers
from those schools—adding an additional performance challenge to bring those students
up to standards.
Setting ambitious goals. Holding students responsible and encouraging high
achievement standards for all students was fast becoming a schoolwide norm not only
because this was an expectation of the teachers and school leadership, but also because it
185
meshed well with the values of the parents and community. When SHS staff realized that
their efforts with Hispanic/Latino students had yielded positive, measurable outcomes on
State tests, it became easier to transfer their efforts to other members of the student body.
The principal and SRTs began reading material by Douglas Reeves, Robert Marzano and
reports by the College Board. The College Keys Compact by the College Board was a
revelation for the principal and SRTs. This document asserted that students needed to
pass Algebra II in order to be competitive in the world beyond high school. By 2005, the
district had already made geometry a graduation requirement, so adding an additional
year of math would be an additional, yet realistic challenge for students.
Because Algebra II is one of the California State University (CSU) and University
of California (UC) a-g requirements for college entrance, the principal, SRTs and
counselors started a campaign to move all students onto what they termed the “a-g bus”.
That is, students should not simply aim to meet the graduation requirements but the
college entrance requirements for CSU/UC. In 2005, 50.8% of students met the a-g
requirements. The goal was and continues to be to increase this by 2% each year. By
2010, 63% of students at Stratus High School met the a-g requirements. This percentage,
however, has remained stagnant for three years.
Students cannot make it to college if they do not demonstrate mastery of
standards in high school, though. This point was made clear by faculty who initially
resisted the move to putting all students on the a-g bus. They were concerned about
school focusing more on academics and less on the individual strengths of students. To
help teachers better understand their role in raising standards for students and assisting in
186
reaching this schoolwide goal required the SRTs to make the reality accessible to
teachers. It began with distributing the list of students earning grades of D or F in each
teacher’s class. Teachers analyzed their own students’ performance and brainstormed
strategies for moving students out of the D-F range. In 2007, 15.4% of all semester
grades were D or F. By June 2010, the percentage of Ds and Fs had dropped to near 9%
schoolwide at the semester.
The principal knew that the collective goal to “declare war on the D grade” was
necessary in order to move students forward academically. The logic was that if more
students were passing classes, they would also increase proficiency on the CSTs. The
goal set by the school is to increase proficiency by 2% each year, and SHS students
appear to be meeting this challenge in almost all subjects.
Changing the curriculum and creating a new instructional vision. The change
in culture at the school had to involve all teachers, so over the course of the 2006-2007
year, efforts were made to come to consensus on the schoolwide focus. After much
dialogue and a final vote, faculty chose critical thinking as the schoolwide instructional
focus. Specifically, the vision statement reads: “The schoolwide instructional focus of
Stratus High is to have students show growth in critical thinking as measured by a greater
percentage of students fulfilling or exceeding the a-g requirements and earning higher
scores on the STAR/CAPA and CAHSEE.” In addition, the staff adopted two best
practices that would be used in all classrooms: formative assessment and re-teaching.
This vision met with approval from teachers because it did not require a reworking of the
curriculum, but rather enhancing the curriculum to help students reach higher levels of
187
thinking. There were some adjustments made to the ELD content with adoption across
the district of the new Hampton-Brown Edge series of textbooks. Given the drop in
scores for the ELL subgroup district wide, the district committed to using funds this year
to purchase the new curriculum even though new adoptions were originally not set to take
place until 2013.
The new instructional vision was adopted and put into practice in classrooms as
noted by the principal through informal and formal observations around the campus. The
principal shared evidence of critical thinking best practices via a schoolwide blog.
Posters with Bloom’s Taxonomy were posted around campus and students have been
taught to recognize when they are moving beyond simple recall and up the ladder of
cognitive processes.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making. As part of the new
instructional vision, the faculty has adopted the best practice of using formative
assessments on a consistent basis. A motto was developed: “Rethink-Reteach-Results.”
That is, when teachers analyze their classroom test data or conduct a lesson and find that
students are not mastering the content, they rethink their approach to teaching. Students
likewise must consider the material a second time. Teachers reteach the concepts using
different strategies. Ultimately, this process is designed to bring about higher
achievement results. This motto is used both by teachers and students and is found on
banners around the campus. A culture of improvement exists as a result of these efforts.
Since 2006, each department at SHS has been developing, refining and using
common formative assessments (CFA) in every course to diagnose learning gaps and
188
drive instruction. In 2010, the CFAs were finally refined to the point where each
department, including all core and elective classes, administers these assessments once a
quarter. Teachers then confer during department meetings, review CFA results and share
best practices to help remediate. As a measure of accountability, the percentage of
students scoring proficient on CFAs is now posted in the main office, and these data
provide a tool for planning instruction. Special Education teachers use the CFAs given in
the core content areas to their students as well, and the outcome data provide details
about where SPED students stand in meeting content standards.
Rarely is a decision made at Stratus High School without consulting data. Student
assessment data are used to determine the schoolwide focus and best practices.
Formative assessment data are used to adjust pacing guides and scope and sequence for
classes. The Instructional Leadership Team has even taken to surveying faculty after
every faculty meeting to determine what activities are helping improve teachers’ skills
and meet with their preferences. When a decision had to be made about maintaining an
open-campus lunch policy, a team of teachers pulled tardy/absence data for fifth period
classes to better understand students’ attendance patterns following lunch. This approach
to leading a school is led by the principal who embraces the use of data to make decisions
analytically and not by gut feeling reactions.
Ongoing, intensive professional development. Many of the conversations
surrounding data take place during regularly scheduled faculty and department meetings.
The staff voted to bank minutes in order to hold 17 meetings a year. Twice a month, late-
start days allow faculty to gather to discuss issues and engage in professional
189
development. This has been supported from the district office by each school’s
participation in an additional form of professional development called the Focus on
Results (FOR) framework. Members of the ILT meet monthly during FOR days to
review data, plan staff meetings and build leadership for school and district improvement.
The district pays for the consultants and for two teachers from each school site to attend
these monthly FOR meetings.
Teachers regularly attend AP conferences, and, in preparation for the launch of
the common core standards, teachers attended a workshop by Douglas Reeves on new
assessment practices for the common core. Since 2008, teachers and administrators have
been attending the Foundation for Critical Thinking’s annual conferences. A cohort of
teachers then takes what it has learned and provides staff training upon their return to
campus. Because of the costs associated with travel, conference fees and substitutes, the
Instructional Leadership Team voted to bring the leader of the Foundation for Critical
Thinking, Dr. Linda Elder to campus in April 2011 to bring the schoolwide focus on
critical thinking closer to the teachers.
Each year, the principal has committed to saving 0.4 FTE to be used for
substitutes to cover teachers in order for them to have department collaboration time.
This school year, each department received either a full-day or two half-days of
collaboration time to finalize content of their CFAs and share strategies to reach ELL and
SPED students. Much of the strategies that came out of these collaboration days have
been shared at faculty-led workshops during regularly scheduled faculty meetings and the
three SB1193 inservice days. Sharing the role of instructional leader has empowered
190
teachers to own the school focus, and teachers have reported they are more likely to adopt
strategies if they know someone who has been successful using them in the classroom.
Efficient and effective use of instructional time. As teachers share and learn
best practices among colleagues, they begin to use them in their own practice. Special
Education teachers have met with every department to review how to maximize the block
of classes during periods 2 and 3, separated by a brief snack break, thus concentrating
time on building skills in the target language.
Extending learning time for struggling students. Students requiring additional
help are also programmed into resource classes. Specifically, students who have failing
grades at the middle school, score low on the ELA portion of the CSTs or do not pass the
CAHSEE take the Literacy for Success class in addition to their regular English class.
Students focus on the specific content standards and test-taking skills required for the
ELA portion of the exams. Students struggling in math take the three-semester Algebra
or Geometry courses, which have been in existence since 2005. The three-semester
versions of these classes begin in summer and continue through the rest of the academic
year. The students receive the same content, but it is extended over a longer period to aid
in mastering concepts that otherwise would move at a faster pace. A peer-tutoring
component is also part of these classes where upperclassmen, typically AP students
wishing to earn service hours, work side-by-side with the students during the school day
to provide additional peer support. Currently, no problems exist beyond the regular
school day to assist struggling students. However, 16.0 sections of summer school are
offered as remedial courses to assist students who need additional support in mastering
191
content standards. While the Hispanic/Latino subgroup has made considerable gains,
there are not specific programs targeted at these students to narrow the achievement gap
at this school.
Collaborative, professional culture and distributed leadership. The culture of
Stratus High School is perhaps its most defining feature. Collective leadership exists and
high levels of accountability make it a group effort to move more students to higher
levels of thinking and leaning. Budget constraints and loss of sections made it unfeasible
to maintain 0.8 SRTs. The science and social science SRTs returned to their full-time
teaching assignments but continued to provide support for teaching the standards and
informal coaching on a volunteer basis. This did not slow the expansion of the ILT,
however. The team expanded to now over 20 members comprised of faculty, counselors
and administrators. More was asked of these members, given that they all teach full time
and must meet during duty-free time like lunch and after school—all unpaid—to
complete their duties.
In a recent faculty survey, Stratus staff found that 96% of staff supports the
school’s instructional vision. Perhaps this is best reflected in the number of teacher
volunteers who lead presentations at faculty meetings. Instructional leadership is not
limited to the ILT, but is distributed to classroom teachers who best know how to reach
students. This culture of constant improvement is supported by the Focus on Results
monthly release days and school improvement framework that focuses on school staff
coming together to use data to drive instruction. In addition, professionalism abounds as
teachers use annual formal walkthroughs of classrooms to better understand what
192
teachers across the school are doing in their specific subject areas and how those ideas
can be applied in cross-curricular approaches to student learning.
Use of research-based best practices and external expertise. Stratus High
School’s adoption of critical thinking as a schoolwide focus is reflective of the future of
education and the move to infuse 21st century skills in classrooms across the country.
The use of common formative assessments is also a movement that continues to gain
momentum. The idea that reteaching is not something that suggests incompetence but
rather a way of meeting the needs of more students and fostering the mastery of standards
and deeper learning has created greater ownership of student achievement results among
staff at Stratus High School.
The staff at SHS has sought outside advice when it comes to better reaching more
members of their student population. Consultants from the Foundation on Critical
Thinking make regular conference calls with the principal and ILT to ensure efforts are
being made to move the school forward with these skills. In addition, to balance the
academic with students social and emotional needs, the leadership has called upon trainer
Clay Roberts and experts from the Search Institute as they attempt to infuse the 40
Developmental Assets into both the academic and extracurricular programs offered by
the school. When the principal recently retired, an outside expert with experience in
transforming organizations led a change of principal workshop to help transition the new
leader to the school. The school demonstrates that it is highly effective in defining where
it wants its staff and students to go and managing its own destiny.
193
Recruiting and developing top talent. In its 50 years of existence, Stratus High
School has only had six principals. The previous principal, who retired in 2010, had been
a teacher at the school for 24 years and principal for 12 years. Prior to joining the staff at
SHS, the current principal served as principal at SHS’s feeder middle school for two
years. In addition, as one assistant principal moved on to a position at the district office,
his replacement was a teacher who worked at Stratus for 25 years. All the team sports are
coached by teachers at the school and 65% of teachers sponsor a club or student
organization. In addition, over half of the teachers at SHS are alumni of the school.
There is great institutional knowledge and commitment to the school.
Because of the belief in distributed leadership and the emphasis on collective
responsibility, there is evidence that SHS is making highly effective use of all its staff
members to own student learning and achievement.
Table H.3 is a summary of how SHS implements the ten steps that Odden (2009)
recommends for doubling student performance.
Table H.3: Stratus HS’s Implementation of 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance
Implementation
Odden’s Steps
Strong Average Weak
Not
observed
STEP 1
Understand the performance challenge: Analyze
performance data
X
STEP 2
Set ambitious goals
X
STEP 3
Change the curriculum program and create a
new instructional vision
X
STEP 4
Use benchmark and formative assessments and
data-based decision making
X
194
Table H.3, continued
Implementation
Odden’s Steps
Strong Average Weak
Not
observed
STEP 5
Provide ongoing, intensive professional
development
X
STEP 6
Use instructional time efficiently and effectively
X
STEP 7
Extend learning time for struggling students
X
STEP 8
Build a collaborative, professional culture and
use distributed leadership
X
STEP 9
Use research-based best practices and external
expertise
X
STEP 10
The human capital side: Recruit and develop top
talent
X

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
This case study utilizes the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a
framework to collect resource data at the school level. This framework generates a
comparison between actual resources allocated at the school site and the level of core
resources that the Evidence-Based Model suggests for each individual school. Table H.4
shows how the resources at SHS compare to the EBM. The last column indicates the
difference between the Evidence-Based Model and SHS or indicates how the EBM would
staff a school of 2,944 students with the demographics of SHS.
195
Table H.4: Comparison of SHS Actual Resources and Evidence-Based Model
School Element
Evidence-Based
Model Prototype
High School
SHS Actual
Resource Allocation
Comparison of SHS
Resources to EBM
Prototype
School Characteristics
School configuration 9-12 9-12
Prototypical school size 600 2,944 4.9 times larger
Class size 25 36 44% larger
Number of teacher work days 200, including 10
days for intensive
training
186, including 3
inservice days
4 less work days, 7
less inservice days
% Disabled 12% 6.7% (198)
% Poverty (free or reduced-
price lunch)
50% 9.6% (294)
% English Language Learner
(ELL)
10% 6.0% (177)
% Minority 30% 46%
Personnel Resources
1. Core teachers 24 73.2 EBM suggests 117.6
2. Specialist teachers 33% or more: 8.0 22.6 EBM suggests 39.2
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Coaches
3.0 0.4 EBM suggests 14.7
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students:
3.0
0
EBM suggests 3.0
teachers
5. Teachers for ELL students An additional 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students
0.60
1.0
EBM suggests 1.8
teachers
6. Extended day 2.5 0 EBM suggests 12.3
7. Summer school 2.5 16.0 EBM suggests 12.3
School Characteristics
8. Students with mild
disabilities
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions
7.0 FTE teachers
6.4 FTE aides
EBM suggests 19.6
teachers
9. Students with severe
disabilities
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
2.0 FTE teachers
4.8 FTE aides
Based on need
10. Resources for
gifted/talented students
$25/student $15,347
EBM suggests
$73,600
11. Vocational education No extra cost Included in FTE No extra cost
12. Substitutes 5% of personnel $150/day 5% of personnel
13. Pupil support staff 1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance/250
students
5.4 total
5.0 Counselors
1.0 Psychologist
0.2 Nurse
0.6 Speech
(6.8 total)
EBM suggests 3.0
teachers and 11.8
guidance counselors
(14.8 total)
14. Non-instructional aides 3.0 0 EBM suggests 14.7
15. Librarians/Media
Specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library
technician
1.0 Librarian
EBM suggests 1.0
Librarians and 1.0
Library technicians
196
Table H.4, continued
School Element
Evidence-Based
Model Prototype
High School
SHS Actual
Resource Allocation
Comparison of SHS
Resources to EBM
Prototype
16. Principal
1
1 Principal
1 Assoc. Principal
3 Asst. Principals
EBM suggests 1
principal and 5 Asst.
Principals
17. School site secretary
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary
12.0 Clerical
EBM suggests 5.0
secretaries and 14.7
clerical
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional coaches
Planning & prep time
10 summer days
Additional:
$50/pupil for other
PD expenses—
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
3 days of professional
development,
$56,500 for other PD
expenses
EBM suggests 10
days intensive
professional
development and
$147,200 for other
PD expenses
19. Technology
$250/student
0.7 FTE teacher tech
coordinators
EBM suggests
$736,000
20. Instructional materials
$175/student Varies
EBM suggests
$515,200
21. Student activities
$250/student 0.4 ASB adviser
EBM suggests
$736,000

It is perhaps expected that the large high schools typical of many urban and
suburban school districts in California are staffed differently from what is suggested in
the Evidence-Based Model. The most glaring difference is the size of the student body.
The Evidence-Based Model’s prototype high school comprises grades 9-12 and serves
600 students. SHS is the largest school in the study with an enrollment of 2,944 students.
After prorating accordingly based on the size of this school, it is evident that the
resources in use at SHS are far lower than what the EBM generates. Yet the school
produces positive trends in student achievement results. It should be noted that despite
the differences in the current allocation of resources and what the EBM suggests, Stratus
High School has made a concerted effort to direct 76.9% of its class sections (73.2 FTE)
to core academic subjects, while limiting electives to only 23.6%, or 22.6 FTE. This
197
strategic allocation of resources—students take six classes and teachers teach five—may
likely explain the consistently strong academic achievement among all students.
Unique to this school is the specific dedication of resources (0.7 FTE) in the area
of technology allows two teachers to serve as technology coordinators during the school
day. While much of the funds to purchase new equipment, to host the school website and
train teachers come from donations from the Parent Teacher Student Association, the
physical presence of technical support and coaching on campus provides teachers and
staff with additional resources to support instruction and critical school functions.
Another interesting comparison: Stratus High School spends far less on
professional development than what the EBM would generate. Given that SHS’s focus
on critical thinking has required external expertise to help train staff members and create
a shift in school culture, the Instructional Leadership Team has had to be frugal with its
investment in outside presenters and attendance at conferences. Under the EBM, there
would be more resources and greater flexibility for the staff at this school to invest in this
area.
Impact of recent budget reductions. The high school has experienced some
structural changes and personnel reductions as part of the evolving budget challenges
over the past few years. While all ninth grade English classes were capped at 20 students
since the 1990s, class-size reduction was eliminated and now all ninth grade English
classes hover with enrollment around 36. In addition, school district officials reduced the
number of senior administrative secretaries at the school site from two to one through
retirements and attrition over the past two years. Further, the school district reduced FTE
198
allocations to each high school by 3.0 to assist with cutting costs across the board.
Stratus lost an additional ten teachers, four classified staff and one administrator who
took advantage of an early retirement offer made available by the CUSD to help alleviate
pressure on a hemorrhaging budget. Three of the teachers were not replaced, resulting in
a net loss of 6.0 FTE in the teaching force at SHS. Class sizes have risen in all subject
areas and there are fewer course options for students.
Summary and Lessons Learned
Stratus High School has made academic improvement possible for all of its
students. Even when subgroups perform at high levels with 90%+ passing or reaching
proficiency, students continue to make growth. This can be attributed to the stability in
leadership at the school and the ownership for achievement that is felt not only by
administrators but also by the entire school staff. The commitment to balancing
academics with students’ social and emotional development is a hallmark of a Stratus
education.
The school receives no special funding, but makes strategic use of its assigned
FTEs to provide opportunities for teacher leaders to emerge as coaches and for
collaboration time among departments. The principal believes that the school will be
unable to sustain solid staff development without additional funding. In the end, though,
she says, “It’s all about what you value. You need a strong leadership team and a big
leadership team.” Conversations surrounding data and best practices create a culture of
constant improvement among all team members.
199
Stratus High School will have to continue to develop this culture while also
meeting the challenge that comes with closing the achievement gap between
Hispanic/Latino students and reversing the downward trend in proficiency levels among
ELL and Special Education students.
200
APPENDIX I: CASE STUDY - CUMULUS HIGH SCHOOL
Background
Cumulus High School (CHS) is one of three comprehensive high schools in the
Cloud Unified School District (CUSD). This district, which recently celebrated its 100th
anniversary, serves approximately 26,500 students in its 20 elementary schools, four
middle schools, three comprehensive senior high schools, one continuation high school,
one magnet high school that emphasizes science and technology, a developmental center
for multi-handicapped students, and numerous preschool/childcare centers that serve
preschool and/or elementary school children.
Culumus HS is located in a suburb just outside Los Angeles and was the first of
the three high schools to open in the district. The campus opened in 1901 in the heart of
the city of Cloud as Cumulus Union High School, which served 29 students from many
of the surrounding communities. Cloud was a small country village at the time, and prior
to opening Cumulus Union High School, young people wishing to attend school had to
travel to Los Angeles for an education. In 1914, the people of Cloud passed their first
bond measure to expand the high school. By the 1920s, the school had expanded to just
over 1,000 students. Two additional bonds were passed in 1921 and 1922, dedicating
$100,000 to purchase a 21-acre lemon orchard and begin construction on the site of what
would become Cumulus High School. While the location of Cumulus HS has remained
unchanged for nearly 90 years, the site has undergone numerous construction projects to
expand and modernize its classrooms and athletic fields.
201
As recently as five years ago, Cumulus High School was the largest school in
Cloud Unified, serving approximately 3,400 students. Due to declining enrollment across
the district, enrollment at Cumulus is now at 2,847 students. These students come from
diverse ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic status and language abilities. The primary
ethnic groups are White (50.3%), Hispanic/Latino (31.0%) and Filipino (11.3%). It
should be noted that while White students comprise a significant portion of the student
body, this label is misleading. At this school, almost all of the students classified as
White are of Middle Eastern descent, the majority coming from Armenia. Figure I.1
graphically depicts the ethnic breakdown of all students at Cumulus High School.
Figure I.1: Cumulus HS Demographics, 2009-2010

Cumulus High School receives Title I funds to target the needs of its significant
socioeconomically disadvantaged population. The percentage of students receiving Free
or Reduced-Price Lunch hovers around 54%. Twenty-two percent of the student
population is classified as English Language Learner (ELL). The school serves fifty to
sixty new arrivals each year and either reclassifies or exists 75% of ELL students in the
202
program within the school year. Cumulus HS has 265 students (9.3%) with
Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) as part of the special education program. Table I.1
indicates that the percentage of Cumulus High School’s students participating in special
programs is fairly comparable with the averages at the district, county and state levels.
Table I.1: Cumulus HS Special Program Participation Comparison, 2009-2010

Total
Enrollment
%
ELL
% Free and Reduced-Price
Lunch
% Special
Education
Cumulus HS 2,847 22.2% 54.0% 9.3%
District 26,506 24.0% 43.9% 8.4%
County 1,585,069 26.0% 65.5% 10.7%
State 6,143,159 23.7% 55.9% 10.3%

This case study is designed to provide analysis of school-level data and practices
as they relate to school improvement and higher achievement for all students.
Specifically, the case study will illustrate how the improvement process was initiated at
this school, the common themes that led to successful outcomes and the identification of
resources that were used to achieve the school’s goals.
Assessment data. Cumulus High School has demonstrated impressive growth in
student achievement. Over the past ten years, the schoolwide Academic Performance
Index (API) has increased by 160 points. Yet, the school struggles with two issues:
performance has remained the same two years in a row at 754 and the schoolwide API
still has yet to break the 800 mark—the established statewide target to which all schools
should aspire. Figure I.2 shows Cumulus High School’s API growth from 2001-2010.
203
Figure I.2: Cumulus HS API Ten-Year Growth

Examining the five-year API trend by subgroup shows some growth and some areas of
stagnation. Figure I.3 shows the consistent API growth of the whole school and almost
all the subgroups. It also highlights the glaring achievement gap at this school where
Asians and Filipinos far outperform the rest of the subgroups.
204
Figure I.3: Cumulus HS API Five-Year Trend by Subgroup

It should be noted that while there have been some dips in scores over the years,
the general trend is an increase in student performance. The rise in student achievement
scores, albeit slow and far from dramatic, do indicate some cause for celebration. The
Hispanic/Latino subgroup grew from 675 to 718, raising the subgroup’s API by 43 points
over the past five years. Students classified in the socioeconomically disadvantaged
(Low SES) subgroup experienced the most significant improvement in academic
achievement across the school by increasing its API 53 points, from 658 in 2006 to 711
in 2010.
There is cause for concern among the faculty at Cumulus HS about the ELL and
Special Education (SPED) subgroups. The API for the ELL subgroup dropped by 23
points from 2008-2009 to 2009-2010. While the SPED API increased by three points in
the same year, there was a drop of 32 points between 2007-2008 and 2008-2009,
205
followed by a leveling off period last year. Staff are currently investigating whether the
way in which the district was reporting ELL students’ English proficiency/classification
level may be connected to this drop in API scores.
The STAR scores for students at Cumulus High School have grown consistently
over the past five years. Figure I.4 shows the California Standards Test (CST) scores for
the core subject areas of English, History, Math and Science. While growth in the
percent proficient and advanced has been slow over time for some content areas, there are
still reasons to celebrate in other contents.
Figure I.4: Cumulus HS STAR Test Summary, 2006-2010

History has seen the most notable increase in proficiency. The World History and
United States History tests yielded an increase of 21.4% over the past five years. This
tremendous improvement is all the more significant considering that nearly a quarter of
206
the student body is ELL and the content-specific vocabulary in social science is typically
a struggle for students whose first language is not English. The addition of sheltered
courses for History and collaboration among English Language Development (ELD)
teachers and the Social Science department contributed to this growth. This sharing of
best practices and instructional strategies was also extended to Science teachers—
additional support that contributed to the increase in proficiency on the End-of-Course
Science test (up 11.6% in five years) and the NCLB Science test (up 15% over five
years). Despite this positive news, there are concerns that proficiency rates across the
content areas range only from 35% to 52%, indicating significant gaps in learning and
achievement across the school.
Schoolwide California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores have seen little
fluctuation since 2006 with a range of 80% to 85% passing both the Math and English
portions of the test on their first attempt. In some instances the percent passing has
dropped by one or two percentage points over time. As Table I.2 shows, the only
subgroup to experience higher pass rates on both portions of the CAHSEE is the
Hispanic/Latino subgroup, rising 2% on Math and 4% on English. The inconsistent pass
rates among subgroups on the CAHSEE compared with the small fluctuation of the entire
tenth grade pass rate suggests that changes in cohort composition may explain the overall
performance changes.
207
Table I.2: Cumulus HS CAHSEE First Attempt Pass Rates by Subgroup, 2006-2010
Math % Passed English-Language Arts % Passed

2006
n=842
2007
n=792
2008
n=802
2009
n=768
2010
n=721
2006
n=843
2007
n=792
2008
n=807
2009
n=770
2010
n=725
All 10th Grade 87% 82% 84% 84% 85% 80% 80% 80% 77% 79%
Asian 98% 92% 98% 98% 98% 95% 85% 90% 96% 90%
Filipinio 98% 86% 92% 88% 93% 94% 89% 86% 82% 90%
Hispanic/Latino 76% 75% 77% 76% 78% 73% 77% 77% 73% 77%
White 89% 84% 86% 87% 87% 80% 80% 80% 76% 78%
SPED 43% 39% 46% 34% 29% 29% 25% 51% 29% 23%
ELL 77% 64% 64% 62% 72% 53% 53% 48% 40% 55%
Low SES 83% 75% 81% 79% 80% 69% 74% 75% 69% 73%

CAHSEE scores, which are a factor in the overall determination of Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP), have been a major point of concern for the staff at Cumulus High
School. A CAHSEE scale score of 350 is considered passing, but 380 is the minimum
that can be scored to be considered proficient for AYP. While there is evidence that the
pass rate on both sections of the exam has remained fairly constant over time, it is the
percentage of students scoring proficient that is an indicator requiring major attention.
Schoolwide 55.3% of students have met the proficiency requirement for ELA and 61.5%
have met the proficiency requirement for Math. In 2009-2010, the Annual Measurable
Objective (AMO) for English was 55.6%, and for Math it was 54.8%. This percent
proficient increases dramatically every year until 100% proficiency is reached in 2014.
While the English proficiency rate fell below the AMO for 2009-2010, Cumulus
HS still met the requirement through Safe Harbor. Safe Harbor is an alternate method for
a school to meet AMOs by reducing the percentage of students not meeting standards by
10 percent of the previous year’s percentage and having the subgroup meet the
attendance rate or graduation rate targets. The Math proficiency rate, on the other hand,
did meet the AMO for 2009-2010.
208
Of particular concern is the fact that half of the White, Hispanic/Latino and
socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroups are not proficient in English. The reality is
much more bleak for ELLs, where 76% of the subgroup did not meet the proficiency
target for English. In addition, 75% of SPED students are not proficient in English. On
the Math portion of the CAHSEE, White students met the AMO with 62.6% proficient,
but the Hispanic/Latino and socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroups remained
around 50% proficient. ELLs and SPED students have 60.8% and 76.6% of their
subgroup who have not met proficiency as indicated by AYP measures in mathematics.
The Asian and Filipino subgroups at Cumulus High School are not only meeting
the AMOs each year. They are far exceeding them and are on track to move more and
more students toward proficiency. While the school has relied on Safe Harbor to help
meet AYP requirements, there is still a major achievement gap that cannot be ignored.
This became clear in 2010 when Cumulus High School was labeled a Program
Improvement (PI) school, meeting only 18 of 22 AYP criteria. The level of
accountability increased and the urgency to address learning gaps became more apparent
at the beginning of this school year.
Taking into account all the available student achievement data, an area that has
shown significant growth and promise is Cumulus High School’s participation and
performance in the College Board’s Advanced Placement (AP) program. In five years,
the number of tests given to Cumulus HS students has nearly doubled, indicating that
more students are attempting a rigorous academic schedule by attempting these courses
and exams. As Figure I.5 indicates, in the 2007-2008 school year, barriers to program
209
entry were removed (set GPA requirements or course prerequisites), and by 2008-2009
participation peaked. At the same time participation in the AP program increased, so did
the pass rate—rising from 41% in 2006 to 49% in 2010. This is evidence that Cumulus
High School students are capable of achieving at high levels and that the school
community is committed to making academic excellence a part of the school culture. By
removing barriers to the AP program, efforts are being made to put students on track for
success after high school.
Figure I.5: Cumulus HS AP Exams Taken and Passed, 2006-2010

School Improvement Process
The origin of school improvement at Cumulus High School can be traced back to
the late 1990s when the Board of Education of Cloud Unified School District modified
the administrative structure at each of the three high schools. The co-principal model
was designed to add an additional administrator whose role was that of instructional
210
leader. The co-principal would provide instructional support for teachers and outline the
academic vision of the school once the California content standards were adopted. By
2005, district officials had phased out the co-principal model at all of the high schools—a
cost saving measure made in anticipation of looming budget cuts.
To compensate for the change in academic support and vision on campus, Cloud
Unified began working with consultants with Focus on Results (FOR). The FOR school
improvement framework endeavors to build internal capacity in a school that leads to an
increase in student mastery of standards. Cumulus High School joined the original cohort
of FOR schools in the district in 2005. It was at this point, the first Instructional
Leadership Team (ILT) was formed. The ILT was comprised of the Principal and one
Assistant Principal. The first step of the process was to analyze student performance data
and select a schoolwide focus. The original school focus was to improve student writing.
In 2008, the principal of Cumulus High School was promoted to Assistant
Superintendent, Educational Services and moved to the district office. A new principal
was named. She and the associate principal initiated the efforts that are currently in place
at the school.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. While the
Instructional Leadership Team had been at place at Cumulus High School for nearly three
years by the time the new principal was named, the team consisted of the administrators
and a teacher specialist. The urgency to better understand the students’ performance
problems was simply not there, and it certainly did not trickle down to teachers in the
classroom. Part of the new administration’s goal was to tackle the school culture
211
problem that stemmed from a lack of collective responsibility for ensuring student
learning. To better reach teachers and better translate the school improvement message,
the ILT was expanded to include a teacher representative from all core subjects.
By 2009, Cumulus High School was up for accreditation by the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). This process was the catalyst for moving
the staff in the direction of data analysis. As focus groups and departments began to look
at student achievement data, two themes emerged: (1) many students were not passing
their classes and, as a result (2) their proficiency rates on the CAHSEE and CSTs were
suffering. This same year, ELL had not met the AMO for English-Language Arts. And,
in 2010, the same subgroup did not meet the AMO for English again, putting the school
in Program Improvement. The principal acknowledges that it was not until Cumulus
High School reached PI status that reality hit home for the administration and teachers.
Under the rules of PI, students at Cumulus High School were given the option to
transfer to the one high school in the district that was not in Program Improvement status.
Less than 40 families of the nearly 3,000 at Cumulus took the school up on this offer.
The principal reports that staff viewed this as a sign that students liked their school and
families had faith in the staff’s ability to make changes. As the 2010-2011 school year
commenced, Cumulus High School’s ILT began evaluating the effectiveness of its core
and intervention programs.
Setting ambitious goals. The fact that the English-Language Arts AMO for 2011
is 66.7% presents a daunting challenge because it means that ELL students must achieve
a 43.2% growth, or 10% of that subgroup needs to move from not proficient to proficient
212
in less than a year. The principal and associate principal have expressed that coming to
grips with the numbers was the first challenge. Still, the lack of cohesion among the staff
presented its own challenge as the ILT worked to develop a plan to tackle the
performance problem as a team.
In September 2010, the ILT identified a list of “first steps” it would use to foster
better teamwork in the first month of the school year. Department teams completed
pacing guides, course syllabi and aligned their grading policies. The staff used faculty
meetings and online forums to revise its instructional focus. Monthly internal and weekly
administrative classroom walkthroughs were scheduled to provide opportunities for
teachers to learn and share best practices. This first goal of bridging the knowledge gap
for teachers and then creating opportunities for collaboration would provide a foundation
for staff as they planned additional goals for the year.
After surveying the staff, the ILT adopted three internal goals: (1) implement
interventions to decrease course failure rate by 2%, (2) increase period attendance to
98.6%, and (3) increase critical thinking through writing and reading comprehension on
content-specific assessments. The staff came to consensus on this external goal: increase
CST and CAHSEE proficiency by five percent for all subgroups and 10% for the ELL
and SPED subgroups.
The goals set by the staff at Cumulus High School required a two-pronged
approach—one that would reach out to teachers to change their behavior and the other
designed to target resources for students in order to bring about a change in their
academic performance. Teachers have begun to measure the failure rates of students by
213
reviewing quarter and semester grades. Some departments have also designed baseline
assessments that will be used at the first semester and in the third quarter to gauge
progress. Finally, teachers and administrators have committed to consistently employing
the following best practices: common formative assessments (CFAs), writing in the
content area, checking for understanding, SDAIE strategies and a common white board
configuration used in all Cumulus HS classrooms. At the present time, the majority of
the efforts to increase student achievement appear to be teacher-centered and
accountability for students has taken a backseat to these efforts.
Changing the curriculum and creating a new instructional vision. Throughout
Cumulus High School’s improvement process, there has been a history of misaligned or
competing goals from a variety of stakeholders. In 2005, the principal and an assistant
principal identified the original instructional vision: writing. This focus was viewed as
vague by faculty and was not implemented with fidelity. In 2008, the new principal and
the expanded ILT agreed to revise the vision to focus on non-fiction writing that would
be measured not only on state standardized tests but also on district benchmark exams
and department exams. This presented a challenge because teachers at the school had not
yet developed common content exams. While each department generated benchmark
writing topics, the staff was not committed to using them.
Coming out of the WASC accreditation process in 2009, the staff once again
revised its instructional vision, taking into account feedback from teachers outside the
ILT. The current vision statement reads: “All Cumulus High School students will
demonstrate measurable growth in their ability to think critically through content-specific
214
writing and reading comprehension tasks. Growth will be measured by student
performance on common formative assessments, content-specific writing prompts,
reading comprehension assignments/activities, and annual CAHSEE and CST scores.”
While not explicitly stated in this vision, it should be noted that the staff agreed to hold
itself accountable by including the use of specific strategies to achieve the desired
outcomes, including frequent checks for understanding, SDAIE strategies and CFAs.
Where previously teachers had only used the adopted textbooks as reference
materials, the creation of pacing guides encouraged the alignment of instruction to
standards covered in the texts. The ELD program was entirely revamped with the
districtwide adoption of the new Hampton-Brown Edge textbook series. Given the drop
in scores for the ELL subgroup districtwide, the district committed to using funds this
year to purchase the new curriculum even though new adopts were originally not set to
take place until 2013. There is also an interest in aligning courses at Cumulus HS with
national standards, as they begin to be adopted on a broader scale.
The lack of consistency over the years in developing and executing the
instructional vision has left Cumulus High School in a tenuous position as most teachers
have relied on their own judgment to drive instruction in their own classrooms. Cumulus
High School continues to struggle with balancing teachers’ academic freedom with the
responsibility of delivering a standards-based education with fidelity. The ILT will need
to support the process of transitioning teachers from the comfort zone of a closed-door
approach to adopting a more collaborative approach of school reform.
215
Formative assessments and data-based decision making. An effort to begin a
dialogue about what students should know and be able to do in each course is underway
as departments work together to create, administer and grade common formative
assessments. While the district has provided professional development and release time
since 2006 to create and refine CFAs, there is little evidence that teachers at Cumulus HS
have bought in to this process. As of December 2010, only the History, Math and ELD
have published CFAs. And, these CFAs are on paper but not yet have been used to
diagnose learning gaps and drive instruction. One of the goals for the 2010-2011 school
year is for departments to create quarterly CFAs for each course. As teachers become
more comfortable with the concept of CFAs, the goal is to expand the use the results of
the assessments as a way for department members to share lessons and strategies to
increase student proficiency. The staff is not at this point yet.
Most of the conversations surrounding data and the setting of instructional goals
is done in the ILT. The principal points out that the level of sophistication of these
conversations is limited, though, because not all staff members are comfortable with
looking at data. This stems from the fact that many of the teacher members of the ILT
struggle like their colleagues in that they lack the experience and skills to translate into
action what the data results suggest. The ILT has become more proactive in seeking out
the opinions and concerns of staff, students and parents as they are surveying each group
with greater frequency regarding program effectiveness. One realization that came from
analyzing these surveys is that there was a desire for an academic advisory period. The
216
feasibility of such an offering as both an intervention and tutorial during the school day is
currently being investigated.
Ongoing, intensive professional development. The faculty of Cumulus High
School voted to continue its banking day model where a specified number of instructional
minutes are “banked” each month to provide two meeting times a month. The ILT has
intentionally dubbed these days Collaboration Days, desiring to create a school culture
that values partnered professional work. As the principal and associate principal stated,
most of this collaboration time has been unstructured. Agendas are not consistent from
meeting to meeting. Nevertheless, teachers have used the time to develop common
protocols for evaluating student work, and they have begun the process for analyzing
student data. Cumulus High School could benefit from developing a protocol that all
teachers could use to better understand their student achievement data.
While the majority of teachers have had limited experience and success while
looking at their students’ achievement result, much of the energy for professional
development and building these skills in some teacher leaders on campus has come out of
the District’s involvement with the consulting group Focus on Results. Members of the
ILT meet monthly during FOR days to review data, plan staff meetings and build
leadership for school and district improvement. The district pays for the consultants and
for two teachers from the school site to attend the monthly FOR meetings. The school
supplements the cost of this program with Title I funds. Since using the FOR framework
calls for greater collaboration among teachers at the school, the ILT has involved teachers
in the development of their “urgent message” and the identification of their “problem of
217
practice.” The use of Collaboration Day meetings has helped teachers identify the need
to employ frequent checks for understanding. This realization is one positive result of
using professional development time effectively.
Cumulus High School teachers attend AP conferences and regional workshops
offered by the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Members of the ILT attended a
conference on Professional Learning Communities and closing the achievement gap
offered by the California League of High Schools. In 2010-2011, Cumulus HS must
spend upwards of $100,000, or ten percent, of its Title I funds on professional
development as a requirement of being in PI status. The principal and District leadership
are supportive of any teacher’s request to attend a conference.
Efficient and effective use of instructional time. The principal was candid in
her assessment of the progress teachers are making in faithfully implementing the
instructional focus on their classrooms. She explained: “You want to trust the teachers
and their professionalism, but you don’t really know.” Because the level of fidelity in
executing schoolwide goals and delivering quality instruction has been called into
question, Cumulus High School administration has developed a rotating walkthrough
schedule that has administrators informally visiting an assigned zone of classrooms on a
weekly basis. This additional level of accountability is a step in the right direction, but it
appears little has been done with the insight gleaned from these classroom walkthroughs.
Administrators may have individual conversations with a teacher about instruction, but
there is not a system in place to bring about schoolwide changes under this model.
218
Teachers are using a common whiteboard configuration in every classroom, every
period, every day. The information on the board includes the standards being addressed
in the lesson, the objectives for the day and a listing of homework to extend the lesson
beyond the classroom. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this organizational structure has
helped teachers strategize for the period and make better use of instructional time. Given
that teachers have invested time in the creation of pacing guides for their courses, there is
a more consistent effort to actually use the standards-based textbook and ancillary
materials to deliver instruction. The master schedule has also been designed to provide
two hour blocks of instruction in the target language for ELD students.
Extending learning time for struggling students. The staff at Cumulus High
School has committed to targeting resources to ensure that all students increase
proficiency levels at least 5% on the CST and CAHSEE this year. The APEX online
credit recovery program is offered periods 0 and 7 to extend the learning time for
students who have not passed core classes. Free tutoring is offered and Saturday School
tutorials are available. The school’s Bridge program pairs upperclassmen with incoming
freshmen to not only provide them with social and emotional support as they enter high
school, but to provide peer tutoring for students who struggle.
The principal emphasized that before her appointment at Cumulus High School,
the school was spending $60,000 a year in extra hourly pay for teachers to provide
instruction and tutoring for students who needed additional help. She found this
inefficient and unacceptable. The principal continued to pay AVID student tutors and
encouraged peer tutors to seek community service hours, but teachers had to provide
219
specific lesson plans that outlined the interventions they would provide outside the
regular school day in order to qualify for the extra hourly pay. Priority is now given to
teachers who organize study groups of five to ten students, and there must be an emphasis
on building English skills, as that is an area where many Cumulus High School students
struggle. Previously, funds were being used for teachers to help only one or two students
after school with a couple homework problems. Now that the criteria are more specific
and the goals clearer, the interventions are more targeted. Teachers, however, have
viewed this approach negatively and now fewer teachers than ever are providing targeted
instruction beyond the school day.
Collaborative, professional culture and distributed leadership. As the school
has begun to take more seriously its improvement efforts, the staff has had to combat a
challenging reality: not all teachers and administrators are contributing to their fullest
potential. The principal and her associate have worked to change the administrative
model since arriving in 2008. Previously, teachers and administrators were disconnected
and had different goals. To encourage collaboration and collective problem solving,
Cumulus High School was physically reorganized. The five assistant principals have
paired up with a counselor to head up five distinct centers on campus arranged by
alphabet. Students’ class schedules are organized in these centers as much as possible.
Teachers teach in these centers as well. The principal and associate principal are
responsible for the instructional vision of the entire school, while autonomy is given to
the assistant principals to manage their respective instructional centers.
220
Despite these efforts to personalize the experience and extend the responsibility at
Cumulus HS, a more troubling fact was revealed in the 2009 WASC accreditation
process. The survey results of students, parents and staff revealed a major disconnect in
response to this statement: “CHS teachers demonstrate a high level of professionalism.”
While 87% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, only 49% of
students and 44% of parents had the same sentiment. Undoubtedly, there are many
interpretations of these survey results, but the perception data confirms what the principal
believes is a lack of collective responsibility. The Instructional Leadership Team has
expanded over the past three years, but there is still little evidence that the staff functions
well as a team.
Use of research-based best practices and external expertise. The ILT
continues to design opportunities for teachers to work together toward the creation of
pacing guides, common assessments and department resource binders that pool together
lesson plans and course materials. This project is still in the works, but marks a turning
point in the school culture where teachers are getting a better understanding of what it is
like to share their professional experience in a safe setting among other teachers. As part
of the Focus on Results framework, the ILT has conducted schoolwide and districtwide
instructional walkthroughs. One faculty meeting this year was replaced by a walkthrough
for all teachers, allowing them an opportunity to observe the level of implementation of
the schoolwide focus and best practices.
Teachers originally identified a lack of student engagement as a major concern,
but walkthroughs conducted by teachers from the other high schools in the district
221
revealed that this was not an issue—students actually were engaged and working. The
staff used this feedback to adjust their problem of practice to include more frequent
checks for student understanding. The use of CFAs, content writing and reading
comprehension tasks are now in the process of being used to better assess students’
learning at Cumulus HS. Since ELD students continue to struggle, a former Cumulus
High School teacher turned university professor still has ties to the school and provides
training and refresher courses twice a year in the areas of literacy and SDAIE strategies.
Many of the practices used at Cumulus HS are grounded in solid research; still there is a
reluctance to trust outside experts to deepen the implementation of these strategies and
provide a fresh look at current improvement efforts. Since the homegrown expertise is
limited, it creates the perfect recipe for stagnation.
Recruiting and developing top talent. The principal and associate principal
agreed that Cumulus High School has good teachers but lacks “teacher leaders” who are
able to communicate the message of school improvement to colleagues and ultimately to
the students. Perhaps what complicates the dynamics of Cumulus High School is the
“revolving door” of administrators and teachers whose tenure at the school is frequently
short-lived. In the past five years, administrators have been promoted to district office
positions and inexperienced homegrown administrators have taken their places. The new
principal and her associate were recruits from outside the district. Since their
appointment, school improvement efforts have accelerated. The current principal is an
alumna of the high school, increasing her sense of buy-in, she reports. The
administrative team has remained unchanged for two years. Still, Cumulus High School
222
has a reputation for being the place where administrators in the district are sent to learn
and then placed at other school sites.
Teachers continue to struggle with understanding their role in the school
improvement process and their responsibility in improving student achievement. The
link has yet to be made between their efforts and tangible outcomes. While the
Instructional Leadership Team has expanded and more teachers play a role in planning
Collaboration Days, teachers do not yet feel empowered to share best practices or present
at these meetings. Improvement efforts continue to be spearheaded by administrators.
Table I.3 is a summary of how Cirrus HS implements the ten steps that Odden
(2009) recommends for doubling student performance.
Table I.3: Cumulus HS’s Implementation of 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance
Implementation
Odden’s Steps
Strong Average Weak
Not
observed
STEP 1
Understand the performance challenge: Analyze
performance data
X
STEP 2
Set ambitious goals
X
STEP 3
Change the curriculum program and create a
new instructional vision
X
STEP 4
Use benchmark and formative assessments and
data-based decision making
X
STEP 5
Provide ongoing, intensive professional
development
X
STEP 6
Use instructional time efficiently and effectively
X
STEP 7
Extend learning time for struggling students
X
223
Table I.3, continued
Implementation
Odden’s Steps
Strong Average Weak
Not
observed
STEP 8
Build a collaborative, professional culture and
use distributed leadership
X
STEP 9
Use research-based best practices and external
expertise
X
STEP 10
The human capital side: Recruit and develop top
talent
X

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
This case study utilizes the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a
framework to collect resource data at the school level. This framework generates a
comparison between actual resources allocated at the school site and the level of core
resources that the Evidence-Based Model suggest for each individual school. Table I.4
shows how the resources at Cumulus High School compare to the EBM. The last column
indicates the difference between the Evidence-Based Model and CHS or indicates how
the EBM would staff a school of 2,847 students with the demographics of CHS.
Table I.4: Comparison of Cumulus HS Actual Resources and Evidence-Based Model
School Element
Evidence-Based
Model Prototype
High School
CHS Actual
Resource Allocation
Comparison of CHS
Resources to EBM
Prototype
School Characteristics
School configuration 9-12 9-12
Prototypical school size 600 2,847 4.7 times larger
Class size 25 36 44% larger
Number of teacher work days 200, including 10
days for intensive
training
186, including 3
inservice days
4 less work days, 7
less inservice days
% Disabled 12% 9.3% (265)
% Poverty (free or reduced-
price lunch)
50% 54.0% (1,538)
% English Language Learner
(ELL)
10% 22.2% (632)
% Minority 30% 47%
224
Table I.4, continued
School Element
Evidence-Based
Model Prototype
High School
CHS Actual
Resource Allocation
Comparison of CHS
Resources to EBM
Prototype
Personnel Resources
1. Core teachers 24 71.2 EBM suggests 112.8
2. Specialist teachers 33% or more: 8.0 29.2 EBM suggests 37.6
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Coaches
3.0 0 EBM suggests 14.1
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students:
3.0
0
EBM suggests 15.4
FTE teachers
5. Teachers for ELL students An additional 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students
0.60
5.2 FTE teachers
8.0 FTE aides
EBM suggests 6.3
FTE teachers
6. Extended day 2.5 0 EBM suggests 11.8
7. Summer school 2.5 46.0 EBM suggests 11.8
School Characteristics
8. Students with mild
disabilities
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions
9.0 FTE teachers
3.2 FTE aides
EBM suggests 18.8
teachers
9. Students with severe
disabilities
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
4.0 FTE teachers
4.8 FTE aides
Based on need
10. Resources for
gifted/talented students
$25/student $7,272
EBM suggests
$71,175
11. Vocational education No extra cost Included in FTE No extra cost
12. Substitutes 5% of personnel $150/day 5% of personnel
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance/250
students
5.4 total
5.0 Counselors
2.0 Psychologists
0.2 Nurse
1.0 Speech
1.0 Title I Coord.
(9.2 total)
EBM suggests 15.4
teachers and 11.4
guidance counselors
(26.8 total)
14. Non-instructional aides 3.0 0 EBM suggests 14.1
15. Librarians/Media
Specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library
technician
1.0 Librarian
EBM suggests 4.7
Librarian and 4.7
Library technician
16. Principal
1
1 Principal
1 Assoc. Principal
5 Asst. Principals
EBM suggests 1
principal and 4.8
Asst. Principals
17. School site secretary
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary
15 Clerical
EBM suggests 4.7
secretaries and 14.1
clerical
225
Table I.4, continued
School Element
Evidence-Based
Model Prototype
High School
CHS Actual
Resource Allocation
Comparison of CHS
Resources to EBM
Prototype
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional coaches
Planning & prep time
10 summer days
Additional:
$50/pupil for other
PD expenses—
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
3 days of professional
development,
$105,000 for other
PD expenses
EBM suggests 10
days intensive
professional
development and
$142,350 for other
PD expenses
19. Technology
$250/student
Use of Title I funds,
as needed
EBM suggests
$711,750
20. Instructional materials
$175/student Varies
EBM suggests
$498,225
21. Student activities
$250/student 0.4 ASB adviser
EBM suggests
$711,750

It is perhaps expected that the large high schools typical of many urban and
suburban school districts in California are staffed differently from what is suggested in
the Evidence-Based Model. The most glaring difference is the size of the student body.
The Evidence-Based Model’s prototype high school comprises grades 9-12 and serves
600 students. Cumulus High School is the second largest school in the study with an
enrollment of 2,847 students. After prorating accordingly based on the size of this
school, it is evident that the resources in use at Cumulus HS are far lower than what the
EBM generates. Yet the school has still been able to produce some positive trends in
student achievement results. One of the differences in the current allocation of resources
and what the EBM suggests can be noted in the dedication of 70.9% of the class sections
(71.2 FTE) to core academic subjects with electives at 29.1%, or 29.2 FTE. This is
slightly under the 75-25 approach used in the EBM. A greater emphasis on electives
takes away from moving students toward proficiency in the core subject areas.
226
Another problematic area in terms of the current allocation of resources is the
dependence on summer school to remediate student learning. In 2009-2010, 46.0 FTE
were dedicated to summer school classes. In the school’s defense, 10.0 FTE were used to
provide additional instruction for ELD students and provide opportunities for
reclassification, there is still a considerable population of the student body not passing
their classes on the first attempt, requiring additional interventions and remediation—
resources that might be better targeted during the academic year.
In terms of professional development, Cumulus HS spends about $40,000 less
than what the EBM would generate. Since professional development and reliance on
outside experts at this school are piecemeal in format, it is uncertain whether the
additional investment in professional development would create significant impact on
student achievement.
Impact of recent budget reductions. The high school has experienced some
structural changes and personnel reductions as part of the evolving budget challenges
over the past few years. While all ninth grade English classes were capped at 20 students
since the 1990s, class-size reduction was eliminated and now all ninth grade English
classes hover with enrollment around 36. In addition, school district officials reduced the
number of senior administrative secretaries at the school site form two to one through
retirements and attrition over the past two years. Further, the school districted reduced
FTE allocations to each high school by 3.0 to assist with cutting costs across the board.
Cumulus lost an additional seven teachers and two classified staff that took advantage of
an early retirement offer made available by the CUSD to help alleviate pressure on a
227
hemorrhaging budget. All of the teachers were replaced, however. Unrelated to the
budget crisis, but equally significant, is the fact that the move into PI status resulted in
students moving to a neighboring high school—and generating a loss of 3.0 FTE. Many
of these FTE were regained as students returned to Cumulus at the semester. The
considerable Title I budget at the school has cushioned the staff from experiencing
dramatic changes at the school site.
Summary and Lessons Learned
Cumulus High School has made improvement possible for almost all of its
students. The API has increased schoolwide and for almost all subgroups. Still, the
glaring achievement gap cannot be ignored. Asian and Filipino students far outperform
their White, Hispanic/Latino, ELL and SPED counterparts. The gains that were made
early on in the school improvement process have leveled off.
Half of the White, Hispanic/Latino and socioeconomically disadvantaged
subgroups are not proficient in English, yet the school continues to move ten percent of
these students toward proficiency each year—an indication that the staff does indeed
have the capacity to make systemwide improvement possible. The greatest struggle lays
with English Language Learners and their lack of proficiency in English. This subgroup
continues to bear the burden for moving Cumulus High School into Program
Improvement status.
The staff’s collective responsibility for these struggling students is called into
question by the principal and observers. While efforts have been made to bring more
teachers into the fold in terms of decision-making, the message of school improvement is
228
not consistent across the campus. Pockets of excellence exist, and these isolated
conversations surrounding data and best practice create only limited opportunities for
constant improvement among all team members.
Cumulus High School is waging two battles: one with its teachers and another
with its students. Staff will have to continue to build teachers’ capacity by empowering
them as leaders and providing greater opportunities for teacher collaboration. And,
efforts to build and appreciate a culture of academic excellence among all student groups
are part of the next steps to move this school forward.

229
APPENDIX J: CASE STUDY - CIRRUS HIGH SCHOOL
Background
Cirrus High School (CHS) is one of three comprehensive high schools in the
Cloud Unified School District (CUSD). The district, which recently celebrated its 100th
anniversary, serves approximately 26,500 students in its 20 elementary schools, four
middle schools, three comprehensive senior high schools, one continuation school, one
magnet high school that emphasizes science and technology, a developmental center for
multi-handicapped students, and numerous preschool/childcare centers that serve
preschool and/or elementary school children.
Cirrus HS is located in a suburb just outside Los Angeles and was the second of
the three high schools to open in the district. The original campus was erected in 1929
and served students until 1966 when, with the exception of the auditorium and physical
education facilities, the buildings were demolished and replaced by a new facility
completed in 1969. In 1990, due to continual and anticipated growth in the number of
students entering Cirrus, a 33-classroom facility was built and completed in 1992. In
2010, an extensive remodel of the other facilities was completed with funds from a voter-
approved bond measure. Cirrus High School is unique in that it is part of a neighborhood
cluster of schools including a feeder elementary and middle school that are directly
across the street from the high school.
Cirrus High School serves 2,059 students from a diverse ethnic background,
socioeconomic status and language abilities. The primary ethnic groups are White
(57.4%), Hispanic/Latino (25.1%) and Asian (8.0%). It should be noted that while White
230
students comprise a significant portion of the student body, this label is misleading. At
this school, almost all of the students classified as White are of Middle Eastern descent,
the majority coming from Armenia. Figure J.1 graphically depicts the ethnic breakdown
of all students at Cirrus High School.
Figure J.1: Cirrus HS Demographics, 2009-2010

Cirrus High School receives Title I funds to target the needs of its significant
socioeconomically disadvantaged population. The percentage of students receiving Free
or Reduced-Price Lunch is 53.5%. Twenty-three percent of the student population is
classified as English Language Learner (ELL). The school serves over 100 new arrivals
each year, and the school staff is able to reclassify or exit approximately 60% of the
students from the ELL program within the school year. Cirrus HS has 145 students
(7.0%) with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) as part of the special education
program. Table J.1 indicates that the percentage of Cirrus High School’s students
participating in special programs is fairly comparable with the averages at the district,
county and state levels.
231
Table J.1: Cirrus HS Special Program Participation Comparison, 2009-2010

Total
Enrollment
%
ELL
% Free and Reduced-Price
Lunch
% Special
Education
Cirrus HS 2,059 23.4% 53.5% 7.0%
District 26,506 24.0% 43.9% 8.4%
County 1,585,069 26.0% 65.5% 10.7%
State 6,143,159 23.7% 55.9% 10.3%

This case study is designed to provide analysis of school-level data and practices
as they relate to school improvement and higher achievement for all students.
Specifically, the case study will illustrate how the improvement process was initiated at
this school, the common themes that led to successful outcomes and the identification of
resources that were used to achieve the school’s goals.
Assessment data. Cirrus High School has demonstrated impressive growth in
student achievement. Over the past ten years, the schoolwide Academic Performance
Index (API) has increased by 146 points, from its lowest point in 2002. While the API
dropped by eight points between 2001 and 2002 and once again by ten points between
2006 and 2007, the school rebounded and the API has steadily grown in the subsequent
years. Still, the schoolwide API has yet to break the 800 mark—the established statewide
target to which all schools should aspire. Figure J.2 shows Cirrus High School’s API
growth from 2001-2010.
232
Figure J.2: Cirrus HS API Ten-Year Growth

Examining the five-year API trend by subgroup shows some growth and some areas of
stagnation. Figure J.3 shows the overall API growth of the whole school and almost all
the subgroups. It also highlights the glaring achievement gap at this school where Asians
far outperform the rest of the subgroups. Filipino students were counted as a significant
subgroup in 2007 and 2010, and their subgroup API has increased overtime,
outperforming other significant subgroups at Cirrus High School.
233
Figure J.3: Cirrus HS API Five-Year Trend by Subgroup

It should be noted that while there have been some dips in scores over the years,
the general trend is an increase in student performance. The rise in student achievement
scores, albeit slow and not markedly dramatic, does indicate some cause for celebration.
The Hispanic/Latino grew from 709 to 730, raising the subgroups API by 21 points over
the past five years. Students classified in the socioeconomically disadvantaged (Low
SES) subgroup experienced a significant improvement in academic achievement across
the school by increasing its API 44 points, from 688 in 2006 to 732 in 2010.
The Special Education (SPED) subgroup experienced the most dramatic
improvement of all the subgroups with an API jump of 74 points over the past five
years—rising from 456 in 2006 to 530 this year. While the staff recognizes the
accomplishments of its special education students, they are still aware of a pressing issue
related to the SPED’s 19-point API decrease between 2009 and 2010. Of equal concern
234
is the ELL subgroup, whose API dropped by 17 points this year. Staff is currently
investigating whether the way in which the district was reporting ELL students’ English
proficiency/classification level might be connected to this drop in API scores.
The STAR scores for students at Cirrus High School have grown steadily over the
past five years. Figure J.4 shows the California Standards Test (CST) scores for the core
subject areas of English, History, Math and Science. While growth in the percent
proficient and advanced has been slow over time for some content areas, there are still
reasons to celebrate in other contents.
Figure J.4: Cirrus HS STAR Test Summary, 2006-2010

Science has seen the most notable increase in proficiency, rising from 47.0%
proficient or advanced in 2006 to 57.0% in 2010. Proficiency in English-Language Arts
increased over the past five years by 7.7%—from 42.7% to 50.4%. This improvement is
all the more significant considering that nearly a quarter of the student body is ELL and
235
the content-specific vocabulary is typically a stumbling block for students whose first
language is not English. The creation of an English Language Development department
is credited with providing better articulation between departments and a collobrative
culture where teachers share instructional strategies. Efforts to use “English first” and
focus on academic vocabulary in all classes has provided the necessary support to move
students forward in both comprehension and proficiency.
Math has continued to see fluctuations in proficiency levels, dropping overall by
3.3% over the past five years. In addition, there are concerns that proficiency rates across
the content areas range from only 38% to 57%, indicating significant gaps in learning and
acehivement across the school.
Schoolwide California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) scores have seen only
minor fluctuations since 2006 with a range of 81% to 89% passing both the Math and
English portions of the test on their first attempt. In some instances the percent passing
has dropped by one or two percantage points over time. As Table J.2 shows, the only
subgroup to experience higher pass rates on both portions of the CAHSEE is the special
education subgroup, rising 6% in Math and 8% in English. The inconsistent pass rates
among subgroups on the CAHSEE compared with the small fluctuation of the entire tenth
grade pass rate suggest that changes in cohort composition may explain the overall
performance changes.
236
Table J.2: Cirrus HS CAHSEE First Attempt Pass Rates by Subgroup, 2006-2010
Math % Passed English-Language Arts % Passed

2006
n=644
2007
n=555
2008
n=562
2009
n=514
2010
n=481
2006
n=645
2007
n=553
2008
n=573
2009
n=515
2010
n=488
All 10th Grade 89% 86% 88% 86% 89% 83% 81% 82% 81% 83%
Asian 97% 93% 97% 98% 97% 88% 80% 95% 91% 88%
Hispanic/Latino 82% 76% 82% 79% 76% 77% 76% 75% 84% 76%
White 91% 89% 88% 87% 93% 84% 83% 83% 77% 82%
SPED 39% 29% 22% 66% 45% 24% 39% 27% 48% 32%
ELL 80% 75% 72% 74% 76% 58% 57% 55% 51% 56%
Low SES 84% 83% 86% 80% 85% 72% 76% 77% 74% 75%

CAHSEE scores, which are a factor in the overall determination of Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP), have been a major point of concern for the staff at Cirrus High
School. A CAHSEE scale score of 350 is considered passing, but 380 is the minimum
that can be scored to be considered proficient for AYP. While there is evidence that the
pass rate on both sections of the exam has remained fairly constant over time, it is the
percentage of students scoring proficient that is an indicator requiring major attention.
Schoolwide 57.8% of students have met the proficiency requirement for ELA and 70.1%
have met the proficiency requirement for Math. In 2009-2010, the Annual Measurable
Objective (AMO) for English was 55.6%, and for Math it was 54.8%. This percent
proficient increases dramatically every year until 100% proficiency is reached in 2014.
While the schoolwide proficiency rate exceeded the AMO for 2009-2010, several
of the school’s subgroups did not come close to meeting the AMO. Of particular concern
is the fact that half of Hispanic/Latino and socioeconomically disadvantaged students are
not proficient in English. The reality is more bleak for ELLs, where 71% of the subgroup
did not meet the proficiency target for English. In addition, 85% of SPED students are
not proficient in English. On the Math portion of the CAHSEE, White and
socioeconomically disadvantaged students met the AMO with 74.3% and 64.5%
237
proficient, respectively. The Hispanic/Latino subgroup, however, remained at 51.7%
proficient. ELLs and SPED students have 44.2% and 80.5% of their subgroups that have
not met proficiency as indicated by AYP measures in mathematics.
In both English and Math, the Hispanic/Latino subgroup earned proficiency
through Safe Harbor. Safe Harbor is an alternate method for a school to meet AMOs by
reducing the percentage of students not meeting standards by ten percent of the previous
year’s percentage and having the subgroup meet the attendance and graduation rate
targets. The fact that Cirrus High School is in Safe Harbor in this category indicates that
Hispanic/Latino students are showing some growth over time. In contrast, the Asian and
White subgroups are not only meeting the AMOs each year. They are far exceeding them
and on track to move more and more students toward proficiency. Safe Harbor is
working for the Hispanic/Latino subgroup. But the disparities in achievement, especially
with English Language Learners and Special Education students presents a major
challenge that cannot be ignored. This became clear in 2010 when Cirrus High School
was labeled a Program Improvement (PI) school, meeting 20 of 22 AYP criteria. The
level of accountability and the urgency to address learning gaps became more apparent at
the beginning of this school year.
Taking into account all the available student achievement data, an area that has
shown significant growth and promise is Cirrus High School’s participation and
performance in the College Board’s Advanced Placement (AP) program. In five years,
the number of tests given to Cirrus HS students has increased by 200, indicating that
more students are attempting a rigorous academic schedule by taking these courses and
238
exams. As Figure J.5 indicates, in the 2007-2008 school year, barriers to program entry
(set GPA requirements or course prerequisites) were removed and program participation
peaked before leveling off as declining enrollment set in. At the same time participation
in the AP program has increased, pass rates have fluctuated slightly but remained at
approximately 50%. The growth of the AP program is evidence that Cirrus High School
students are capable of achieving at high levels and that the school community is
committed to making academic excellence a part of the school culture. By removing
barriers to the AP program, efforts are being made to put students on track for success
beyond high school.
Figure J.5: Cirrus HS AP Exams Taken and Passed, 2006-2010

School Improvement Process
The origin of school improvement at Cirrus High School can be traced back to the
late 1990s when the Board of Education of Cloud Unified School District modified the
239
administrative structure at each of the three high schools. A co-principal model was
designed to add an additional administrator whose role was that of instructional leader.
The co-principal would provide instructional support for teachers and outline the
academic vision of the school once the California content standards were adopted. By
2005, district officials had phased out the co-principal model at all of the high schools—a
cost saving measure made in anticipation of looming budget cuts.
To compensate for the change in academic support and vision on campus, Cloud
Unified began working with consultants with Focus on Results (FOR). The FOR school
improvement framework endeavors to build internal capacity in a school that leads to an
increase in student mastery of standards. Cirrus High School joined the original cohort of
FOR schools in the district in 2005. It was at this point the first Instructional Leadership
Team (ILT) was formed. The ILT was comprised of the Principal and one Assistant
Principal. The first step of the process was to analyze student performance data and
select a schoolwide focus.
In the fall of 2009, the principal of Cirrus High School announced his retirement a
year in advance, giving the district considerable lead-time on selecting a successor. The
newly appointed principal was named in January 2010, six months before she would take
on the role of principal. The associate principal at the school was to be promoted to
principal—a move that provided a sense of continuity between administrations.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. As when any new
administrator assumes leadership, it is expected that there might be changes in the
approach to managing the school. The current principal had a unique perspective of the
240
school, having worked at Cirrus HS for two years before taking on the new role. By the
time she became principal in July 2010, the Instructional Leadership Team had expanded
to include the principal, her associate principal and two teachers. Unfortunately, the
necessary momentum to move the school forward was not present. In an effort to tackle
the lack of collective responsibility and to tap new resources, the new principal expanded
the ILT again. Currently, the ILT includes 10 teachers—one from each core department
and one from visual and performing arts.
As the ILT analyzed student performance data as part of the Focus on Results
process, it was clear that getting students to reach proficiency on the CSTs and the
CAHSEE needed to be a focus. Nearly 80% of the student body at Cirrus is in the
English Language Development (ELD) program or at one time was classified as ELL.
As a result of the high percentage of students learning English as their second language,
reading comprehension is a barrier for many Cirrus students. This presents a challenge to
the school as the high-stakes tests are administered in English. At the beginning of the
2010-2011 school year, Cirrus High School was labeled a Program Improvement school
because the ELL subgroup failed to meet the AMOs two years in a row in English-
Language Arts. Reality finally had hit home with the PI designation. As the ILT worked
to clarify the school focus, the team published an urgent statement to all stakeholders:
“The Cirrus family owns the fact that schoolwide one of every two students is not
proficient in English and three of every five students are not proficient in social science,
math and science based on CST scores.”
241
Setting ambitious goals. Compounding the severity of this achievement gap at
the high school, the ILT’s research indicated that Cirrus students going on to the local
community college were struggling as well. Seventy percent of Cirrus students attend
Cloud Community College, and at least half of those students were taking remedial
courses. Realizing that the high school’s current culture was setting up students for
failure not only now but in the future as well, it was time to take action and adopt new,
bold steps moving forward. However, the fact that the English-Language Arts AMO for
2011 is 66.7% presents a daunting challenging. This means that ELL students must
achieve a 37.7% growth, or 10% of that subgroup needs to move from not proficient to
proficient in less than a year.
The Instructional Leadership Team, in consultation with the faculty, identified
“critical reading” as the schoolwide focus as this was a major barrier for students
demonstrating their knowledge on state tests. In addition, as part of the school’s PI plan,
the staff committed to increasing proficiency on the CSTs by five percentage points this
year. An additional goal is to reach an API of 800 by 2013. The ILT published another
urgent message to the campus community communicating these goals in posters around
campus and in all literature sent home from the school.
Perhaps one of the greatest challenges to increasing buy-in among faculty
members was the knowledge gap. The Cirrus High School of the past had been a school
with a charismatic principal who assumed responsibility for all things good and bad at the
school. Teachers did not have experience and were not comfortable with collaborating.
With the change in administration and a realization that the school was not reaching all
242
students and was now being held accountable though Program Improvement and the
internal reform efforts, teachers had to confront the schoolwide performance data head-
on. The goals set by the staff at Cirrus High School required a two-pronged approach—
one that would reach out to teachers to change their behavior and the other designed to
target resources for students in order to bring about a change in their academic
performance. Teachers have begun to look at and have conversations around student
work and classroom data. In addition, staff is working with students, including a special
emphasis on tenth grade students, to set individual goals for state testing and develop
plans to address areas where students need additional support.
Teachers have committed to consistently employing the following best practices:
using English first, focusing on academic vocabulary, reading two times per week in each
classroom and increasing overall fluency in academic language. Administrators are also
developing schoolwide reward systems for students who achieve their individual goals.
While many of these efforts to increase student achievement appear to be teacher-
directed, there is evidence that Cirrus High School is making concerted efforts to involve
students in the process by educating them about the American school system and setting
goals for their own academic and personal improvement.
Changing the curriculum and creating a new instructional vision. The current
vision statement reads: “At Cirrus High School our schoolwide instructional focus is
using academic language and academic vocabulary to improve critical reading. We also
expect students and adults to attempt to communicate in English as much as possible
because we recognize that for many students, Cirrus High School is the primary place
243
where they use English.” It should be noted that the staff has agreed to hold itself
accountable by modeling for students the best practices that they want students to use.
Implicit in the vision statement is an acceptance of the best practices the school has
adopted systemwide. Teachers developed a list of academic terms, including “generic
language” and subject-specific language, that are commonly used and that tend to appear
on state tests. Teachers have been asked to be more intentional about using these terms
so that students feel comfortable with them. Word Walls displaying these terms are
visible in every classroom, and a glossary is printed in the school’s reminder binder given
to each student to keep track of assignments. Teachers continue to brainstorm best
practices for using the academic vocabulary in their specific courses.
By the end of second semester of this school year, administrators have set a goal
for all departments to create binders containing pacing guides, common formative
assessments (CFAs) and released questions from state tests. As departments collaborate
on this goal, the goal is to build consistency across teachers and classrooms and
encourage alignment of instruction to the standards covered in the textbooks. The ELD
program was entirely revamped with the districtwide adoption of the new Hampton-
Brown Edge textbook series. Given the drop in scores for the ELL subgroup districtwide,
the district committed to using funds this year to purchase the new curriculum even
though new adoptions were originally not set to take place until 2013. In an effort to
better reach ELL students, a specific English Language Development department was
created this year, including the assignment of an ELD chair. Teachers in the ELD
department are trained in teaching ELL students and are hired solely for that purpose.
244
Sections have been built specifically for ninth grade ELL students to help set
expectations early on in the students’ academic career.
The shift in instructional focus has required a shift in the entire schoolwide
culture. Where teachers were content with the previous principal taking primary
responsibility for the direction of school, the current administration has called for greater
collective responsibility for student achievement. Administrators and teachers are also
working to combat the student culture of the campus, as negative peer pressure has been
problematic in terms of motivation for academic success. As the administration and ILT
continue to build incentives for students and promote a positive school culture, they will
need to support the process of transitioning teachers from the comfort zone of a closed-
door approach to adopting a more collaborative approach of school reform.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making. An effort to begin a
dialogue about what students should know and be able to do in each course is underway
as departments work together to create, administer and grade common formative
assessments. While the district has provided professional development and release time
since 2006 to create and refine CFAs, there is little evidence that teachers at Cirrus HS
have bought in to this process. As of December 2010, CFAs had not yet become a
formalized part of the school culture. The social science department has created common
semester final exams, but they are not used to diagnose learning gaps and drive
instruction. The goal is to have at least two CFAs published in each core course by the
end of this academic year.
245
Cirrus High School has made tremendous progress on another front, however.
Since September, the associate principal has worked to create a CAHSEE Pre-Test that is
used to help students, parents and teachers understand students’ current performance
levels and set goals for the actual exam. The assessment was created in-house using
released items and test bank questions from the Data Director data repository. Ninth and
tenth graders sat for the first administration in November 2010. Results of the Cirrus
CAHSEE Pre-Test were sent home in the students’ primary language and suggestions
were offered on how to prepare for the upcoming exam in March. Administrators held a
follow-up meeting to present intervention options and after school help to families.
Teachers met to discuss the results and design appropriate interventions. Administrators
visited each tenth grade English/World History class to set goals with students related to
their performance on the upcoming CAHSEE exam. The principal acknowledges that the
development of this assessment tool has provided a valuable feedback loop as the Pre-
Test involves all stakeholders and helps build a culture focused on academic
achievement.
While many of the conversations surrounding data and the setting of instructional
goals are conducted in the ILT, a concerted effort has been made by the associate
principal to consciously share data in faculty meetings. Most of the presentations come
in the form of PowerPoint slides with charts and graphs, and the administrator leads the
subsequent discussions. This stems from the fact that many teachers have yet to see a
connection between their role as teacher and student performance outcomes. The ILT
continues to use research to emphasize the social justice aspects of what educators do on
246
a daily basis. One pressing concern that came out of the data analysis is that 50% of
Cirrus HS students take remedial classes at the local community college. Upon
conducting some research, a teacher member of the ILT learned that 70% of students who
take remedial courses in college never earn a degree or certificate. This realization
prompted collaboration between Cirrus HS and Cloud Community College to study how
Cirrus students do once they get there. This is evidence that teachers are beginning to see
the connection between their practice and student outcomes. Yet more work is needed to
build a culture of professionalism at Cirrus.
Ongoing, intensive professional development. As teachers make greater strides
to adjust their practice, a major barrier to supporting the school improvement efforts has
been the lack of collaboration time available to teachers. Prior to the opening of the
2010-2011 school year, the faculty held a vote on whether to continue “banking”
instructional minutes each school day to later be used for late start staff development
time. The vote overwhelmingly rejected the notion of banking days, and the weekly
hour-long blocks that previously had been used for faculty and department meetings were
no longer an option. The administration was forced to use the ten faculty meetings
outlined in the employee contract to provide collaboration time. Not only are these
meetings being held after school and no longer embedded as part of the school day, they
are being used punitively, as administrators are extending the meetings two and a half
hours into the afternoon. Currently, these meetings are being used to analyze student
data, to create pacing guides and common assessments and to plan for the school’s
upcoming accreditation.
247
Administrators have organized a number of on-site professional development
opportunities throughout the year. The teacher workday prior to the start of school was
used to prepare teachers for more effective classroom management, to begin work on
academic vocabulary and begin collaboration. In November 2010, a state-funded staff
development day included presentations from core departments on what cross-curricular
support is needed to improve the lowest strands of student performance on CSTs.
Administrators have offered release days for teacher collaboration by department, and the
expectations is that there will be an additional departmental collaboration day by the end
of second semester.
The principal states that there is an expectation that professional development will
be ongoing as the Cirrus HS staff finds conferences that support their needs. An assistant
principal provides encouragement to teachers to find conferences that apply to their
subject areas and relate to the at-risk population served by the school. The ELD teacher
specialist also disseminates conference literature. The strategies that teachers learn at
these conferences are evaluated upon application in the classroom. If the teacher is
successful with the new strategies, they are shared with other teachers during a faculty
meeting. There are currently efforts being made to work with another high school in the
CUSD that is in PI to find highly recognized conferences.
Much of the energy for professional development and building skills in some
teacher leaders on campus has come out of the District’s involvement with the consulting
group Focus on Results. Members of the ILT meet monthly during FOR days to review
data, plan staff meetings and build leadership for school and district improvement. The
248
district pays for the consultants and for two teachers from the school site to attend the
monthly FOR meetings. The school supplements the cost of this program with Title I
funds. Since using the FOR framework calls for greater collaboration among teachers at
the school, the ILT has involved teachers in the development of their “urgent message”
and the identification of their “problem of practice.”
The school has had limited success in finding teachers willing to attend AP
conferences and regional workshops. But the Love and Logic classroom management
model has been embraced schoolwide, and it has been used to train and support teachers
working with at-risk students. As the school moves forward with its PI plan in 2010-
2011, Cirrus HS must spend $71,600, or ten percent, of its Title I funds on professional
development. The principal and district leadership are supportive of any teacher’s
request to attend a conference.
Efficient and effective use of instructional time. The master schedule at Cirrus
HS has been designed to maximize the number of students having access to and fulfilling
the California State University (CSU) and University of California (UC) a-g requirements
for college entrance. In fact, administration is in the process of removing the remaining
non-a-g core courses within the next year. Because ELLs comprise a significant portion
of the student body, there has been a great deal of emphasis on appropriate course
selection and program placement for these students. A two-hour block of instruction in
the target language is designed for ELD students. A guidance course that once used to be
part of the freshman year was removed from the curriculum some ten years ago by the
Board of Education. Cirrus High School staff, however, saw a need for building study
249
skills and providing academic support through such a course and this year revived the
guidance class. All ninth graders currently are required to have this course in their
program and use the time for school and career planning and skill building.
In almost all classes, teachers model the use of and reinforce students’ efforts to
use academic vocabulary. All teachers, instructional aides and students are asked to use
English first. The degree to which these efforts are uniformly being employed is still an
area of concern at Cirrus HS. The ILT has yet to devise a protocol for examining the
effectiveness of these strategies as well, thus limiting the accountability these structures
are intended to provide.
Extending learning time for struggling students. The staff at Cirrus High
School is committed to targeting resources to ensure that all students increase proficiency
levels at least 5% on the CST and CAHSEE this year. Free tutoring is offered daily
through Title I-funded peer tutors. Teachers are also paid an hourly stipend to offer help
after school, but students are not required to attend. The CAHSEE Online Mentor is
provided through Revolution Prep to students needing additional support to pass the
exam.
Particular attention is given to students making the transition from the feeder
middle school across the street from Cirrus HS. The freshmen intervention program grew
out of an extensive study of student cum files of juniors and seniors who were not on
track to graduate. Counselors and teachers recognized that interventions at the high
school needed to begin before the students arrive on the Cirrus campus as freshmen.
250
Summer school interventions are now mandatory for incoming freshmen that have been
identified as being in danger of not graduating and/or passing the CAHSEE.
Cirrus HS also partners with California State University, Northridge (CSUN).
The university provides eight credentialed teachers who are currently seeking their Pupil
Personnel Services credential to assist the school. They support Cirrus High School’s
“Hot 36”. These students are tenth graders who fall into multiple subgroups and receive
targeted, intensive interventions. The CSUN counselors-in-training deliver an approved
resiliency curriculum, monitor students’ grades and work to get the students plugged in to
activities at the school. Because of the disconnect between home language and culture
and the expectations at the school, efforts are underway to connect ELL students to the
Cirrus culture through clubs, college visits, athletics and extracurricular activities. The
staff recognizes the importance of balancing academic achievement with the personal
connection students should make to their school.
Collaborative, professional culture and distributed leadership. Professional
development this year has been targeted to the strategies the administration believes will
specifically address areas of concern for the Cirrus student body. In their urgent message
to the campus community, the ILT asserts that since 80% of our population is ELL,
students need access to academic vocabulary. The staff believes that students know more
than they are able to express, and they struggle with comprehension. The principal states
that teachers need to seek professional development that supports their comfort level with
teaching literacy skills in all subjects. While the expectations for growing professionally
exist, there is little evidence of follow-through. Teacher leadership continues to be an
251
element that is lacking at Cirrus High School. The sense of urgency to adjust practice
and move the school forward is not present. This is especially true with the faculty’s
move to disrupt structured collaboration time through banking days. While the
Instructional Leadership Team has expanded this year, there is little evidence that the
staff functions well as a team. The principal has attempted to combat this by providing
open-door meetings scheduled once a month. Teachers present problems affecting the
staff and students and they are charted on a whiteboard in the principal’s office. These
meetings have been more cathartic than action-oriented.
Use of research-based best practices and external expertise. Many of the
reform efforts are led by administration, but they tend to be designed with collaboration
in mind. Although the regular faculty and department meetings are held late in the
afternoon when teachers are more lethargic than motivated, administrators have “stayed
the course” by structuring activities that focus on the best practices identified by the ILT:
creation of pacing guides, common assessments and department resource binders that
pool together lesson plans and course materials. As part of the Focus on Results
framework, the ILT has conducted schoolwide and districtwide instructional
walkthroughs. The use of CFAs is still in development, but a strategic focus has not been
placed on their use to inform and drive instruction. The schoolwide focus of critical
reading and using academic vocabulary as a common instructional strategy has been met
with little resistance, but there is limited evidence at this point in time to indicate whether
the efforts are achieving the desired results—increased comprehension and performance
on high-stakes assessments. While there may not be concrete evidence to track the
252
effectiveness of the best practices being implemented at Cirrus HS, it should be noted
that data is becoming a tool that the staff is using to inform their practice and design
programs to meet the needs of their students. The practices used at Cirrus HS are
grounded in solid research and data; still, there is a reluctance to trust outside experts or
seek professional development that would deepen the implementation of these strategies.
Since teacher expertise and leadership is limited, the success of current improvement
efforts is dependent upon the administration.
Recruiting and developing top talent. Cirrus High School tends to see little
turnover in its teaching staff. The current principal views this as both a blessing and a
curse as the school endeavors to move forward. While teachers are committed to the
school and the students they serve, their practice and growth as educators tends to remain
stagnant. The previous principal started as a teacher at the school and moved into
administration over his forty-year career at Cirrus High School. The previous associate
principal, who became his predecessor, provided stability in the leadership structure of
the school during the transition to a new administration. To better support this first-year
principal, a veteran associate principal with a keen eye for data was transferred from
another district high school. The new associate principal worked with a transition team
over a period of six months to help lay the groundwork for the current reform efforts.
This was a considerable financial investment on the part of the CUSD to employ
additional administrators at the site during the transition period, but the current
administration team believes the benefits outweigh the financial burden to the district.
253
With such an administration-led approach to school improvement, teachers
continue to struggle with understanding their role in the process and their responsibility
for improving student achievement. The link has yet to be made between their efforts
and tangible outcomes. While the Instructional Leadership Team has expanded and more
teachers play a role in Focus on Results team meetings, teachers do not yet have a
prominent role at the site and most do not feel empowered to share best practices or
present at meetings.
Table J.3 is a summary of how Cirrus HS implements the ten steps that Odden
(2009) recommends for doubling student performance.
Table J.3: Cirrus HS’s Implementation of 10 Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance
Implementation
Odden’s Steps
Strong Average Weak
Not
observed
STEP 1
Understand the performance challenge: Analyze
performance data
X
STEP 2
Set ambitious goals
X
STEP 3
Change the curriculum program and create a
new instructional vision
X
STEP 4
Use benchmark and formative assessments and
data-based decision making
X
STEP 5
Provide ongoing, intensive professional
development
X
STEP 6
Use instructional time efficiently and effectively
X
STEP 7
Extend learning time for struggling students
X
STEP 8
Build a collaborative, professional culture and
use distributed leadership
X
254
Table J.3, continued
Implementation
Odden’s Steps
Strong Average Weak
Not
observed
STEP 9
Use research-based best practices and external
expertise
X
STEP 10
The human capital side: Recruit and develop top
talent
X

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
This case study utilizes the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a
framework to collect resource data at the school level. This framework generates a
comparison between actual resources allocated at the school site and the level of core
resources that the Evidence-Based Model suggests for each individual school. Table J.4
shows how the resources at Cirrus High School compare to the EBM. The last column
indicates the difference between the Evidence-Based Model and Cirrus or indicates how
the EBM would staff a school of 2,059 students with the demographics of CHS.
Table J.4: Comparison of Cirrus HS Actual Resources and Evidence-Based Model
School Element
Evidence-Based
Model Prototype
High School
CHS Actual
Resource Allocation
Comparison of CHS
Resources to EBM
Prototype
School Characteristics
School configuration 9-12 9-12
Prototypical school size 600 2,059 3.43 times larger
Class size 25 36 44% larger
Number of teacher work days 200, including 10
days for intensive
training
186, including 3
inservice days
4 less work days, 7
less inservice days
% Disabled 12% 7.0% (144)
% Poverty (free or reduced-
price lunch)
50% 53.5% (1,102)
% English Language Learner
(ELL)
10% 23.4% (482)
% Minority 30% 43%
255
Table J.4, continued
School Element
Evidence-Based
Model Prototype
High School
CHS Actual
Resource Allocation
Comparison of CHS
Resources to EBM
Prototype
Personnel Resources
1. Core teachers 24 50.8 EBM suggests 82.3
2. Specialist teachers 33% or more: 8.0 21.6 EBM suggests 27.4
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Coaches
3.0 0 EBM suggests 10.3
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students:
3.0
1.0 FTE teacher
4.0 FTE aides
EBM suggests 11.0
teachers
5. Teachers for ELL students An additional 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students
0.60
4.0 FTE teachers
4.0 FTE aides
EBM suggests 4.8
teachers
6. Extended day 2.5 0.2 EBM suggests 8.6
7. Summer school 2.5 35.0 EBM suggests 8.6
School Characteristics
8. Students with mild
disabilities
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions
5.2 FTE teachers
6.4 FTE aides
EBM suggests 13.7
teachers
9. Students with severe
disabilities
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
2.0 FTE teachers
8.8 FTE aides
Based on need
10. Resources for
gifted/talented students
$25/student $8,000
EBM suggests
$51,475
11. Vocational education No extra cost Included in FTE No extra cost
12. Substitutes 5% of personnel $150/day 5% of personnel
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance/250
students
5.4 total
4.0 Counselors
1.0 Psychologist
1.0 Dropout,
Attendance
Counselor
2.0 Parent Advocate /
Community Liaison
0.2 Nurse
0.6 Speech
(8.8 total)
EBM suggests 11.0
teachers and 8.2
guidance counselors
(19.2 total)
14. Non-instructional aides 3.0 2.0 EBM suggests 10.3
15. Librarians/Media
Specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library
technician
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library aide
EBM suggests 3.4
Librarians and 3.4
Library technicians
16. Principal
1
1 Principal
1 Assoc. Principal
3 Asst. Principals
EBM suggests 1
principal
17. School site secretary
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary
13.0 Clerical
EBM suggests 3.4
secretaries and 10.3
clerical
256
Table J.4, continued
School Element
Evidence-Based
Model Prototype
High School
CHS Actual
Resource Allocation
Comparison of CHS
Resources to EBM
Prototype
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional coaches
Planning & prep time
10 summer days
Additional:
$50/pupil for other
PD expenses—
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc.
3 days of professional
development,
$91,000 for other PD
expenses
EBM suggests 10
days intensive
professional
development and
$102,950 for other
PD expenses
19. Technology
$250/student
Use of Title I funds,
as needed
EBM suggests
$514,750
20. Instructional materials
$175/student Varies
EBM suggests
$360,325
21. Student activities
$250/student 0.2 ASB adviser
EBM suggests
$514,750
 
It is perhaps expected that the large high schools typical of many urban and
suburban school districts in California are staffed differently from what is suggested in
the Evidence-Based Model. The most glaring difference is the size of the student body.
The Evidence-Based Model’s prototype high school comprises grades 9-12 and serves
600 students. Cirrus High School is the third largest school this study with an enrollment
of 2,059 students. After prorating accordingly based on the size of this school, it is
evident that the resources in use at Cirrus HS are far lower than what the EBM generates.
Yet the school has still been able to produce some positive trends in student achievement
results. One of the differences in the current allocation of resources and what the EBM
suggests can be noted in the dedication of 70.2% of the class sections (50.8 FTE) to core
academic subjects with electives at 29.8%, or 21.6 FTE. This is slightly under the 75-25
approach used in the EBM. A greater emphasis on electives takes away from moving
students toward proficiency in the core subject areas. The school would argue, though,
257
that the revival of the guidance program for all ninth graders has the potential to mitigate
academic failure in the future. This remains to be supported by achievement data.
Another problematic area in terms of the current allocation of resources is the
dependence on summer school to remediate student learning. In 2009-2010, 35.0 FTE
were dedicated to summer school classes. In the school’s defense, 5.0 FTE were used to
provide additional instruction for ELD students and provide opportunities for
reclassification. An additional 4.0 FTE were dedicated to moving students out of Pre-
Algebra. Still, there is a considerable population of the student body not passing their
classes on the first attempt, requiring additional interventions and remediation—resources
that might be better targeted during the academic year.
In terms of professional development, Cirrus High School spends approximately
$30,000 less than what the EBM would generate. Since professional development and
reliance on outside experts at this school are piecemeal in format, it is uncertain whether
the additional investment in professional development would create a significant impact
on student achievement.
Impact of recent budget reductions. The high school has experienced some
structural changes and personnel reductions as part of the evolving budget challenges
over the past few years. While all ninth grade English classes were capped at 20 students
since the 1990s, class-size reduction was eliminated and now all ninth grade English
classes hover with enrollment around 36. In addition, school district officials reduced the
number of senior administrative secretaries at the school site from two to one through
retirements and attrition over the past two years. Further, the school district reduced FTE
258
allocations to each high school by 3.0 to assist with cutting costs across the board. Cirrus
has lost several teachers over the years due to declining enrollment.
Unrelated to the budget crisis, but equally significant, is the fact that the move
into PI status resulted in some students moving to a neighboring high school—and
generating a loss of 1.0 FTE for Cirrus HS. While the FTE was not regained, it is
interesting to note that many of these students returned to Cirrus at the semester.
Summary and Lessons Learned
Cirrus High School has made improvement possible for almost all of its students.
The API has increased schoolwide and for almost all subgroups. Still, the glaring
achievement gap cannot be ignored. Asian students far outperform their White,
Hispanic/Latino, ELL and SPED counterparts. While growth over time is evident,
achievement results sometimes fluctuate and other times level off. Still, the goal of
reaching an API of 800 by 2013 is in sight.
One of every two Cirrus HS students is not proficient in English and three of
every five students are not proficient in other core subjects. The school has been able to
move ten percent of most of its subgroups toward proficiency each year—an indication
that the staff does indeed have the capacity to make systemwide improvement possible.
The greatest struggle lays with English Language Learners and their lack of proficiency
in English. This subgroup continues to bear the burden and the stigma for moving Cirrus
High School into Program Improvement status.
While efforts have been made to bring more teachers on board with school
improvement efforts and inline with the decision-making process, there are still only
259
pockets of excellence. These isolated conversations surrounding data and best practice
and the staff’s rejection of collaboration time presents limited opportunities for constant
improvement.
Cirrus High School is waging two battles: one with its teachers and another with
its students. Staff will have to continue to build teachers’ capacity by empowering them
as instructional leaders. And, it is incumbent upon the current leadership to design
worthwhile collaboration opportunities to convince teachers of its effectiveness in
moving the school forward. Efforts to build and appreciate a culture of academic
excellence among all student groups are critical to making sustained achievement
possible.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study was conducted to examine instructional strategies and resource allocation in successful schools. The study was based on the analysis of three comprehensive high schools in one school district in Southern California. Each of the study schools increased students’ academic achievement over time as measured by sustained growth on California’s Academic Performance Index. The efforts of these study schools also contributed to narrowing the achievement gap.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation practices in relation to identified school reform strategies

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Landisi, Brian Anthony (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/28/2011

Defense Date 03/28/2011

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

Tag budget crisis,education finance,Educational Leadership,instructional leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,Odden and Picus,resource allocation,school finance,school reform,secondary education

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email blandisi@charter.net,landisi@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3797

Unique identifier UC158503

Identifier etd-Landisi-4355 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-467885 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3797 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Landisi-4355.pdf

Dmrecord 467885

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Landisi, Brian Anthony

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