Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Sun Valley Middle School: a case study analysis of a California state scholastic audit school and the development of a clear conceptual framework to turning around a failing school, doubling stud...
(USC Thesis Other)
Sun Valley Middle School: a case study analysis of a California state scholastic audit school and the development of a clear conceptual framework to turning around a failing school, doubling stud...
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
SUN VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL: A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF
A CALIFORNIA STATE SCHOLASTIC AUDIT SCHOOL AND
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CLEAR CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TO
TURNING AROUND A FAILING SCHOOL, DOUBLING STUDENT
PERFORMANCE, AND A FIRST-YEAR PRINCIPAL’S JOURNEY
THROUGH THE AUDIT PROCESS
by
Jeffrey Alan Davis
_______________________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2007
Copyright 2007 Jeffrey Alan Davis
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the entire Rossier School of Education staff
whose dedication and support have guided me through my long quest for my
doctorate degree. I would especially like to thank my advisor, Dr. Lawrence O.
Picus, whose professionalism, intellect, and support has continually given me the
confidence to move forward. His prompt and insightful feedback not only
sustained me through this process, but also guided and inspired me in this
sometimes very challenging work.
I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. David D. Marsh
and Dr. Stuart E. Gothold, for their encouragement, ideas, guidance, and support.
Dr. Marsh’s insightfulness in this project motivated me from the beginning and
Dr. Gothold’s confidence and encouragement kept me steady.
I am very thankful to the following people who substantially contributed
to my progress during my doctoral program: my LAUSD mentor, friend, and
former supervisor Douglas Waybright, Dr. Maury Ross from USC, and my late
friend Darius “Ray” Floyd.
I am grateful to former LAUSD Local District Two Superintendent Judy
Burton and former Director Floyd Cottam for having the sincere belief in my
abilities and for selecting me as Principal of Sun Valley Middle School, to Diane
Agliam, former District Two coordinator, for all of the long hours and dedication
iii
she gave to us at Sun Valley, to Sue Shannon, district two superintendent and
Maria Wale, director, at local district two for trusting in my administrative skills,
and to Superintendent Roy Romer for allowing a first-time principal the
professional opportunity of a lifetime.
I also want to thank the entire LAUSD School Board, specifically board
member Julie Korenstein, for her consistent and gracious support of Sun Valley
Middle School, along with governmental officials Senator Richard Alarcon,
Councilmen Tony Cardenas and Alex Padilla, and City Attorney Rocky
Delgadillo for their “hands-on” approach to helping us turn around Sun Valley.
I will be forever indebted to the wonderful teachers, students, staff, and
parents of Sun Valley Middle School that took the journey with me from
February 2002 to June 2005. To the Sun Valley teachers, I am so very proud of
each and every one of you. You never forgot my motto “The kids don’t care
what you know, until they know that you care.”
I would especially like to thank my UTLA Chapter Chairs, Ed
Zimmerman and the late Alvin Brownlee, Jr., for understanding our mission and
walking beside me, not behind me. Moreover, I would like to thank my very
talented administrative team that did whatever I asked of them and took care of
business each day: Derek Horowitz, Delmarie Carver, Michael Melton, Nancy
Evleth, Annick Draghi, Josie Bisciglia, Nancy Watson, Eduardo Solorzano, and
Tom Cervantes. Also, thanks to a great clerical staff led by my school
administrative assistant Hope Tropper, who kept the school running smoothly
iv
each day. I am very appreciative to my editor, Sarah Novak, for her outstanding
work with this dissertation.
I am so appreciative and thankful to my parents, Sam and Marlene Davis,
who have provided me enough love and support for ten lifetimes, and a special
thank you to my dad for all of the assistance he has provided me in formatting
this document. I want to thank my sisters, Teri and Dana, and their families for
always being there for me and a thank you to Teri for helping me with this
project. I want to thank my daughter Paige for being my original inspiration to
write this dissertation, because I wanted you to be proud of me as your dad. I also
want to thank my stepson Matt and my stepdaughter Jenna for their
encouragement and understanding.
Last, but certainly not least, I want to dedicate this dissertation to my wife
Laurie Susan Davis. Honey, you are my heart, my soul and my inspiration.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Purpose of the Study 12
Exploratory Questions 13
Importance of the Study 14
Limitations 15
Delimitations 15
Assumptions 16
Definitions 16
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 25
No Child Left Behind 26
California’s Program Improvement System 34
Comprehensive School Reform 36
California’s STAR Program 37
A Conceptual Framework for Improving Schools 39
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 59
Purpose of the Study 59
Exploratory Questions 60
Rationale for Multiple Method Case Study 61
Sample and Population 61
Instrumentation 64
Data Collection 68
Data Analysis 71
Making High Poverty School to a High
Performing School 73
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 74
Leading the Way 75
Sun Valley Middle School 84
Analysis and Interpretations of Findings 89
vi
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
IMPLICATIONS 139
My Personal Leadership Journey 139
Summary 144
Conclusions 151
Implications 152
REFERENCES 156
APPENDICES 162
APPENDIX A 163
APPENDIX B 165
APPENDIX C 168
APPENDIX D 169
APPENDIX E 171
APPENDIX F 173
APPENDIX G 174
APPENDIX H 178
APPENDIX I 179
APPENDIX J 180
APPENDIX K 182
APPENDIX L 188
APPENDIX M 195
APPENDIX N 199
APPENDIX O 200
APPENDIX P 201
APPENDIX Q 203
APPENDIX R 205
APPENDIX S 210
APPENDIX T 212
APPENDIX U 215
APPENDIX V 216
APPENDIX W 217
APPENDIX X 219
APPENDIX Y 221
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Teacher Responses to the Instructional Vision
of the School 90
Table 2: Sun Valley Middle School Teacher Effectiveness
Ratings Regarding Reform (2002-2005) 91
Table 3: Action Learning Systems Survey Responses
(Reciprocal Teaching) 94
Table 4: Action Learning Systems Survey Responses
(Direct Instruction) 95
Table 5: Action Learning Systems Survey Responses
(Focus Standards) 95
Table 6: Action Learning Systems Survey Responses
(Test Prep Strategies) 95
Table 7: Action Learning Systems Survey Responses
(Effect on Students) 96
Table 8: ASCD “What Works in Schools” Survey (Median
Factor Levels) 98
Table 9: “Wyoming Model” Resource Use in School “A”
Evidence-Based Model — Sun Valley Middle School 114
Table 10: Principal’s Survey (Master Schedule / Student
Achievement) 116
Table 11: Principal’s Survey (Professional Development
Training / Effect on Student Improvement) 120
Table 12: Action Learning Systems Survey Responses
(Professional Development / Student Achievement) 122
Table13: Principal’s Survey (Sun Valley Middle School
Raising Achievement in Three Years) 129
Table 14: Longitudinal AYP Improvements at Sun Valley
Middle School (Language Arts) 136
viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the issue of low-performing or
“failing” schools that need to be turned around, the various federal and state
accountability frameworks utilized and the development of a clear conceptual
framework to double student performance at these schools. This is explored
through my perspective as a first-year principal who had the mandate of “turning
around” a California state audit school in just 18 months. The school selected
had gradually improved their Academic Performance Index (API) for the
previous three years, yet was an audit and Program Improvement school when I
became principal in February 2002.
The methodology used was a multiple-method case study so that I would
be able to provide a window for other site and district administrators to look
through when faced with the almost impossible task of improving student
achievement, at such an exponential level, in such a short time period. The
triangulation efforts included quantitative teacher surveys, principal surveys,
document review, administrator interviews, and field observations.
The case study discovered that the Joint Intervention Agreement (JIA)
developed by the state and district for Sun Valley Middle School provided a
framework similar to research-based school improvement efforts in other states
across the nation. These six strategies that focus on literacy improvement,
focused teacher training, targeted intervention for struggling students,
ix
restructuring the learning environment for students, using data to drive all
instructional decisions, and providing a rigorous curriculum aligned to the state
standards are proven ways to increase and even double student performance in
schools and districts. However, what made Sun Valley Middle School unique
were the steps I took as principal that created a “student-centered” culture, the
many student incentive programs that were tied to high expectations for students,
and the overarching belief that “all students can and will learn”.
Overall, the data collected from this case reflected that the
aforementioned six strategies, combined with the site specific reforms instituted
at Sun Valley Middle School, could result in doubling student performance if
implemented around the central mindset of “the students don’t care what you
know, until they know that you care”.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In this era of greater accountability in K−12 education, the academic
performance of urban public school students has been problematic across the
nation. There are many urban public schools that are considered “failing” (26,000
schools or one in four nationwide), and the urgency required to fix these schools is
greater than at any other time in our nation’s history because many of these schools
will face sanctions if they fail to meet state standards for a second year in a row
(Tucker, 2004).
These failing schools have been brought into focus with the passage of the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, which formally reauthorized the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). With NCLB came
federal funds, which, in turn, have created greater accountability for schools, school
districts, and state departments of education. The large disparity between the
number of public schools that are meeting their NCLB targets (which all schools
must meet by 2014 per NCLB) and the ones that are not even close to meeting their
goals is eye-opening. In California alone, there are 1,772 Program Improvement
schools out of the state’s 9,223 public schools (Sturrock & Asimov, 2005).
2
Statement of the Problem
In trying to turn around failing schools in California, there are many factors
that need to be taken into account, most importantly, professional development
training for teachers in developing literacy skills with their students, school
leadership, and accountability under NCLB and various other accountability
structures. The primacy of literacy and English language acquisition are two such
indicators, and both play a key role in helping solve the problems of educational
attainment and achievement. Gaining competency in spoken and written English as
rapidly as possible is absolutely essential. This process needs to begin in preschool
and should be pursued with discipline and intelligence throughout the years of
schooling (Tornatzky, 2003).
In terms of school leadership and attempts at turning around failing schools
under NCLB, many superintendents and principals are feeling the frustration. An
examination of two opinion research reports conducted by Public Agenda and
supported by the Wallace Foundation in 2001 and 2003 on the roles of school
leaders in improving education for all children provides an interesting perspective
on how leadership is related to working with troubled schools. The first report,
titled “Trying to Stay Ahead of the Game: Superintendents and Principals Talk
About School Leadership” (2001), found that school leaders felt confident that they
can make an enormous difference in student learning; however, they are too often
overwhelmed by the politics and difficult conditions of their jobs. In the 2003
3
survey “Rolling Up Their Sleeves: Superintendents and Principals Talk About
What’s Needed to Fix Public Schools,” these leaders report that they are more
focused than ever on curriculum, instruction, mentoring, and professional
development to improve classroom teaching. They are hamstrung, however, by red
tape, competing laws and regulations, and inadequate resources necessary to meet
increased requirements and mandates (Public Agenda, 2003).
In the state of California and across the United States, schools and school
districts must meet the requirements of NCLB on their state-adopted standardized
tests. Districts, like schools, must make “Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)”
toward all students scoring at least “proficient” in English and math by 2013−14.
There are set threshold scores that districts must meet each year based on state
tests.
As part of making AYP, districts must also reach a targeted minimum
Academic Performance Index (API) score (set by the California Department of
Education (CDE)) or must raise their score by one point. For 2004-05 through
2006-07, the CDE set the API targeted minimum score at 590. In addition, districts
must test 95% of their students, and high school and unified districts must attain a
specified high school graduation rate or show a certain amount of improvement.
Like schools, districts that for two years in a row do not make AYP must, in most
cases, participate in the NCLB intervention called Program Improvement (PI)
(EdSource, 2005). In the 2005-2006 testing cycle, 24.4% of students in a school
have to score proficient or above in language arts and 26.5% in math to keep
4
schools out of “PI watch” or “PI” status; however, beginning with the 2007-2008
testing cycle, the percentages jump to 35.2% and 37%, respectively, and then rise
steadily until 2014. Even if schools score high enough, they can fail to meet the
federal benchmark unless 95% of students in each school and district as a whole
take the exam, which, in California, is the California Standards Test (CST)
(Sturrock & Asimov, 2005).
Despite the mounting research on each of these subjects, we really do not
know how teacher professional development training leads to student literacy and
school leadership, or how the many federal and state accountability structures
impact our ability to close the achievement gap. We also do not know for sure
what factors boost test scores and improve student achievement at failing urban
public schools, especially those already under PI. These factors constitute the
overall problem of the study.
The Los Angeles Unified School District
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the second largest
public school district in the nation, enrolled 741,367 students in the 2004-05 school
year. In the same time period, the LAUSD had 206 year-round schools and 618
Title I schools out of a total of 641 schools (www.search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-
bin/fccgi.exe). The percentage of students receiving free or reduced-priced meals
at school was 76.9% in ’04-05. Out of the 741,367 students enrolled in the
LAUSD, 72.8% (539,717) of the students are of Hispanic origin. In looking at the
5
percentage of Hispanic students classified as English-Language Learners (ELL),
there were 295,448 out of a total of 315,467 ELL enrolled in K-12 in the 2004-05
school year (www.data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Cbeds4.asp). The next most
predominant second language groups were Armenian (3,824), Korean (3,663),
Filipino (2,916), and Cantonese (1,480).
The LAUSD is divided into eight local districts. Local District Two
(formerly District B), comprising the east and northeastern sections of the San
Fernando Valley, has the greatest number of schools — 90), 85of which are Title I
funded schools. In addition, 33 operated on some version of the year-round
calendar. District Two had a student enrollment of 106,766 in the 2004-05 school
year, of which 79.9% (85,286) were of Hispanic origin. The number of Hispanic
students enrolled as English-Language Learners K−12 in District Two was 46,279
in the 2004-05 school year (http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-bin/fccgi.exe).
Many of these LAUSD and District Two schools with the highest
populations of Hispanic students are located in very low socioeconomic areas, with
schools on year-round schedules. They also face tremendous barriers to learning
such as heightened gang and narcotics activity, minimal parental involvement, and
high student transient rates.
Raising student performance and closing the achievement gap in these
schools is a major challenge. Throughout the mid- to late-1990s, many of these
schools, all Title I, began to stagnate or lag behind academically. With the onset of
PI funding from Title I in the late 1990s, some schools began to experience an
6
increase in student achievement, while others could not overcome their huge
challenges. Just prior to the signing of the NCLB Act, the CDE began a process of
identifying and assisting the most challenged of these schools (Burton, 2005), in
terms of a combination of low test scores, school climate, low attendance rates, low
quality teachers, and administrative issues.
California Academic Audit Process
In December 2001, the CDE designated 13 schools in the state as “State
Scholastic Audit” (SSA) schools. These schools were targeted for not making
significant sustained gains in student achievement despite receiving Federal Title I
Program Improvement funds. The formal scholastic audit process (See Appendix
N) consists of: 1) an evaluation of the school site plan and school data; meetings
with district and school leaders; 2) On-site investigation (data collection via
interviews, focus groups, observations, document review; synthesis of data;
preliminary report of findings & evidence; oral exit report of findings to
administration); 3) Report of Findings and Recommendations for Corrective
Actions (per the findings from the on-site investigation); 4) School either selected
for Strategic Assistance Intervention Team (SAIT) or Joint Intervention Agreement
(JIA) process; and 5) Monitoring/Support during the process. The JIA typically
carries an 18-month plan, while SAIT is usually spread throughout a three-year
period (CDE, California Academic Audit, On-site investigation form).
7
Sun Valley Middle School
Ten of the SSA schools were LAUSD and the lone San Fernando Valley-
area school was Sun Valley Middle School. Sun Valley Middle School is a large,
year-round middle school that operates on a Concept 6 (163 days per track)
calendar.
The Concept 6 calendar provides for fewer school days, but with days of
longer duration (7:30 am, 3:16 pm). Of the approximately 3,000 students enrolled
each year from 1999-2005, more than 94% were Hispanic, 88.2% qualified for
either the free or reduced-price federal lunch program, and more than 45% were
enrolled as English-Language Learners (ELL).
Located in District B (which later became District 2), Sun Valley Middle
School actually underwent two types of audits prior to becoming an SSA school.
In July 2001, The Principal’s Exchange (TPE), an approved external evaluator for
the CDE, was summoned to the school to diagnose three areas: reading/language
arts, English language development, and mathematics. Data were gathered through
interviews, observations, analyses of student work samples, and various school and
LAUSD reports/documents.
The purpose of this audit was to provide the school and district with
comprehensive information regarding the state of curriculum, instruction, and
student achievement at Sun Valley Middle School. The focus of the audit was to
determine if the existing curriculum, instruction, and assessments were aligned to
the performance requirements outlined in the California State Content Standards.
8
TPE left Sun Valley Middle School with 11 comprehensive
recommendations focused on curriculum/instruction and several other
recommendations based on a negative perception of the overall school
culture/climate. TPE’s final report was forwarded to the CDE, LAUSD
Superintendent Roy Romer, and Local District B Superintendent Judy Burton. This
report was the precursor to the State Scholastic Audit that was performed at Sun
Valley Middle School from October 22-26, 2001.
The October 2001 Sun Valley Middle School audit was the most extensive
scholastic audit ever undertaken by the CDE (Burton, 2005). The five areas
examined in this “Academic Audit” process were: school and district leadership,
curriculum and instruction, professional development/data analysis, classroom and
school assessments, and school culture, resources, climate, and communication
(Joint Intervention Agreement, 2002).
Joint Intervention Agreement
Following five days of intensive classroom observations, interviews,
surveys, and meetings, the “audit team” compiled a Joint Intervention Agreement
(JIA) that was presented to the LAUSD. The JIA included 162 Corrective Actions
and was finalized and signed on January 17, 2002, by the CDE and the LAUSD.
These Corrective Actions were mandated and ordered to be implemented
immediately.
9
The LAUSD and CDE agreed to develop quarterly reports on the audit
team’s findings, beginning on March 30, 2002 and continuing through June 30,
2003. The CDE agreed to provide ongoing monitoring of the school’s progress
toward meeting the prescribed benchmarks. The meeting of the benchmarks would
show progress toward meeting the school’s API targets within the next 18 months,
and the state/district would provide the fiscal and human resources necessary to
support the required Corrective Actions.
Sun Valley Middle School is not unique; in fact, there are many schools in
the LAUSD, California, and nation that face the same tremendous challenges each
day. Sun Valley Middle School is unique, however, in that it was one of the
original 13 State Scholastic Audit schools that experienced exponential growth in
its API, AYP, and student attendance figures in the three and a half years following
the signing of the JIA. In addition, Laura Bush, the First Lady of the United States,
personally visited the school in April 2005 during her “Helping America’s Youth”
campaign. She presented the school with a commendation for improving literacy,
high academic achievement, and gang prevention in such a challenging
environment. Sun Valley Middle School also met all JIA requirements in the first
12 months of the audit, something none of the other audit schools was able to do.
As stated above in the past three Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) testing cycles (2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05), Sun Valley Middle
School made dramatic improvements in both its API and AYP scores, and the JIA
may be one of the major reasons for this. The power of the transformation of Sun
10
Valley Middle School can best be examined by reviewing the dramatic
improvements in both its API and AYP over the past three STAR testing cycles,
both year-to-year and longitudinally for the graduating class of 2005. Moreover, a
comparison of Sun Valley Middle School CST data from the 2001 test results to the
2005 results is even more impressive.
In 2001, just 5% of Sun Valley Middle School 6th graders scored advanced
or proficient on the CST English-Language Arts test. By 2005, Sun Valley Middle
School had 17% of its 6
th
graders scoring in that same range. A comparison of 7th-
grade scores from 2001 to 2005 reveals much the same results. In 2001, just 5% of
7th graders reached the advanced or proficient range on the CST English-Language
Arts exam, while in 2005, 25% of 7th graders at Sun Valley Middle School scored
in that area. In looking at 8th-grade scores in 2001, only 7% of 8th graders scored
in the advanced and proficient range, while 20% of the 8th graders in 2005 hit this
standard.
When reviewing CST data in terms of the NCLB component AYP, the
progress of the Sun Valley Middle School students is impressive in the context of
the three-year time period during which these score improvements took place.
AYP measures only students who score in the proficient or advanced ranges on the
CST. In the first year of AYP (2002), Sun Valley Middle School had a mere 7.1%
(200) of 2,894 students tested school-wide who scored proficient or advanced on
the CST in English-Language Arts. Following the school reform initiatives
instituted, the audit, and the restructuring of the school, Sun Valley Middle School’s 2005
11
AYP scores improved dramatically. In 2005, 22% (552) of the 2,509 students
school-wide met the advanced or proficient criteria in English-Language Arts
(www.ayp.cde.ca.gov/ reports/AYP/2003AYP).
On the mathematics portion of the CST in 2002, Sun Valley recorded just
10.2% (282) of 2,870 students tested schoolwide scoring proficient or advanced.
By 2005, the numbers had improved to 23.2% (582) of 2,510 students tested
school-wide scoring at the proficient or advanced level on the CST math test
(www.ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/AYP/2003AYP). During this same time period, the
Sun Valley Middle School API rose from a growth API in 2001-02 of 488 to a
growth API in 2004-05 of 616, again of 128 points in a three-year period
(http://api.cde.ca. gov /reports/API/2005Grth_Sch.asp) (See Appendices A and B).
The gains in student achievement in literacy by Hispanic students along
with ELL, however, were the most impressive of all the student-achievement
improvements. In 2002, of 2,586 Hispanic students tested on the CST English-
Language Arts exam, only 6.6% (171) scored advanced or proficient. By 2005,
2,383 Hispanic students were tested, and 21.6% (514) scored in the
proficient/advanced range. Of 2,470 ELL tested in 2002, just 5.8% (139) scored
proficient/advanced on the CST English Language Arts test as compared to 15.5%
(315) of 2,036 ELL tested in 2005 scoring proficient or advanced (http://ayp.cde.ca.
gov/reportsAYP/2003AYP_Sch.asp).
In a study of high-performing organizations, Jim Collins (2001) found that
“those organizations that simplified a complex world into a single organizing idea,
12
a basic principle, or concept that unified and guided the work of everyone within
the organization, were successful.” In a Professional Learning Community, Sun
Valley Middle School strove to become with the onset of the JIA, “that unifying
principle asserts that we have not fulfilled our fundamental purpose until all
students have learned at high levels. Once that principle is truly embraced, the
need for significant change becomes evident” (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005).
Lessons Learned from Sun Valley Middle School
The lessons learned from Sun Valley Middle School’s three-year journey
can be helpful to site and district administrators throughout the nation. This
research does not have all the answers for making an urban public middle school
successful. However, the organizational change efforts, site leadership strategies,
meaningful professional development training for teachers focused on improving
student literacy, and new structures and programs brought to Sun Valley Middle
School could bring similar changes and success to other schools needing to find
strategies to make dramatic improvements in student performance.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to describe and examine what one urban
public middle school, identified as one of California’s most troubled, did to turn
things around in the first three years of reform. This study also explores my
personal journey as a first-year principal faced with the task of completely
13
restructuring and reforming this failing school, while it was under a State
Scholastic Audit and within 18 months of a state takeover.
The areas studied included: (1) the efforts that poor-performing schools
have undertaken to improve the learning for all students, especially in a very large
urban school district; (2) the extent to which Sun Valley Middle School was able to
achieve academic success for all students as a result of new efforts undertaken after
being identified as a State Scholastic Audit School, while working within the
parameters of both the federal and state accountability systems; (3) the factors that
were important related to ongoing professional development training for teachers in
improving student literacy and achievement at Sun Valley Middle School; (4) how
new programs and curricular structures shaped the learning environment for both
teachers and students; (5) how the improvement effort can be understood in terms
of a framework for analyzing organizational change efforts, and (6) how as
principal, I was able to affect tremendous positive student achievement results in
just a three-year period of time.
Exploratory Questions
The following exploratory questions guided the study:
1. What was the instructional vision of the school?
2. What resources were available to the school?
14
3. How did the staff participate in the exponential gains in student achievement
at the school?
4. What are the lessons learned from this school that can be utilized at other
schools that need to double student performance in a short time period?
5. How was Sun Valley Middle School able to produce such exponential and
longitudinal growth in its API and AYP in just three years?
6. How can Sun Valley Middle School’s improvement effort be understood in
terms of a framework for analyzing organizational change efforts in schools?
Importance of the Study
The results of this study can be helpful to site and district-level
administrators, and, in particular, to site principals in addressing the issues of how
to expeditiously improve urban public schools that are considered failing under
NCLB and state accountability programs. This research is not intended to provide
all of the answers because there is truly no “one size fits all” approach to school
reform, and, in turn, closing the achievement gap. This study does, however,
provide one more way to make our educational system “work” for our failing
schools. In addition, district administrators can begin examining the state audit
process to incorporate some of these ideas into improving their troubled schools,
while site principals may find it beneficial to follow the comprehensive approach
15
taken to move a school from within 18 months of a state takeover to one honored
for improvement by the First Lady of the United States.
Limitations
The study is fundamentally limited in the following areas:
1. The collection sample was dependent on voluntary participation from staff
members.
2. The primary methods of collecting data from teachers, site administrators,
and the local district superintendent were observations, surveys, and
interviews, which all have inherent weaknesses.
3. The surveys and interviews were merely a snapshot of the school at the
various times that the observations and interviews were conducted.
4. The site-level administrators, staff members, and local district superintendent
selected for the study may not be completely representative of other staff in
the school or local district, thereby limiting the generalization of the findings.
Delimitations
For practicability reasons, the scope of the study was delimited in the
following ways:
16
1. The case study only reviewed one school’s teaching faculty and five site
administrators (including the principal, who is the author of this study),
which will delimit any generalizations.
2. The time span was delimited to a period of 62 months.
Assumptions
The study made the following basic assumptions:
1. The school faculty, site administrators, and local district superintendent were
honest and truthful in their responses in their surveys and interviews.
2. The case study assumed that the teachers, site administrators, and local
district superintendent were knowledgeable about the State Scholastic Audit
process, curriculum and instruction, district/state assessments, research-based
strategies that were implemented, achievement data, and school culture,
whether prior to the state audit, during the audit, or after the audit.
Definitions
Academic Performance Index (API) — A growth model, the API measures
the academic performance and growth of schools in California. This numeric index
ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. Though each school has its own target,
the statewide performance target for all schools is 800. The school score on the
API is an indicator of a school’s performance level. School growth is measured by
17
how well the school is moving toward or past the 800 mark. A school’s base year
API is subtracted from its growth API to determine how much the school improved
in one year. Schools and districts are also rated by decile ranks in regard to all
schools statewide and similar school ranks (demographics, parent education level,
etc.). In California, the assessments used to measure API in the STAR program
are: the California Standard Test (CST), California Alternate Performance
Assessment (CAPA), California Achievement Test, Sixth Edition Survey (CAT/6
Survey) all subjects, and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). On
the CST and CAPA, the weight factors in regard to levels of student performance
are: Advanced-1000; Proficient-875; Basic-700; Below Basic-500; and Far Below
Basic-200. The CAT/6 weights are as follows: 80-99
th
% rank−1000; 60-79
th
%-875;
40-59
th
%-700; 20−39
th
%-500; 1-19
th
%-200; while for CAHSEE, students must score
a minimum of 350 on both the English-language arts and math to pass.
Achievement Gap — The differences in student achievement/student
performance between student subgroups in the United States. There is a disparate
achievement gap between the much higher scores of whites/Asians as compared to
the lower scores of blacks/Hispanics across the nation on standardized tests.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) — A status model where every school,
school district, and student subgroup must meet the same target. A product of No
Child Left Behind (NCLB), a school or school district must meet all four
schoolwide and subgroup criteria to meet their AYP goals: 1) the percentage of
students that reach proficiency or advanced in English-language arts and
18
mathematics; 2) 95% participation rate in English-language arts and mathematics;
3) improve at least one point in their API; and 4) the graduation rate for high
schools or school districts with high schools. In California, the assessments used
for AYP are: the California Standards Test (CST), the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE), and the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA).
On the CAHSEE, students must score 380 on both the English-language arts and
math to earn “proficient” status.
Action Learning Systems, Inc. (ALS) — A state-approved external provider
that worked with Sun Valley Middle School for three and a half years and was
funded by the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) grant. ALS provided ongoing
professional development for all Sun Valley Middle School teachers, by
department, on a rotating basis each week. ALS also provided a school coach to
meet with the principal monthly to maintain a focused, targeted approach to the
instituted reforms.
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO’s) — The percent proficient among
the various subgroups for a school in the English-Language Arts and Mathematics
portions of the California Standards Test.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD) — A
national organization dedicated to the improvement of teacher supervision and
curriculum development in our public schools. Their “What Works in Schools
Survey” for Sun Valley Middle School (April 2005) is included in this study.
19
California Achievement Test, Sixth Edition (CAT/6) — A norm-referenced
test administered ONLY to students in grades 3 and 7. These scores are factored
into a school’s API at a minimal rate.
California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) — A statewide
assessment given only to Special Education students who are too low functioning
to take the CST and/or CAT/6.
California Department of Education (CDE) — The governing body of all
educational policy in the state of California. This department administers the state
assessment system for all public school students in the state.
California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) — Beginning with the
graduating class of 2006, students who do not pass this exam will not receive a
high school diploma. While in high school, students are provided five
opportunities to pass this exam, beginning in the 10th grade. Students who do not
pass this exam before their graduation date will have an additional opportunity to
pass this exam in summer school following the graduation ceremony. If students
pass the exam at that time, they will receive an adult school diploma from their
local school district. No students are exempt from this mandate at this time.
Scores from first-time 10th grade CAHSEE test takers count for a high school’s
AYP (the 10th-grade CAHSEE scores, participation rate in all content areas, and at
least a 0.1 increase in graduation rate over a two-year period are the ONLY factors
for AYP at the high school level).
20
California Standards Test (CST) — The criterion-referenced assessment
that is given to all California public school students (Grades 2-11) each spring.
Part of the STAR program, this test measures a student’s knowledge of the state
academic content standards in various subject areas, depending on the grade of the
student. These scores are weighted heavily in determining a school’s API and
AYP.
Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) — A federally funded school reform
initiative that offers schools and districts the opportunity to implement schoolwide,
research-based reform strategies to increase student achievement. Formerly known
as the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program (CSRD), the
program was renamed following the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. The
purpose of the program is to improve student achievement by supporting the
implementation of comprehensive school reforms based on scientifically based
research and effective practices so that all children, especially those in low-
performing, high-poverty schools, can meet challenging state content and academic
achievement standards.
Content Standards — A set of skills and/or a body of knowledge that a
student is expected to master. California’s standards are specific to each subject
and grade level.
English Language Learners (ELL) — Students whose primary language is
one other than English and are receiving academic services in English as a Second
Language to meet their core English requirements.
21
Joint Intervention Agreement (JIA) — A legal agreement/document agreed
to by the California State Department of Education, the school district, and, if
necessary, the local school district. This agreement states the corrective actions
that the school being audited must take as well as the time limit for the corrections
to be made and improvements implemented. The document also lists the
benchmarks of progress, the benchmark review date(s), and the individual(s)
responsible at the school site and local district office to ensure that the corrective
actions are completed.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) — Designed to improve student
achievement and close achievement gaps, this was passed by Congress in 2001 and
signed into law on January 8, 2002. The passage of NCLB reauthorized the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). This new law is built
on four pillars: accountability for results, an emphasis on doing what works based
on scientific research, expanded parental options, and expanded local control and
flexibility. The overarching goal of NCLB is for every student in the United States
to reach proficient status (grade-level proficient) by the end of the 2013-14 school
year. NCLB has mandated that states set benchmarks to measure individual student
and school progress and to disaggregate student achievement data for all student
subgroups. A school or school district that does not make its state’s definition of
AYP for two consecutive years is considered to be “in need of improvement.”
Other facets of this law are mandated school report cards for all the nation’s
22
schools, Title II funding for teacher professional development, and “highly
qualified” teachers in every school by the end of the 2005-06 school year.
Program Improvement (PI) — This is a formal designation for Title I-
funded schools that do not make AYP for two consecutive years. The criteria for
identifying schools for PI differ according to the program being implemented at the
school — either targeted assistance (TAS) or school-wide program (SWP). A
school will exit PI status when it makes AYP for each of two consecutive years.
Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) (California/1999) — Where
schools must publicly produce a School Accountability Report Card and publicize
their student scores from the STAR testing program. This program also initially
rewarded schools, their staffs, and even individual students with financial rewards
for improving their API scores or for having high scores on the California
Standards Test.
Quarterly Reviews — These documents summarize a state scholastic audit
school’s progress toward meeting the benchmarks of their corrective actions.
These are published following the auditors’ school visits, which occur every three
months during a scholastic audit.
School Accountability Report Card (SARC) — Part of the PSAA, the
SARC contains student demographic data (i.e., breakdowns of students based on
ethnicity, poverty, disabilities, and home language), academic data, teacher and
staff information, number of fully credentialed teachers on staff, fiscal data,
23
condition of facilities/textbooks, AYP status, and school safety data. This is to be
updated annually.
Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR) — California’s
assessment program in which students take standardized tests late in each academic
year. Students’ scores on STAR tests form the major basis of the school’s API
scores. The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), which is not a part of
STAR, also figures into a high school’s API scores and in regard to first-time 10th-
grade CAHSEE results, the determining factor in a high school’s AYP.
Stanford Nine (SAT9) — The norm-referenced state assessment test
administered to California students in grades 2−11 from the 1998-2002 testing
cycles.
State Scholastic Audit (SSA) — A process by which the California State
Department of Education, in agreement with the local school district, clearly
identifies areas of improvement for an under-performing school. For the school
and district, this process clearly identifies the short-, medium- and long-term
actions that will improve and maintain student achievement in reading/language
arts and mathematics. Audit areas include: school and district leadership;
curriculum, instruction, and professional development; classroom- and school-level
assessments; and school culture, climate, and communication.
Supplemental Educational Services (SES) — A provision of the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. This program provides tutoring or other
supplemental academic enrichment activities beyond the regular school day.
24
Students must be in Program Improvement, Title I schools, where they are not
meeting the state content standards and are low-income. Services may only be
rendered by approved providers.
Title I (TI) — A federal program that provides funding to schools based on
the number of students who qualify for the free or reduced school lunch program.
United States Department of Education (USDOE) — The federal
government’s policy making body for education in the United States.
25
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter provides a review of literature and research relevant to a clear
conceptual framework related to turning around failing schools and doubling their
student performance. This improvement framework is examined in regard to
accountability issues for districts, schools, students, and parents in relation to
NCLB, how failing schools work to turn themselves around, and the researcher’s
personal journey as the first-year principal at Sun Valley Middle School, a Program
Improvement and California State Scholastic Audit school. Specifically, it is
organized in the following manner: 1) a review of the research, literature, and
background of accountability structures such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB),
Program Improvement (PI), Comprehensive School Reform (CSR), and
Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR); 2) research on an evidence-
based model for schools to follow on how to double their performance in regard to
academic achievement; 3) a review of the research, literature, and background
regarding how failing schools/districts have turned themselves around; 4) a review
of personal interviews and literature regarding the researcher’s personal journey as
the Sun Valley Middle School principal; and 5) Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four
organizational perspectives in relation to my task as the first-year principal at a
failing school.
26
The topics presented are critical to understanding how Sun Valley Middle
School utilized the aforementioned present accountability structures to provide a
formula for other Program Improvement/Title I schools to follow, if faced with the
bleak prospects of a state scholastic audit or state takeover, to exponentially raise
student achievement in just three years. Furthermore, the literature review will
indicate implications for further studies.
No Child Left Behind
Despite decades of hard work and dedication to education in our nation,
individual schools and school districts continue to struggle, and the achievement
gaps remain wide. Despite more than $267.4 billion spent to assist states in
educating disadvantaged children since the passage of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965, America’s lowest performers have
improved only slightly. A wide achievement gap remains between poor and more
economically advantaged students as well as between white and minority students
(U.S. Department of Education, 2004). The passage of No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act in January 2002 reauthorized the ESEA and focused on four pillars:
accountability for results, an emphasis on doing what works based on scientific
research, expanded parental options, and expanded local control and flexibility.
27
NCLB and Accountability for Results
The overarching goal of NCLB is for every child to reach state-developed,
grade-level benchmarks of proficiency by the end of the 2013−14 school year.
States are responsible for disaggregating student achievement data, holding schools
accountable for subgroups of students, and meeting the state’s definition of making
AYP. Schools that do not make their AYP for two consecutive years, schoolwide
or in any subgroup (100 or more students constitute a subgroup), are to be
considered “in need of improvement.” These schools are provided assistance to
improve by doing things such as instituting a school improvement plan or
increasing professional development for teachers. The annual assessments that
NCLB calls for identify subject areas and teaching methods that need improvement
(www.nea.org/esea).
Schools labeled “In Need of Improvement” are mandated to develop a
“Single Plan for Student Achievement” to turn around the school. All school
stakeholders are required to work together to develop the plan, and the local school
district must ensure that the school receives technical assistance as it develops and
then implements the plan. Some areas that may be examined are: curriculum and
instruction, alignment of school budget and resources to classroom instruction, or
curriculum alignment to state-content standards (LAUSD/No Child Left Behind,,
2004-05).
The improvement plan developed by the school must incorporate strategies,
relying on scientifically based research, which will strengthen the learning of core
28
academic subjects, especially the subjects that have been deemed in need of
improvement. These schools must spend at least 10% of their Title I funds to assist
teachers and are also expected to develop strategies to promote effective parental
involvement in the school and to incorporate a teacher-mentoring program.
The high-quality assessments that NCLB requires of all states (in California
this is the STAR testing program) must be aligned with state content standards and
focused on higher-level thinking skills. These annual tests provide educators with
information about each child’s academic strengths and weaknesses. With this
knowledge, teachers can design lessons to ensure that students meet or exceed the
standards. Moreover, principals can use the data to assess where the school should
invest resources or professional development for teachers (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004).
NCLB also brought forward the title of “highly qualified teacher.” NCLB
minimum qualifications for a highly qualified teacher are: a bachelor’s degree, full
state certification, and demonstration of subject-matter competency for each subject
taught. NCLB requires that each state develop plans to achieve the goal that all
teachers of core academic subjects are highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06
school year.
Scientifically Based Research
NCLB strongly emphasizes the implementation of educational programs
and practices that have been clearly demonstrated to be effective through rigorous
29
scientific research. Examples of three of these programs include: Reading First,
Read 180, and Language. Reading First is used in the elementary grades, while
Read 180 and Language are used in the middle and high school grades.
Research shows that good instruction in language skills and pre-reading
skills in the early childhood years can prevent many types of adolescent and adult reading
problems. NCLB targets resources for this through Early Reading First.
Expanded Parental Options
By the 2005-06 school year, each state was mandated to measure every
public school student’s progress in reading and math in each of grades 3 through 8
and at least once during grades 10 through 12. By school year 2007-08,
assessments in science for grade spans 3-5, 6-8, and 10-12 must be under way (U.S.
Department of Education, 2004).
These assessments must be aligned with state academic content and
achievement standards. They will provide parents with objective data about their
child’s academic strengths and weaknesses. They will also provide the public with
general information about the progress of their area schools.
Another parent-friendly aspect of NCLB is the requirement that states and
school districts give parents detailed report cards on schools and districts. On these
report cards, student achievement data are broken down by race, ethnicity, gender,
etc. There is even information in these reports regarding the professional
qualifications of teachers.
30
Parents of students in first-year “in need of improvement” schools are
provided the option of transferring their child to a higher-performing public school,
including charter schools, in their district. Transportation must also be provided to
the new school, subject to certain cost limitations. In the second year of “in need of
improvement,” the school must continue offering public school choice, and the
school must also offer supplemental services (free tutoring, etc.) to low-income
students (www.nea.org/esea).
Expanded Flexibility and Local Control
To allow states and districts more flexibility in the use of their federal
education funding, NCLB makes it possible for districts to transfer up to 50% of
federal formula grants they receive under different parts of the law (Title II-
Improving Teacher Quality and Educational Technology, Title IV-Safe and Drug-
Free Schools, Title V-Innovative Programs) to any one of these programs or to the
Title I program (Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged)
(U.S. Department of Education, 2004). This allows districts the opportunity to
target resources as they see fit without additional approval. This flexibility gives
local districts and school sites a greater opportunity to affect decisions regarding
school programs.
In the area of teacher recruitment and retention, NCLB gives states and
districts the flexibility to find alternative routes to certification, merit pay plans for
master teachers, and incentive pay for those who teach in high-need schools or in
31
subject areas such as math and science. Title II funds may also be used to provide
teachers with professional development that is relevant and focused on raising
student achievement.
NCLB’s goals of strong academic progress for all children and closing the
achievement gap are honorable ones; however, the movement to reform NCLB has
been widespread since the law’s inception. In reaction to the perceived problems
with NCLB, more than 20 national education, civil rights, disability, children’s, and
citizens’ groups detailed recommendations to Congress on October 21, 2004, to
change the law to:
1. Ensure a more comprehensive picture of school and student performance by
shifting from an overwhelming reliance on standardized tests to the use of
other student achievement measures in addition to testing.
2. Give states and local governments the funding and support they need to meet
the objectives of the law without reducing expenditures for other education
programs.
3. Provide resources that will strengthen the knowledge and skills of school and
district staff, and support programs that help parents and communities actively
participate in their children’s education.
4. Replace sanctions that neither have a consistent record of success nor allow
schools to continue successful reform efforts.
(www.nea.org/newsreleases/2004).
32
Many educators are concerned with the inflexibility of NCLB, including the
raising of the arbitrary targets that schools must reach as 2014 approaches. In “The
Impact of the Adequate Yearly Progress Requirement of the Federal No Child Left
Behind Act on the Great Lakes Region,” a 2005 study released by the Great Lakes
Center for Educational Research and the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at
Arizona State University, the research shows that “under the current system,
schools are destined to be labeled as failing and there is no way around it.
The question isn’t will schools fail, it’s when will they fail? Without
increased flexibility in the AYP requirements and a focus on the underlying reasons
why students do not perform well on such tests, we will continue to invest huge
amounts of time and money in a system where failure is guaranteed” (Moblo,
2005). The study shows that 95% of the schools in the region will be labeled
“failing” by 2014 if the current law is not adjusted, with the worst-case scenario
being the state of Michigan and the best-case scenario being Ohio. The researchers
predict that almost every school in Michigan will be failing by 2014, while, in the
same year, 80 percent of Ohio’s schools will be labeled as failing (Garcia, Mathis,
& Wiley, 2005). Of the six recommendations to modify NCLB, two of these are:
1) to modify the standards and growth expectations for special education, non-
English speaking, and migratory students; and 2) to create realistic, comprehensive
school evaluation systems that involve a variety of evaluation methods (Garcia,
Mathis, & Wiley, 2005).
33
In a 2003 national study of 925 public school principals conducted by
Public Agenda for the Wallace Foundation, there were 15 questions asked
regarding various aspects of NCLB. A summary of this study shows that though
NCLB is a serious issue facing our schools today, insufficient school funding
continues to be the number one issue that principals believe is the most pressing
issue today for our schools. Principals also believe that NCLB consequences and
sanctions for schools are unfair, especially because it is an unfunded mandate and
testing for special education and ELL students is unreasonable and undoable under
NCLB’s current structure.
To sum up the issues surrounding NCLB, “every one of the 50 states has
introduced legislation rejecting all or part of NCLB. Several have filed lawsuits
against it. More than 10,000 schools have been put on NCLB’s infamous list of
‘schools in need of improvement’ and face an escalating series of sanctions that
address neither their needs nor their challenges. Thousands more will be added to
the list in the next few years as increasing numbers of schools are squeezed in the
tightening vise of unreachable AYP test targets and inadequate resources. This
year, more than a quarter of all public schools (nearly 23,000) failed to reach AYP.
Missing AYP two years in a row earns a spot on the list. Reasonable people may
continue to differ on various aspects of NCLB, but the core of the law has been laid
inescapably bare: tests, more tests, and punitive sanctions that create a systematic
and misleading impression of failure and that hurt public education far more than
they help those who have been poorly served by it” (Karp, 2006).
34
California’s Program Improvement System
In California, Title I schools have been held accountable since the 1996−97
school year with the Program Improvement (PI) identification program for schools
that were not making sufficient academic progress. This program, five and a half
years before the passage of NCLB (www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/programimprov.asp),
was a landmark concept in public education. Following NCLB, various status
determinations were developed regarding Program Improvement schools in the
state.
In accordance with NCLB requirements, Title I Schoolwide Programs
(SWP) were identified for PI status when, for each of two consecutive years, they
did not make their AYP in the same content area (either English-language arts or
mathematics) school-wide or for any numerically significant subgroup or on the
same indicator (Academic Performance Index or high school graduation rate)
school-wide. Title I Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS) were identified for PI
when, for each of two consecutive years, a Title I TAS school did not make AYP in
the same content area (English-language arts or mathematics) for the
socioeconomically disadvantaged student subgroup or on the same indicator
(Academic Performance Index or high school graduation rate) schoolwide, or if the
school did not meet the safe harbor criteria for the socioeconomically
disadvantaged student subgroup (www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/programimprov.asp).
35
The NCLB Program Improvement system is reflective of the schools’
inability to make their AYP for two consecutive years in all subgroups. Counting
the first two years a school does not meet its AYP, the PI program at present lasts seven
years. In year one, the school must revise its school plan within three months of being
notified of its PI status to cover a two-year period, it must use 10% of its Title I
school funds for professional development and it must implement the new plan
promptly. The district provides technical assistance to the school in areas targeted
for improvement, and the school notifies parents of their school choice option and
establishes a peer review process to review the revised school plan.
In year two, the new plan is fully implemented and all of the assistance
from year one is continued. The district provides supplemental services (free
tutoring) in year two, and professional development is focused on the targeted areas
for improvement. Supplemental services are provided beyond the regular school
day.
In year three, the assistance from prior years is continued, and the local
district identifies the school for corrective action and does one of the following:
1) replaces staff; 2) implements new curriculum; 3) decreases management
authority at the school level; 4) appoints an outside expert; 5) extends the school
year or day; or 6) restructures the internal organizational structure of school. In
addition, the district informs parents and the public of corrective action and allows
public comment, and it may even provide direct technical assistance to school site
36
councils in developing school plans. The district also collaborates with the school
to improve student achievement.
In year four, the assistance from prior years is continued, and an alternative
plan of governance is created for the school. The district and school will select one
of the following plans : 1) reopen as a charter school; 2) replace all or most staff
including the principal; 3) contract with an outside entity to manage the school;
4) undergo a state takeover; or 5) any other major restructuring (LAUSD/NCLB,
2004-05).
In year five, the alternative governance plan is implemented. The school
continues in PI status, and the district offers choice and supplemental services until
the school makes AYP for two consecutive years. The school exits PI after two
consecutive years of making AYP (www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/programimprov.asp).
Comprehensive School Reform
The Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program, utilized by Sun Valley
Middle School to hire an external provider to train the teachers in research-based
teaching strategies and techniques, is a federally funded school reform initiative
(www.cde.ca.gov/ta/lp/cs). The purpose of CSR is to utilize the aforementioned
research-based strategies in low-performing, high-poverty schools so that the
students can meet the state content and academic achievement standards through
proven teaching methods (www.cde.ca.gov/ta/lp/cs). The grant provided Sun
37
Valley Middle School with $966,000 per year for three consecutive years, which
allowed the school to contract with external providers, pay for additional
professional development training for its teachers and staff, and to purchase
software and computers for interactive computer programs in language arts and
mathematics. There are eleven components under the CSR program, which
include, but are not limited to: ongoing, high-quality professional development for
teachers; the setting of measurable goals and benchmarks for student achievement;
meaningful parent and community involvement in the planning, implementing, and
evaluating of school improvement activities; and utilizing a high-quality external
partner with experience and expertise in school-wide reform and improvement.
At Sun Valley Middle School we contracted with two such partners through
the CSR grant — Action Learning Systems (ALS) and Public Works, Inc. (PW).
These external providers worked on an ongoing basis with our teachers and
administrators and also provided our teachers and students with a number of
surveys and reports to evaluate the progress being made on an ongoing basis.
These providers also met with school administration to review the surveys and
reports in an effort to provide school leadership with immediate feedback.
California’s STAR Program
In 1997, Senate Bill 376 initially authorized the California Standardized
Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program for our public school students in grades 2
38
through 11. The purpose of the program is to measure how well students are
learning the knowledge and skills identified in the California academic standards.
The Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999 began a more focused
movement in California to close the achievement gap and to alert all public schools
to be more responsive to the needs of all of their students. The PSAA provided
additional monetary awards to individuals and schools that performed well. At the
outset of the STAR program, in the 1997-98 school year, California public school
students (grades 2-11) took both the Stanford Nine Test and the California Content
Standards Test in various academic areas. This format continued until the 2003
STAR testing cycle, at which time the Stanford Nine was replaced by the
California Achievement Test, Sixth Edition (CAT-6). Possible reasons for this
were a change in the testing provider from McGraw-Hill to Educational Testing
Service and an agreement that the California Department of Education had made
with the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). The agreement was to maintain
a norm-referenced test (the CAT-6) along with a criterion-referenced test
(California Standards Test/CST) that would assess students’ knowledge of their
state content standards; it was a trade-off so California could maintain its own set
percentages for students to meet proficiency requirements in regard to their Annual
Measurable Objectives (AMO) in English-language arts and mathematics.
Beginning with the 2005 STAR testing cycle, the California Department of
Education reached agreement with the USDOE to only administer the CAT-6 to 4th
39
and 7th graders, while all students in grades 2 through 11 were mandated to take
the CST’s.
A Conceptual Framework for Improving Schools
The research of Odden and Picus regarding districts or schools in the state
of Washington that have doubled student performance provides a great deal of
information on how to dramatically improve student performance at any school and
correlates to the exponential improvement made at Sun Valley Middle School.
Odden and Picus (2006) found that schools that successfully doubled
student performance have followed a similar set of six steps after setting new,
rigorous performance targets: 1) focus on educating ALL students; 2) use data to
drive decisions; 3) adopt a rigorous curriculum and align this with the state
standards; 4) support instructional improvement with effective professional
development; 5) restructure the learning environment; and 6) provide struggling
students with extended learning opportunities.
In their research, Odden and Picus (2006) also recommended six core
strategies that schools can implement to rethink, if not restructure, their entire
educational program. These six strategies are: 1) Re-calibrate goals for student
learning; 2) re-engineer schools to have them deploy more powerful instructional
strategies and use resources more productively; 3) redesign teacher development so
that teachers acquire the instructional expertise necessary to educate all students to
40
proficiency and to enable their ability to think, understand, problem-solve and
communicate; 4) reinforce achievement for struggling students by providing
various extended learning opportunities; 5) re-tool schools’ technology so they can
tap the educating potential of the internet; and 6) restructure teacher compensation
so that teachers are paid individually for what they know and can do (a knowledge-
and skills-based pay system), and, collectively, a bonus for improving student
learning. In terms of Sun Valley Middle School, we implemented the first five of
these strategies, while the sixth strategy, a district policy decision, was completely
out of the control of the comprehensive school site.
Focus on Educating All Students
Odden and Picus (2006) found that the schools and districts that focused on
educating all students to the state standards, had high expectations for students at the
core of their curricular and instructional decisions, and held teachers responsible for
all students’ learning were able to double and even triple student performance.
These schools and districts included these items in their vision and mission
statements to memorialize their commitment to these goals. The researchers also
reported that several of the districts focused their instructional vision on “rigor,
relevance, and relationships,” which advocates for rigor and relevance of classes
and relationship building between adults and students in the school.
41
Use Data to Drive Decisions
“With a shared goal in mind, every successful district used data to drive
decisions about curriculum, instruction and use of resources.” Odden and Picus
(2006) noted that in Washington principals were trained to look at their student data
in a variety of ways: district benchmark assessments, walk-throughs in district
classrooms, identifying key skills and the level of mastery tested, disaggregated
performance data of subgroups, and content subcategories. The principals then
created school site teams to address curriculum gaps.
Professional development was then focused on improving instruction in the
targeted areas at the various school sites, and teachers were able to differentiate
their instruction based on formative assessments that they developed and the
district and state assessments. Teachers also used feedback loops to quickly
identify struggling students and get them the targeted help they needed (Odden &
Picus, 2006, Washington Learns).
Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum and Align to State Standards
Odden and Picus (2006) found that the districts that experienced success
selected curricula aligned to state standards, completed K−12 backwards mapping
of the curriculum to increase students taking Advanced Placement (AP) and
International Baccalaureate classes, aligned curriculum to reading and math first
and then to other disciplines, purchased research-based curriculum packages, and
then hired curriculum coaches to implement the material. They studied a number
42
of the districts with a high number of English language learners; therefore, the
districts focused on the literacy needs of their students. District F implemented
High Point for grades 6-12 in English, Connected Math for middle school
mathematics, and Full Options Science System (FOSS) kits for both their
elementary and middle school students in science.
Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional Development
In Odden and Picus’s research (2006), the various districts used different
types of professional development training for their teachers; however, the one
constant among all the districts was that the professional development was focused
on rigorous curricula and research-based instructional strategies. Collaborative
planning time for teachers is one of the most important ingredients to success.
Teachers can use this time to create applicable lessons for their classrooms. In
addition, some districts also viewed their instructional coaches as invaluable
resources.
Restructure the Learning Environment
Odden and Picus (2006) found that the schools and districts that doubled
their performance developed small learning communities and created multi-age
classrooms where necessary. These schools and districts also increased
instructional time in the core subject areas, whether they scheduled uninterrupted
back-to-back double block classes or scheduled students for an additional period of
English or math in place of an elective course.
43
Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
Odden and Picus (2006) found that the districts and schools that identified
struggling students and provided them with extended learning opportunities
doubled student performance quickly. In District A, teachers tutored students
during their release day time on Wednesdays or for the one hour they remain after
school the other four days. The interesting part is that all tutoring is voluntary in
the district; however, teachers encourage those students who need additional help
to stay after school.
District B offered drop-in tutoring at night for students. District C, which
provides additional funding for extended learning time, used its “Gear Up” grant to
pay community college students and other adults from the community to perform
tutoring services. These tutoring sessions are conducted in groups of 3-5 students
in the classroom or during elective periods rather than pullout programs. All of the
districts have some form of extended learning time for their ELL students. These
schools generally scheduled the extended time for before and after school, during
lunch, or during the winter and spring breaks (Odden & Picus, 2006, Washington
Learns).
Lessons Learned from Other “Failing” Schools and Districts That Have
Improved
“All children can learn. Excuses for low academic performance based on
socioeconomic or racial differences are unacceptable” (Schmoker, 2001).
44
According to the research from the Brazosport Independent School District (ISD)
in Texas, and specifically the school communities of Freeport and Lake Jackson,
once the teachers in Brazosport committed to the notion that students who have
historically not succeeded can meet challenging standards and succeed, this
allowed everyone involved to begin the process toward collaboration and fixing a
broken system.
In 1992, the Brazosport ISD, a K-12 district (40 miles south of Houston)
with 14,000 students, with 43% of its families living below the poverty line,
received some disheartening news from the Texas State Board of Education
(TSBE). The TSBE informed the district that half of the Brazosport ISD schools
were labeled “accredited/warned,” which meant that these schools were in danger
of losing their accreditation (Schmoker, 2001).
New Superintendent Gerald Anderson and Director of Instruction Patricia
Davenport developed a simple plan for improving student achievement that focused
on a few key areas. These areas are: 1) Having teachers closely examine student
work; 2) Using data to guide decisions about staff learning and student instruction;
and 3) Having teachers work together continually to tackle shared problems
(Richardson, 1998).
The power of teachers working in teams to reach learning goals, using data
as their guide, is as good a beginning as can be found for those serious about
improvement. This simple system worked immediately for Brazosport. Within
two years, the district had significantly raised student achievement in all of its
45
lowest performing schools, and, within five years, Brazosport was the highest-
achieving school district in Texas. Every one of the district’s 18 schools earned
“exemplary status,” meaning that 90% or more of every subgroup had achieved
mastery on the state achievement test in reading, writing, and mathematics. This
distinction helped earn Brazosport ISD the honor of becoming the first Texas
school district to win the Texas Quality Award for performance excellence
(Schmoker, 2001).
The external impetus for improvement is sometimes as important as the
internal processes necessary to create change in organizations. Often, without
external pressure, no matter how valid the internal processes may be to enact
change, change will not occur as swiftly or at all without overarching pressure from
outside the walls of the organization. The state of Texas’s experiment with
accountability, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), turned out to be
Brazosport’s external impetus for change. “Until there was accountability with
TAAS, until they started to put schools on probation and publish results in
newspapers, the TAAS didn’t have any effect whatsoever. It just went into files and
everyone ignored the results” (Davenport, 2001).
“Accountability follows responsibility. If there is no accountability, little by
little, people lose their sense of responsibility and start blaming circumstances or
others for their poor performance” (Covey, 1991). Sun Valley’s external impetus
proved to be two things — the JIA and the Commitment Letter (See Appendices C
and D). Without these two external stimuli, the internal processes and programs
46
may not have had the same positive effect on student achievement, much like
Brazosport experienced with the TAAS that led to its significant student
achievement gains.
Brazosport focused on teacher teaming as a key element in its ability to
increase student achievement. Brazosport’s teacher teams utilized an “Instructional
Teaming Log” that includes space for instructional topics addressed and for
recommended changes to instruction. The guidelines for these logs include a
“repetitive emphasis on the fact that teaming is intended for the single, clear
purpose of increasing student achievement, that analysis of test scores must serve
this same sole purpose and that participation must be regular once a week and
student and instruction centered” (Brazospost ISD, 2001).
In their teaming meetings, the Brazosport teachers utilized the eight-step
process of one of the district’s most successful teachers, Mary Barksdale, and
coupled this with W. Edwards Deming’s “Total Quality Management” (TQM)
principles of “Plan, Do, Check, Act” to create a system of continuous assessment
and re-teaching. Barksdale had data and clear evidence to back up her teaching
system. A 3rd-grade teacher, of whom 94% of her students were economically
disadvantaged and 73% were minorities, Barksdale had the remarkable record of
100 percent of her students achieving mastery on every section of the TAAS. The
eight-step process that became the cornerstone of Brazosport’s ongoing
professional development time for teachers and their overall success is as follows:
1) Test Score Disaggregation-Plan; 2) Time Line Development-Plan;
47
3) Instructional Focus-Do; 4) Assessment-Check; 5) Tutorials-Act; 6) Enrichment-
Act; 7) Maintenance-Check; and 8) Monitoring-Check (Schmoker, 2001).
The key elements of each step are as follows:
1. Test Score Disaggregation — Teachers establish crucial priorities by manually
rank-ordering the subskills from weakest to strongest.
2. Time Line Development — They create a schedule for instruction and
assessment by team, beginning with the those areas they identified in Step 1
that tell them what their greatest opportunities for improvement are; those
specific areas where the greatest number of students need help, and which
have the greatest “weight” on the state assessment.
3. Instructional Focus — This defines and provides the substance, methods, and
materials for instruction that were scheduled in Step 2. Their aim is to avoid
leaving alignment, improvement, and quality instruction to chance.
4. Assessment — Brazosport teachers assess what has been taught at this point
by using a variety of assessments: periodic, common, and collective
assessments are used to diagnose and measure student performance gains.
Brazosport conducts regularly scheduled, ready-made, four-item assessments
coded to specific TAAS objectives in math and reading throughout the school
year. The common assessments are administered at the end of each
instructional unit.
48
5. Tutorials — If fewer than 80% of the students do not master the materials at
the end of each instructional unit, then the teacher team collaborates, reviews,
and re-teaches.
6. Enrichment — The 20% that have mastered the material are allowed to move
forward into an elective curriculum or enrichment courses during the tutorial
time for the other students.
7. Maintenance: Maintenance and review are carefully interwoven and scheduled
into the calendar, with more intense reviews conducted during the weeks just
before testing.
8. Μonitoring — The site principal is the key factor in this step. Principals are
required to visit classrooms daily, log observations relative to specific
objectives taught, conduct meetings with teachers and students, and meet
regularly with departments and teams to monitor the instructional progress of
students. Principals are also required to meet with all students regarding the
importance of the TAAS and focus on areas of student weakness with the
students (Schmoker, 2001).
The processes put in place by Anderson and Davenport in the Brazosport
ISD provided the teachers and site principals in this district with a systematic
approach to improving student achievement, while respecting the power of
collaborative instructional leadership. As Flowers, Metens, and Mulhall (2000)
stated: “The interdisciplinary teaming structure provides an effective mechanism
for supporting teachers’ development of their craft. The provisions for common
49
planning time, flexible scheduling, common adjacent classrooms, and team
autonomy are a few of the features that facilitate teacher collaboration and
continued professional growth,” which are indispensable in promoting school
change.
The mandating of the principal to be in classes regularly, meet regularly
with teachers and students, and meet on a regular basis with departments and
teams, in both the Brazosport model and the JIA at Sun Valley Middle School,
correlates with recent research regarding the effect the site principal has on
improved student achievement. In a 30-year meta-analysis of quantitative
educational leadership research, Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) found a
substantial positive relationship between leadership and student achievement, with
an average effect size of .25. Moreover, Cotton (2003) conducted his own meta-
analysis of qualitative research confirming the significant role of the principal in
effecting change, and, thus, influencing student success. “Leaders must be
knowledgeable consumers of educational research and be proficient with the uses
of various technologies to access and analyze classroom and school data” (Trimble,
2003).
In examining Bell’s (2001) research on High-Performing, High-Poverty
(HP2) schools in California, we see a great deal of similarities to the successes of
Sun Valley and the Brazosport ISD. The 12 schools named High-Performing,
High-Poverty consisted of 10 elementary schools, 1 combination junior/senior high
school, and 1 high school. These schools must have had an API ranking of 7 or
50
above over two years; 50% or more students qualifying for free or reduced lunch at
the high school level and 60% or more at the elementary level, and the inclusion of
a high percentage of students’ test scores in the school’s API over the two-year
period. In addition, directors from California’s Statewide System of School
Support (S4) had to visit the schools to validate their designation as high-
performing.
There were three overarching principles present in each of these schools
that seemed to equip them to engage in 14 common themes found among them.
The key principles were: the strength of their site and district leadership; their
commitment to building a learning community; and their understanding of
research-based principles regarding how children learn (Bell, 2001). The 14
common themes found were:
1. The school’s main goal was the implementation of rigorous standards.
2. A focus on the delivery of high-quality teaching and learning for all students.
3. An emphasis on hard-work, high expectations, and persistence.
4. Promotion of a safe, disciplined, orderly environment as a key to learning.
5. Make district support evident and essential.
6. Have principals who are models of strong instructional leadership.
7. Have principals who are persistent and innovative in obtaining resources to
serve students’ needs.
8. Share leadership among administrators, faculty, and parents.
9. Collaborate on school goals and professional development.
51
10. Regularly use assessment as a diagnostic tool to reinforce the school’s
academic goals.
11. Intervene early and often to promote the academic success of all students.
12. Promote a policy of inclusiveness and a sense of family.
13. Work actively with parents to extend the mission of the school into the home.
14. Help faculty and students see themselves as part of the system as a whole
through articulation of the academic program across grade levels (Bell, 2001).
Chrisman’s (2005) research on the differences between the 83 schools that
sustained improvement in student test scores for two years and the remaining 273
that showed growth for only one of two years in California’s Immediate
Intervention Underperforming Schools Program (IIUSP), supports some of the
same qualities of the research already reported by the researcher. Despite having
higher levels of student mobility, larger student enrollments, and a smaller
percentage of fully credentialed teachers than the unsuccessful schools, the 83
successful schools were making more sustained improvement than the other
schools. Chrisman found that improved student achievement seems to be the
product of how well a school operates and depends on the quality of leadership and
the effectiveness of instructional programs and practices.
One constant in all 83 successful schools was that strong teacher leadership
was apparent. A review of her research reveals that three conditions need to be
present for teacher leadership to develop:
52
1) Teachers had ample opportunities to make decisions about teaching and
learning. The schools provided the teachers with the time, either in grade-
level teams or subject-matter teams, so that they could review student work
and discuss how to improve classroom instruction;
2) Teachers developed a form of action research by using the results of student
assessments to compare different instructional strategies and classroom
environments to see different ways in which students learn. This created a
continual improvement cycle for instruction;
3) Teachers developed their own internal leadership structures such as team
teaching, mentoring, and collaborating on lesson designs, which helped
support their resolve to improve student achievement. They also made
policy decisions including, but not limited to, design of intervention
programs, creation of student learning groups, standards-based grading
systems, and new strategies such as reciprocal teaching (Chrisman, 2005).
Teacher input in regard to professional development training was also a
constant in the successful schools. Some of the most frequently observed types of
professional development were training in improving pedagogy, collaborative
lesson planning, and how to teach reading using informational text.
Site principal leadership was another key to the success of these schools,
especially the schools where the principal had been in charge for at least three
consecutive years. These principals helped create more time for teachers to
collaborate with one another and to provide them with structured support. As in
53
Schmoker’s (2001) research on the Brazosport ISD, Chrisman found that the
principal’s frequent attendance at grade-level or department meetings and the
expectations that teachers will provide feedback on the meetings to the principal
helped focus the teachers on improving student achievement on a consistent basis.
As a result, teachers at these schools reviewed student work, created rubrics and
assessments, modeled lessons, and monitored how they used the professional
development in the classroom.
The final factor in Chrisman’s research related to site principals and school
improvement is that the successful principals were comfortable using data and in
making changes when the data demonstrated that student achievement had not
risen. Chrisman’s research on programs and practices for these successful schools
focused on the critical areas of students who are learning English as a second
language and students who are academically below grade level. Teachers at the
successful schools presented instruction that directly reinforced the students’
understanding of how the English language works instead of teaching students
conversational English. These teachers focused on academic English and taught
students how to use root words, suffixes, prefixes, and verb endings (Chrisman,
2005).
The successful school principals also made sure that the students were
grouped by their English-language level and that they received at least 40 minutes
of instruction daily in how to read, write, and speak English. Students who were
not making adequate progress received personal intervention and additional
54
instruction in a pullout program. Students who were struggling in both English and
mathematics received these interventions during the school day with credentialed
teachers in the successful schools.
One of the constants of the aforementioned research is the concept that for a
school to improve and to sustain improvement, the mind-set of the school needs to
be changed to that of a Professional Learning Community (PLC). In a PLC, the
educators work collaboratively with and learn from one another (DuFour & Ri,
2005). Schmoker (2004) believes that “developing the capacity of educators to
function as members of professional learning communities is the best-known
means by which we might achieve truly historic, wide-scale improvements in
teaching and learning.” Several national educational organizations also prescribe to
the positive effects of the PLC. One of the five core propositions that guides the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards asserts that teachers must be
members of “learning communities … [who] contribute to the effectiveness of their
schools by working collaboratively with other professionals on instructional policy,
curriculum development, and staff development” (NBPTS, 2004). Moreover, the
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) has called upon its
members to develop professional learning communities as one of its three key strategies to
improve the learning experience for every student.
55
A First-Year Principal’s Personal Journey
I knew from the blank stares I received when walking into my first faculty
meeting on February 1, 2002, that I definitely had my work cut out for me as
principal of Sun Valley Middle School. My official first day on the job would not
be until the next Monday (February 8), however, Local District B Superintendent
Judy Burton wanted to introduce me to the faculty before that first day. My first
comments to the faculty involved my being a student advocate who is in the school
to support teachers in making the school better. I then followed up that comment
with a quote, which I informed them summarized my philosophy of education. To
a room of 125 teachers, I stated, “The students don’t care what you know until they
know that you care.” I went on to explain that, at the middle-school level, student
affect was a very important factor in raising student achievement, and, with our
JIA, we would be providing paid professional development time to train them in
proven research-based teaching strategies and techniques. All of the strategy and
technique training in the world, however, will still not create higher student
achievement unless our students know that we care about them.
Local District Superintendent Burton
At Sun Valley Middle School, we implemented many of these NHCSL
concepts immediately and received unparalleled support from Judy Burton, our
local District B Superintendent, and her staff in the effort to pull Sun Valley Middle
School out of the audit. A September 2005 interview between me and Ms. Burton,
56
now the President/CEO of the Alliance for Charter Schools in Los Angeles,
provided answers to the following questions: 1) How many extra “manpower”
hours/resources did you have to provide Sun Valley Middle School, as opposed to
the other middle schools in District B?; 2) What types of hours did you and your
leadership team at the local district have to spend on a daily/weekly basis to ensure
that Sun Valley Middle School would have the support they needed?; 3) What were
you looking for in a leader when you selected Jeff Davis as principal for Sun
Valley Middle School?; and 4) In your opinion, was it the audit, the commitment
letter, or something else that got the teachers and staff to “buy-in” to improve their
school? In response to the first question, Burton (2005) stated:
We normally diversified our services to schools based on need,
with the lowest-performing schools receiving the most direct
attention meaning schools not meeting growth targets or
performing below API 500 even if they did meet growth targets.
Once Sun Valley Middle School was identified by the CDE for the
State Scholastic Audit, our entire approach to how we did things
changed. Sun Valley was not the lowest performing middle school
in our district, but they were having significant difficulty with
administrative leadership and school culture. Sun Valley was
actually making academic progress, but not sufficient to meet
growth targets. In terms of “man power” hours/resources, every
single staff member in District B was called into service to support
and assist Sun Valley Middle School in response to the audit.
District B staff assisted the school with both developing a plan of
corrective action and following through with the implementation of
corrective actions at each step of the process.
In response to question two, Burton replied:
As Superintendent, I personally met with teachers, parents, and
administrators at the school. All District B staff met once a week
to discuss, plan, and to update progress with action steps to
complete commitments for the improvement of Sun Valley.
57
Previously, the directors and I met weekly to discuss the progress
of all of our schools. The entire staff was now meeting every
Monday for 2−4 hours: just about Sun Valley Middle School.
Each staff member was assigned specific responsibilities and was
held accountable for taking action at the school, documenting
actions taken, and reporting back to the rest of the team each
Monday morning. The entire focus of our time and effort centered
on Sun Valley: visiting classrooms to give feedback for
improvement; planning and leading professional development and
parent training, and documenting completion of every deliverable
agreed to in the Audit Action Plan.
Burton added:
Generally, I estimate that the number of people regularly focused
on Sun Valley increased from 2 or 3 on average for most schools,
to almost everyone on a staff of over 50 people. The time
increased in terms of time on campus, working with the new
principal, the administrative team at the school, visiting
classrooms, and leading professional development compared to
other middle schools (15-30 hours per week instead of 2-3 hours
per month). The time spent included budget services, instructional
services, facility and maintenance services, parent engagement and
training services, technology, and curriculum planning (Burton,
2005).
The qualities Burton was looking for in selecting a new principal were
prioritized in this order by her: 1) Knowledge of instruction; 2) Strong self-
confident character; 3) Enthusiastic highly motivated leader; 4) Positive style with
confidence to make difficult decisions; and 5) A strong team leader with high
expectations for self and others.
In response to the final question regarding what created the “buy-in”
necessary to improve Sun Valley Middle School, Burton had an interesting answer.
She said:
Actually, I have to say the commitment was generated by a variety
of key elements; the absence of any one of them could have easily
58
resulted in failure. Key elements that paved the way for buy-in to
improve the school when it would have been just as easy to fight
change as many of the other audit schools did were: 1) Changing
the entire administrative leadership team and the union leader so
that a new culture could be established with a new team, with no
baggage. If any of the previous team members had stayed, [it is]
not likely that a new culture would have developed without
hanging onto the “way things were”; 2) Bringing in a new
visionary, high energy, principal leader who had the capacity to
establish a culture of team-work and higher expectations. Had the
former principal stayed, staff and parents would have had no
confidence that things could/would change teachers in order for
them to continue working at the school, or bring in the need of
resources of money and time to move with urgency to achieve the
goals established by the audit process. I imagine I would still be
responding to lawsuits and grievances as well as grief from the
Board of Education had I taken the actions I did, without the
support of the audit; 3) That said, the teachers could have still
chosen to just go through the motions of improvement. I observed
that they wanted to be proud of their school and their students, and
that they had renewed hope with new leadership at the school. I
think teachers were motivated by the students as well, who
immediately saw changes in the tone of the school campus and in
the positive way they were treated by the new principal; 4) I think
the changes at Sun Valley and the audit itself provided the
opportunity for in-depth urgent change. Even with the authority of
the Superintendent, without the audit, I would not have been able
to replace staff . . . . Prior to the audit I rarely, if ever, heard any
complaints or anything at all about Sun Valley. I think people
suffered in silence, too locked into personalities that ran the school,
with no way to get out (Burton, 2005).
59
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research methodology used in the study to
answer the problem presented. This chapter includes five sections. The first
section includes a review of the purpose of the study and the rationale for a
multiple-method case study. The second section explains the sampling procedure
and population. The third section includes a description of the instrumentation
utilized in the study. The fourth section includes a detailed description of the
procedures for data collection. The fifth section provides a data analysis and
interpretation. As former principal of Sun Valley Middle School, I am aware of the
potential bias that exists in this study due to the fact that I am relating this
information from my perspective.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to describe and examine the issue of
low-performing or “failing” schools that needed to be turned around and how the
various federal and state accountability frameworks were utilized to improve a
California State Scholastic Audit school, Sun Valley Middle School, which became
a model school for change in just three years. Furthermore, this study also explores
60
my personal journey as a first-year principal faced with the task of completely
restructuring and reforming a troubled school.
The areas that were studied included: 1) the efforts that low-performing
schools have undertaken to improve learning for all students, especially in a very
large urban school district; 2) the extent to which Sun Valley Middle School was
able to achieve academic success for all students as a result of new efforts
undertaken after being identified as a State Scholastic Audit school by the federal
and state accountability system; 3) the factors that were important in improving
student achievement at Sun Valley Middle School; 4) how the improvement effort
can be understood in terms of a framework for analyzing organizational change
efforts; 5) and how as a first-year principal I was able to affect tremendous positive
student achievement results in just a three-year period of time.
Exploratory Questions
The following questions guided the study: 1) What was the instructional
vision of the school?; 2) What resources were available to the school?; 3) How did
the staff participate in the exponential gains in student achievement at the school?;
4) What are the lessons learned from this school that can be utilized at other
schools that need to double student performance in a short time period?; 5) How
was Sun Valley Middle School able to produce such exponential and longitudinal
growth in its API and AYP in just three years?; and 6) How can Sun Valley Middle
61
School’s improvement efforts be understood in terms of a framework for analyzing
organizational change efforts in schools?
Rationale for Multiple Method Case Study
The rationales for utilizing a multiple-method case study were numerous.
First, this method would enable the researcher to provide a window for other site
and district administrators to look through when faced with the phenomenon of
how to improve student achievement in light of the achievement gap. The
phenomenon “which is the processes, events, persons, or things of interest to the
researcher” (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 2003) of the Achievement Gap, which, in recent
years, is also of interest to many in the educational field working toward the
improvement of student achievement. Also, “triangulation, a deliberate use of
multiple data collection methods, allows each method to reveal different
perspectives of reality, served to clarify and enrich information the leaders offered
and to provide multiple perceptions of the processes” (Sullivan & Glanz, 2000).
Sample and Population
Sample
The case study was conducted at a low-performing urban middle school in
the northeast San Fernando Valley section of Los Angeles in Local District Two of
the Los Angeles Unified School District. This school was one of the original 13
62
California State Scholastic Audit schools, of which 10 were in the Los Angeles
Unified School District.
Beginning in 1999, Sun Valley Middle School had a very low API score
(426) and received a statewide ranking of 1 on a scale of 10, with 10 being the
highest ranking a school could achieve. The school did not reach its growth target
(19) in 2000 (API of 443), however, it exceeded its target (18) in 2001 by
increasing its API to 478, yet Sun Valley Middle School still ranked as a “1” in the
statewide rankings. Amidst the controversy surrounding the onset of the state
scholastic audit, Sun Valley Middle School once again did not hit its growth target
(16) in 2002, when its API went up just 10 points to 488.
The school’s base API was recalculated by the CDE to 505 before testing
began in March 2003. Then, after one full year of the JIA and the new
administration, Sun Valley Middle School’s API skyrocketed 51 points to 556,
exceeding its growth target by 36 points. In the 2003−04 school year, Sun Valley
Middle School’s API went up another 30 points to 586, exceeding its target by 18
points (See Appendix I). The API base was recalculated to 590 prior to state
testing in 2004-05, and Sun Valley Middle School’s API grew by 26 points to 616,
exceeding its target by 15 points.
More importantly, Sun Valley Middle School’s AYP has risen
exponentially since the onset of NCLB in 2002. At that time, just 7.1% (200
students) of Sun Valley Middle School’s students tested proficient or advanced in
63
English/language arts, and only 10.2% (282 students) of the students tested
proficient/advanced in mathematics (See Appendix A).
By the end of the 2004-05 testing cycle, 22% (552 students) of Sun Valley
Middle School’s students tested proficient/advanced in English/language arts and
23.2% (582 students) tested proficient/advanced in mathematics. In just three
testing cycles, the English/language arts percentage improvement totaled 126% and
in mathematics 106%. These figures are even more astounding when one realizes
that this wide-scale improvement was done with 1,323 English Language Learners
(ELL) out of the 2,901 students enrolled in 2004-05 at Sun Valley Middle School.
This constitutes 45.6% of the student population. An additional 262 Special
Education students were also enrolled at that time. On the 2004-05 STAR test,
2,036 ELL and 247 Special Education students took the test for a grand total of
2,283 ELL/Special Education students tested. This constituted 91% of the 2,510
students who actually took the STAR test (http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/
APR2005APR_ Sch_AYP_Report.asp?) (See Appendix B).
Population
The total school population during the time period 1999-2005 ranged from
2,875 in 1999 to 3,007 in 2003 to 2,901 in 2004-05 as reported in the California
Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) from the CDE. The specific
demographics are for the 2004-05 school year: 1.4% African-American, 0.2%
American Indian/Alaskan Native, 0.5% Asian, 0.7% Filipino, 94.3% Hispanic,
64
2.9% White. In addition, 84.7% of Sun Valley Middle School students participate
in the free or reduced-price lunch program. A schoolwide Title I middle school,
Sun Valley Middle School also identified 45.6% (1,323 students) of its students as
English Language Learners. According to CBEDS, Sun Valley Middle School
operates on a three-track schedule with 125 teachers and 7 administrators. The
number of administrators was reduced to 6 by the end of the 2004-05 school year.
Back in the 2001-02 school year, Sun Valley Middle School had 26 emergency
credentialed teachers and just 92 fully credentialed teachers.
By the 2004-05 school year, Sun Valley Middle School had 109 of 125
teachers on full teaching credentials, with only 9 on emergency credentials. The
school has obviously made the hiring and retaining of fully credentialed teachers a
priority (See Appendix U).
Instrumentation
To present a true feeling of the physical context of Sun Valley Middle
School, various instruments were used to address the problem put forth by this
study and in attempts to answer the research questions proposed. To ensure a valid
and reliable system of evaluation I contacted the Association of Supervision and
Curriculum Development (ASCD) so that we could utilize their online survey
“What Works in Schools” (See Appendix F). As principal, I believed that this
would be yet another tool of assessing how we were proceeding with restructuring
65
and reform. Although Action Learning Systems and Public Works, Inc were
working very closely with my faculty, I believed it was important to have an
outside agency’s evaluation instrument as another source of information to guide
me and my administrative staff in our school improvement efforts.
The instruments utilized in this study include the “What Works in Schools
Survey” from ASCD that were given to the teachers of Sun Valley Middle School,
a Professional Development and Support Survey from Action Learning Systems
(ALS), Inc. (See Appendix Q), an End-of-the-Year Accountability Coach Report
from Action Learning Systems, Inc. (See Appendix R), an Administrative Survey
presented to all site administrators from the State Scholastic Audit Team during the
Fifth Quarterly Visit (See Appendix S), an Implementation Survey presented to
Sun Valley teachers by the SSA Team during the Fifth Quarterly visit (See
Appendix T), two Quarterly review summaries from the California Department of
Education (See Appendix H), a publication from Public Works, Inc. titled “We Did
It Together: The Rapid Rise and Transformation of Sun Valley Middle School,” a
personal interview conducted with former LAUSD, District B Superintendent Judy
Burton, and a “Former Principal’s Survey” (See Appendix G), conducted with 29
teachers from the school.
The “What Works in Schools” survey from ASCD was completed by a total
of 70 Sun Valley Middle School teachers from all tracks. This survey examined 11
factors of the school from the perspective of the classroom teachers: Guaranteed
and viable curriculum, challenging goals and effective feedback, parent and
66
community involvement, safe and orderly environment, collegiality and
professionalism, home environment, learned intelligence and background
knowledge, student motivation, instruction, classroom management, and classroom
curriculum design.
The Professional Development and Support survey from ALS had 89 Sun
Valley Middle School teacher respondents and 9 of the school’s administrator
responses. This survey examined nine professional development “focus areas” for
the 2004-05 school year: Reciprocal Teaching, Direct Instruction, Specially
Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE), Balanced approach to Math,
Student-led conferences, Student-based lesson design, Focus Standards, Test Prep
Strategies, and Data Team training.
Action Learning System’s End-of-the-Year Accountability Coach report is
based on the last three visits to Sun Valley Middle School in the 2004-05 school
year by the ALS accountability coach assigned to the school. The data includes
observations from 20 classroom visits and focus group interviews with teachers,
literacy coaches, and administration. The report is based on these findings and is
aligned to ALS’s Reform Model: The Six Components of a High Performing
School.
1. The Administrative survey presented to the site administrators from the state
audit team during the fifth quarterly visit asked the site administrators to rate
the level of implementation for the five JIA findings on a four-point scale (4
being the highest) to determine the effectiveness of the implementation at
67
Sun Valley Middle School. Administrators were also asked to write
comments to justify their rating or to highlight important activities that had
taken place at the school to address the findings.
2. The Implementation survey presented to the teachers of Sun Valley Middle
School during the fifth quarterly visit asked teachers their thoughts on the
various degrees of implementation regarding the corrective actions in the
JIA.
3. The two quarterly review summaries from the CDE review the findings of
the audit team from each particular visit, make some commendations, and
provide recommendations in regard to meeting all corrective actions in the
JIA (See Appendices H and I).
4. The publication from Public Works, Inc. entitled “The Transformation of
Sun Valley Middle School” contains statistical data regarding the academic
progress of the students at the school and presents results from two surveys
that this company presented to school staff.
5. My personal interview with Judy Burton is a reflection from the perspective
of the local district superintendent on the entire process of the Sun Valley
Middle School case study. This interview focused on the manpower hours
devoted to assisting the school, what qualities she needed in a new principal
for the school, and what made Sun Valley Middle School’s situation so
unique in comparison to other schools that were struggling academically.
68
6. The random survey I conducted with 29 teachers was my attempt to evaluate
the various programs and cultural shifts I had implemented as a new
principal at Sun Valley Middle School, as compared to how the school
operated on a daily basis prior to my arrival at Sun Valley.
Data Collection
The data collection was coordinated and scheduled in the following manner
over a period of 49 months, from February 2002 through March 2006:
Surveys
As a year-round school, it was extremely difficult for all faculty members
on each track to meet on the same day. Therefore, I administered the various
surveys to my faculty members when they were on track and in various group
settings such as department meetings, period-by-period faculty meetings, or grade-
level interdisciplinary team meetings.
The ASCD survey was first distributed at a monthly faculty meeting in May
2004 to both “A” and “B” track teachers. Next to receive the ASCD survey were
the “C” track teachers when they came back on track to begin the 2004-05 school
year in July 2004. The ALS Professional Development and Support Survey was
first distributed in January 2005 to our “B” and “C” track teachers at their initial
faculty meeting to begin the new semester, with our “A” track teachers receiving
69
the survey when they returned to school in March 2005 at their “buy-back”
meetings, which were held at an off-campus site (See Appendix P).
The Implementation survey provided to the site administrators by the CDE
was distributed in March 2003 and collected at the conclusion of the state
scholastic audit team’s visit to the school. The six quarterly review summaries
from the CDE began in April 2002 and concluded in April 2004, while the personal
interview with Judy Burton was conducted in September 2005. I informed the Sun
Valley teachers of the impending Public Works, Inc. study at a faculty meeting in
June 2002. The survey opportunities were completely voluntary and each survey
participant was asked to return the surveys at the conclusion of each meeting at
which they received the survey. Public Works published “We Did It Together: The
Transformation of Sun Valley Middle School” in June 2003.
The ASCD survey was an online survey. Teachers were asked to complete
the online portion in a timely fashion. The survey responses provided more
specific insights into the entire Scholastic Audit process and into their personal
opinions regarding the improvement of student achievement at Sun Valley Middle
School during this time. These responses assisted me to focus and emphasize
specific questions in the March 2006 survey of individual teachers and
administrators.
(Note: Only one administrator remains at Sun Valley Middle School as of
March 2006 from the transformation team that was put in place in February 2002.)
Surveys were locked and secured in an alarmed office, of which only I had the key.
70
No personally identifiable data was collected, and this information was used only
for educational purposes. This information will be erased approximately one
calendar year from the conclusion of this study. When the results of the research
are published or discussed at public conferences, no information will be included
that would reveal the identity of any of the participants.
My principal’s survey was conducted after I had already left Sun Valley and
targeted 29 Sun Valley Middle School teachers. The results of the field testing
indicated that the survey meets both the standards of validity and reliability. It also
provided strong signs of producing data that will show connections between
principal leadership, school climate and culture, and the effectiveness of the
professional development training for teachers, the schoolwide focus on literacy,
the redesigning of the curriculum and the meshing of Bolman and Deal’s four
structures of leadership.
Interviews
The lone personal interview conducted was with Judy Burton, the former
local District Two superintendent. After requesting an interview with her and
receiving her verbal agreement to my request of an interview for this study, I sent
the interview questions to Ms. Burton ahead of time. After three weeks time, I
conducted the interview with her in September 2005. The focus of the interview
was for Ms. Burton to explain the Sun Valley Middle School case study from the
71
perspective of the superintendent. Following the interview, Ms. Burton also
submitted her answers to me in writing via e-mail.
Observations
In an ongoing attempt to monitor classroom instruction and the
implementation of the many techniques and strategies provided through intense
professional development, I conducted many classroom observations from
February 2002 through May 2005. With regard to school activities, such as student
leadership elections, speeches, awards assemblies, drama performances, school
dances, sports, etc., my administrative staff and I were consistently in attendance to
offer our support and guidance to teachers and students. I believed that it was vital
to require my administrators to participate in these activities to show the students,
parents and adult advisors that we cared about what they were involved in. This is
a critical piece in building positive school culture.
Document Review Instrument
Though some of the documents reviewed were available outside of the
school site, many others required on-site review. The document review occurred
during the time period of April 2005 through March 2006.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this case study was to describe and explore the multitude of
ways in which Sun Valley Middle School, an urban public middle school, was able
72
to raise student achievement and close the achievement gap in such a short time
period while facing the possibility of a state takeover as a State Scholastic Audit
school. Therefore, it was critical to collect data from various sources that could
develop an in-depth view of the school in this case study. After reviewing the
various approaches to qualitative research, particularly in case studies, a
triangulation strategy was selected as the most appropriate way to analyze the data
in this study. This study used “quantitative and qualitative methods as a means to
offset the weaknesses inherent within one method, with the strengths of the other
method” (Creswell, 2003).
Sun Valley Middle School was unique in terms of the fact that it was under
corrective actions from the CDE. Therefore, I knew that I needed to educate
myself on research-based strategies that have proven successful in turning around
troubled schools, prior to my taking over as principal.
From Bell’s research (2001), I started to see what types of things needed to
be done to revitalize a school that had been termed “beyond triage” by some of the
original audit team members. The 14 common themes of the HP2 schools gave me
an initial framework of how to best approach the seemingly insurmountable task of
pulling Sun Valley Middle School out of the audit. These themes (listed below) in
combination with the JIA provided me with a “jump-start” in my effort to lead with
knowledge.
73
Making a High Poverty School to A High Performing School
1) Rigorous standards-based curriculum as the main goal of the school.
2) Focus on the delivery of high-quality teaching/learning.
3) Emphasize hard work, high expectations.
4) Promote discipline and safe, orderly environment.
5) Make district support evident and essential.
6) Principals must be models of strong instructional leadership.
7) Principals who are persistent/innovative in acquiring resources for student
needs.
8) Shared leadership among stakeholders.
9) Collaborate on school goals and professional development.
10) Regularly use assessments as a diagnostic tool to reinforce the school’s
academic goals.
11) Intervene early and often to promote student academic success for all.
12) Promote a policy of inclusiveness and a sense of family.
13) Work actively with parents to extend the mission of the school into their
homes.
14) Help faculty and students see themselves as part of the system.
74
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This chapter reports the findings of my personal journey in relation to the
research study of a high-poverty, improving urban school (i.e., Sun Valley Middle
School) in the Los Angeles Unified School District based on data collected from
various sources: 1) ASCD surveys; 2) Action Learning Systems survey; 3) the
researcher’s own survey; 4) observations; 5) a personal interview with the former
local district superintendent; 6) quarterly reports from the CDE during the
Scholastic Audit process; 7) teacher surveys conducted during the Scholastic Audit
process; 8) a publication from Public Works, Inc., titled “We Did It Together: The
Transformation of Sun Valley Middle School;” and 9) documents’ review.
Specific questions guided the study. This chapter will specifically analyze
and interpret the findings of the data as they are directly related to each of the
exploratory questions that guided this study: 1) What was the instructional vision
of the school?; 2) What resources were available to the school?; 3) How did the
staff participate in the exponential gains in student achievement at the school?;
4) What are the lessons learned from this school that can be utilized at other
schools that need to double student performance in a short time period?; 5) How
was Sun Valley Middle School able to produce such exponential and longitudinal
growth in its API and AYP scores in just three years?; and 6) How can Sun Valley
75
Middle School’s improvement effort be understood in terms of a framework for
analyzing organizational change efforts in schools?
Leading the Way
When I was asked to become the principal of Sun Valley Middle School, I
knew that I had to have credibility because I wasn’t an already established principal
in the district. Therefore, I needed to rely on my prior experiences at troubled
schools that I had assisted in turning around, my mentors from those schools,
research-based findings from “success stories” at other such schools, and my
intuition. I believed that it was important to arm myself with all of these factors in
order to gain the respect and trust of all stakeholders at Sun Valley Middle School.
Selecting my administrative staff was the first step in ensuring that a “true
team” would be leading the school site and that I would have the support of
professionals that had a variety of talents and skills that would enhance each aspect
necessary to turning around this school. These skills included: restructuring the
master schedule, professional development planning and implementation, school
operations/facilities, schoolwide discipline, parent outreach, student attendance,
supervision of instruction, categorical program monitoring, intervention, co-
curricular programs, and technology. I personally selected these people because I
wanted to utilize their own administrative strengths, while carefully meshing my
team together based upon complimentary personalities.
76
During the first few weeks at Sun Valley Middle School, I evaluated the
situation and prioritized the immediate problem areas of the school. Sun Valley
Middle School was gang-ridden and the school environment felt unsafe. I met with
the deans and assistant principal responsible for discipline, and we put into place a
“contract system” for students and parents to follow. This system focused on
parent involvement for students that were suspended for fighting and possession of
drugs or alcohol. Following a mandatory 3-5 day school suspension parents and
students were required to sign a behavior contract stipulating that the school had
the right to transfer their child to another school if they were to violate the contract.
These clear expectations were vital for parents to have an understanding of the
direction the school was moving in. Within the first semester (Spring 2002) 161
students violated the contract and were transferred to other schools. The
surrounding area of the school was also a big concern because of the gang and drug
influence upon our students. I took it upon myself to contact the Los Angeles City
Attorney, Rocky Delgadillo, to begin steps towards a gang injunction and
abatement program near Sun Valley Middle School. Mr. Delgadillo was
instrumental in posting “no loitering” signs on all of the apartment buildings on the
west side of the school, which allowed the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)
to make arrests if gang members or drug dealers violated these postings. I worked
very closely with the city attorney’s office and the LAPD to ensure our students
“safe passage” to and from school.
77
In order to create a “fresh start,” I began calling (without officially changing
the name) the school the “Sun Valley Learning Center” and referred to all of my
teachers as professors. I also changed the school logo and the school song. I felt
these were easy ways for all stakeholders to relate to the “new” Sun Valley Middle
School.
Once the school became a safe and comfortable environment for learning, I
needed to focus my attention on building school morale. After evaluating the
situation, I decided that the easiest group of stakeholders to target was the students.
I targeted the students because they were younger and not so set in their ways or
resistant to change. There was a need for a balance between boundaries and
student engagement. Some of the new boundaries included: a strict attendance
policy where students could not be absent more than 10 days in a school year or
they would run the risk of not being able to participate in school activities and the
culmination ceremony at the conclusion of their 8
th
grade year. For example, if a
student in 6
th
grade was absent 11 days they were placed on student
activity/culmination ceremony probation for the next school year. Since the
student violated the policy in 6
th
grade they now could not be absent more than 5
days in their 7
th
grade year. If the student exceeded 5 absences as a 7
th
grader, they
would continue on the probation list. If this same student as an 8
th
grader were
absent 5 days or fewer, they would appear before an attendance appeals committee
to determine if they would be able to participate in culmination. Grades were also
considered as part of the appeal process. Another boundary was our new tardy
78
policy. I saw a tremendous need to emphasize punctuality with our students, due to
the over 180 tardy students per day they were accumulating in my first few weeks
on the job. Therefore, in combination with providing grade-level houses so that
classes were closer together, I also mandated tardy sweeps each period and warm-
up assignments with point value so that students would have a reason to come to
class on time. I quickly realized that it was important to have the classes in closer
proximity for one another, in order to cut down on the socializing between periods.
I also knew that there had to be meaningful consequences to these actions.
Students received lunch and/or after-school detention when they reached 3 or more
tardy students. The lunch detention was for the first 15 minutes of lunch and after-
school detention lasted 30 minutes. The reason I implemented the first 15 minutes
of lunch was because the deans could summons them to the detention room five
minutes before the lunch period began. The students knew we were serious about
the consequences and tardy students began to drop exponentially. After
approximately one semester of this new policy we averaged only 30-35 tardy
students per day at Sun Valley Middle School. In a school of 3,000 students this
was a significant drop in tardy students (See Appendix X).
Where there were boundaries, there were also rewards. I wanted to make
sure that our students had a well-rounded educational experience. This included
additional electives of choice, co-curricular activities such as student leadership,
“brown bag theater,” lip syncs, Freaky Friday dances, lunch time sports leagues,
reading incentives, campus beautification incentives, access to the library and
79
computer labs before, during, and after school, along with a band, drill, and hip-hop
dance team. These activities, in coordination with new rules and policies, not only
created a positive atmosphere for our students, but also provided our teachers with
a re-energized perspective towards their students (See Appendix Y).
The next focus was on the parents. I involved parents in task forces related
to the JIA so that there would be buy-in to our new policies and procedures, and
more importantly to hear what they had to say. I felt the need to do this because
prior to my principalship at Sun Valley Middle School there was a major
disconnect between the school and the parents. Communication was limited and
therefore parent participation was minimal. This resulted in 1,200 angry parents
voicing their opinions during a public meeting with the former principal, CDE and
district officials when they were announcing that Sun Valley Middle School had
become an audit school.
In conjunction with local District B officials, I organized a “Sunshine
Walk” community event in April 2002 where representatives from all stakeholder
groups canvassed the neighborhood to inform the community of the positive
direction that the “new” Sun Valley Middle School was going in. This proved to
be effective because our enrollment increased due to the confidence our resident
parents began having in our abilities to educate their children.
A huge community piece was our new Parent Center. I arranged with the
district’s adult education department to offer day and evening adult ESL and
parenting classes at our school site. The day classes were offered from 9 am to
80
noon Monday through Friday and the evening courses were from 6 pm to 9 pm on
Mondays and Wednesdays. In the three and a half years I was principal at Sun
Valley, we had over 500 parents take part in these classes. I also created a monthly
Principal’s Coffee’s program for our community. These meetings were scheduled
the last Wednesday morning of each month and gave the parents an opportunity to
ask me questions and for them to voice their concerns about the school.
I purposely chose to target our teacher population last for two reasons.
First, because I really needed to spend time to observe and evaluate what the true
needs were of my teaching staff. The second reason being that I truly believed that
I couldn’t raise teacher morale or provide meaningful professional development
that would be embraced by all, until I showed my faculty that I respected them
enough to clean up the school. Working to change the attitudes of the students and
parents showed the teachers that the school realistically had a chance to improve
academically and culturally.
Working with our teachers was truly my biggest challenge. Although I had
a dedicated faculty, they had been beaten down for so long (negative news stories,
the audit, district mandates, etc.) that they didn’t feel confident in their ability to
make changes. I found myself referring back to my athletic coaching days where I
raised morale by being somewhat of a cheerleader of support. This was the first
step on a long road towards teamwork and the development of our school becoming
a professional learning community. Though much of the research says to start with
the teaching staff first, my intuition told me that I needed to gain the confidence of
81
my teaching staff by assisting in the major problem areas that got in the way of
instruction. I truly believe that if I would have started with the teaching staff first,
then my faculty would have viewed my efforts as blaming them for the troubles of
the school. By having my teachers observe my dedication toward working on
student and parent issues first, this gave me validity when I began to require
adjustment and change in the delivery of instruction.
After carefully reviewing the needs of our students, I realized there were
three key pieces needed for student improvement. The first piece was adding an
additional period within the school day to provide for literacy intervention and
elective courses for all students. I discovered this need when I first examined the
master schedule and noticed that the only electives present were separate reading
classes, a few drama, music, and art classes, and leadership. However, more
importantly I saw that these courses were only offered on certain tracks to certain
students, and there were no alternative scheduling options utilized.
I knew I needed to develop buy-in with my faculty. I started with my
teacher union (UTLA) representatives. I set up weekly meetings with my chair and
co-chair in order to create clear communication on both sides. This proved to be an
effective strategy and was ultimately the conduit to a faculty election for a seven-
period day. With the agreement of my union reps we moved to have period-by-
period conference meetings with our staff to discuss the positive and negative
aspects of adding a seventh period. The support of these union reps allowed
teachers to see that the teachers and administration were working together for what
82
was best for the kids. This process included two faculty meetings before moving to
a faculty vote. The voting was tabulated by the union reps, one classified rep, and
one administrator. Needing 66 2/3 percent of the vote to pass per the
LAUSD/UTLA contract, we received 67.2% of the vote. This was a major turning
point in our efforts to restructure the school into a student-centered learning
environment. The seven-period day led us to providing double-blocks of English
for all students except those in our School for Advanced Studies (i.e., honor
program), and allowed for all students to take at least one elective of choice (See
Appendix W). Using the guidance of Taking Center Stage, I encouraged teachers
to develop and submit course descriptions and syllabi for elective classes they
wanted to teach. We had courses ranging from National Pastime: A correlation of
U.S. and Baseball History, Mythology, Literature through Film, Videography, Teen
Living, Youth and Justice, Ceramics, Industrial Technology, and Fitness Training,
etc. The implementation of electives not only benefited our students but it also
reenergized our teachers. One major benefit to the seven-period day was that it
allowed our English Language Learners (mandated to take double-blocks of
English in the six period day) to experience an elective course which gave them
broader access to the curriculum. Moreover, with our schoolwide focus on
standards-based instruction all elective classes had a strand of the English and
writing standards embedded in the curriculum (See Appendix L).
The final piece to the teacher puzzle was providing meaningful professional
development. My vision for this was not only to bring in professionals to work
83
with our teachers (District B staff, Action Learning Systems, Princeton Review),
but more importantly to encourage the talents of our teachers to share their
expertise through a rotating workshop format. This rotating workshop format not
only allowed teachers to be expert facilitators, but also provided a chance for our
faculty to learn things based upon their needs. Moreover, ALS also bought into my
vision by consistently asking the teachers what they felt their areas of need were.
By utilizing this format I was able to have the teachers receive meaningful and
relevant professional development, without them feeling resentful of the guidance
provided. As principal, I mandated that my assistant principals and I be active
participants in the professional development process. My intention for doing this
was to model the value of instructional leadership. I couldn’t “talk the talk” without
“walking the walk.” I could not expect my teachers to accept being evaluated by
administrators who were not involved in the instructional process.
The final aspect in my vision of turning Sun Valley Middle School around
was the partnership with various business, community, and governmental agencies,
including the Rotary Club, Kiwanis, Sun Valley Chamber of Commerce, Elks,
Communities in Schools, and our local assemblywoman, congresswoman, city
council member, and state senator. This was important for positive public
relations. I wanted the community to see the great things that were happening at
Sun Valley Middle School, because the more positive feedback we received, the
more it helped to perpetuate all of the positive things that were happening on
campus. I truly believe that “nothing succeeds like success.”
84
Sun Valley Middle School
The power of the transformation of Sun Valley Middle School can best be
examined by reviewing the dramatic improvements in both its API and AYP over
the past three Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) testing cycles, both
year-to-year and longitudinally for the graduating class of 2005. Moreover, a
comparison of Sun Valley Middle School CST data from the 2001 test results to the
2005 results is even more impressive.
The Rapid Rise and Transformation of Sun Valley Middle School
When I became principal of Sun Valley Middle School in February 2002,
there were just four weeks remaining before the “C” track students took the
CST/CAT-6 exams and just 12 weeks before the “A” and “B” track students tested.
The base API from the previous year (2001) was a meager 478 (See Appendix E).
The results of the spring 2002 exams brought the API up to 505, and, in 2003, the
API rose 51 points to 556. Sun Valley’s API continued to climb by gaining 34
points in 2004 to 590, and then the school raised its API to 616 based on the results
of the spring 2005 exams. The three-year API improvement of an astounding 138
points signified the most improved API score for any of the original state scholastic
audit schools and for any LAUSD comprehensive secondary school during this
same time period (http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2005).
The improvements in AYP are even more impressive. From the time period
of 2001 to 2005, the percentage of students scoring proficient/advanced from the
85
four major school subgroups (schoolwide, socioeconomically disadvantaged,
English learners, and Latinos) has also increased exponentially.
SUN VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL/ 2001-2005/AYP SUBGROUP GAINS
* English/Language Arts 2001 2005 % +/-
SCHOOLWIDE 7.1 22.0 +14.9%
SOCIOECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED 7.3 21.9 +14.6%
ENGLISH LEARNERS 5.8 15.5 +9.7%
LATINO 6.6 21.6 +15.0%
SUN VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL/2001-2005/AYP SUBGROUP GAINS
* Mathematics 2001 2005 %+/-
SCHOOL-WIDE 10.2 23.2 +13.0
SOCIOECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED 10.4 23.2 +12.8
ENGLISH LEARNERS 9.1 18.3 +9.2
LATINO 9.7 25.4 +15.7
Source: (http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/APR/2005)
86
A longitudinal examination of CST scores for the Sun Valley Middle
School class of 2005 from the time they entered the school as 6th graders (2002) to
the time they culminated (2005) also shows impressive gains. As 6th graders in
2002, just 10% of these students scored proficient/advanced in English Language
Arts and 13% in Mathematics. The results of the 2005 CST’s showed that 20% of
this 8th grade class was now proficient in English Language Arts and 19% of the
class was proficient/advanced in two-year algebra and 57% proficient/advanced in
the more challenging one-year algebra course (http://star.cde.ca.gov).
87
In examining the mean scale scores (i.e., the arithmetic average)
longitudinally for the Class of 2005, we see a dramatic improvement. In
English/Language Arts, this class began 6th grade with a score of 300.7, improving
to 309.4 when it completed 8th grade. In Mathematics, the class scored 298.2 as
6th graders and somewhere between 303.1 and 365.8 because the students either
take the CST in general mathematics or algebra as 8th graders.
The CDE uses two rankings to compare schools: statewide rank and similar
schools rank. Both rankings are based on a scale of deciles ranging from 1-10, with
10 being the highest a school can rank in either comparison. The statewide rank
compares a school against all other schools in the state based on API score, while
the similar school ranking compares schools with similar demographics,
percentages of ELL, socio-economically disadvantaged, and parent education
levels. In 2001, Sun Valley was ranked at decile 1 in the statewide rank category
and at decile 4 in the similar schools ranking. By the release of the 2004 base API,
the SVMS ranking had risen to 2 in the statewide category and 6 in the similar
schools ranking. In 2005, Sun Valley maintained the rankings of 2 and 6
(www.cde.ca.gov/March 2006).
Sun Valley CELDT Scores Rise
The other scores that rose dramatically were the California English
Language Development Test (CELDT) results. This is a statewide assessment test
given to all English Language Learners (ELL) who are taking classes in the ESL
program. This tests ELL’s in their listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills.
88
Students can score in one of five ranges on each of the tests (Advanced, Early
Advanced, Intermediate, Early Intermediate, or Beginning) and then receive an
overall CELDT score. These results are one of the criteria used for student class
placement.
In the 2001−2002 school year, there was only ONE student from Sun
Valley Middle School who scored Advanced, and that student was an 8th grader.
In the 2002−2003 school years, the school had 47 students across all grade levels
who scored advanced; in 2003-2004, 90 students scored in the advanced range; and
in 2004-05, 235 students scored advanced. A more in-depth look at the scores
reveals a huge increase in the ability of Sun Valley Middle School students to
communicate in writing. In 2001-02, the average mean scale score for Sun Valley
ELL students in writing was 498 compared to the school’s average of 529 in 2004-
05. The average reading level also increased dramatically over this time period
from 489 to 513, while the average speaking/listening scores took a monumental
leap from an average of 488 in 2001-02 to an amazing 538 in 2004-05
(http://celdt.cde.ca.gov/ CELDT2005).
These excellent CELDT test scores resulted in high numbers of students
being re- designated to Fluent English Proficient (FEP) status, which placed these
students into either sheltered or regular English classes. From 2001-2005, there
were 543 Sun Valley Middle School students re-designated, for an average of 135
per year, well above the LAUSD yearly average of 90-100 students re-designated
per year (See Appendix J).
89
Analysis and Interpretations of Findings
Research Question 1. What was the instructional vision of the school?
Former Principal’s Survey of Teachers
Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 15, 17, and 20 are related to this first research
question. Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of the following at Sun
Valley during the time period of February 2002 through June 2005 as compared to
the previous three years at the school (1999−2002), prior to the state audit.
They were asked to circle the most accurate response for each item on a
four-point Likert-type scale comprised of: 1)Not effective; 2)Low degree of
effectiveness; 3)Moderate effectiveness; and 4)High degree of effectiveness.
Respondents were also allowed to circle the #5 in case they did not know about the
topic. The questions related to Table 1 are listed below:
#1. Administrators supervising/monitoring classroom instruction regularly.
#2. Teachers receiving meaningful professional development opportunities.
#3. A large increase in academic intervention opportunities for students.
#4. The school utilizing student data to inform instruction.
#13. The interdisciplinary teaming at all grade levels improved student literacy
and achievement (See Appendix V).
#15. Students received double blocks of English Language Arts which was
effective in improving student literacy and achievement.
#17. Increased use of technology in the classrooms.
90
#20. The seven-period day was effective in improving student literacy and
achievement.
Table 1 tabulates the results for the 27 teacher respondents for each of the
aforementioned questions.
Table 1. Teacher Responses to the Instructional Vision of the School
SURVEY QUESTION NO. OF
RESPONSES
MEAN
1. Administrators supervising/monitoring
classroom instruction regularly.
27 4.07
2. Teachers receiving meaningful professional
development opportunities.
27 3.88
3. A large increase in academic intervention
opportunities for students.
26 3.92
4. The school utilizing student data to inform
instruction.
25 3.72
13. The interdisciplinary teaming at all grade
levels and improved student achievement.
26 3.65
15. Students receiving double blocks of
English Language Arts.
26 3.80
17. Increased use of technology in the
classrooms.
26 3.73
20. The seven-period day.
26 3.11
Scale for Table 1: 1-Not effective; 2-Low degree of effectiveness; 3-Moderate
effectiveness; 4-High degree of effectiveness
91
Table 2. Sun Valley Middle School Teacher Effectiveness Ratings Regarding
Reform (2002-2005)
QUESTION NO. R A T I N G S
5 4 3 2 1
#1 0 17 10 0 0
#2 0 24 3 0 0
#3 1 24 2 0 0
#4 2 18 7 0 0
#13 1 18 8 0 0
#15 1 21 5 0 0
#17 1 19 7 0 0
#20 1 15 7 2 0
Scale for Table 2: 1-Not effective; 2-Low degree of effectiveness; 3-Moderate
effectiveness; 4-High degree of effectiveness; 5-Very high degree of effectiveness
Upon examining respondent data from these questions, the researcher
concluded that the high mean scores (average mean is 3.75) and the high mode (4)
confirm that the following factors were effective in helping to advance student
achievement well beyond the levels prior to the state scholastic audit at Sun Valley
administrators regularly in classrooms: 1) meaningful professional development
for teachers; 2) more academic interventions for students, data being used
schoolwide to inform instruction; 3) interdisciplinary teaming at all grade levels;
4) students (with the exception of our gifted students) receiving double blocks of
92
English Language Arts; 5) increased use of technology in classrooms; and 6) the
seven-period day.
As Sun Valley Middle School strived to become a PLC, there were three
daunting challenges that faced school leaders, as is consistent with any school
looking to make wide-scale improvement and striving to transform its day-to-day
business of schooling from teacher isolation to a culture of teacher collaboration,
from a focus on activities to a focus on results, and from a concentration of
teaching for all to learning for all. “The three challenges are: developing and
applying shared knowledge, sustaining the hard work of change, and transforming
school culture” (DuFour, 2005).
Applying shared knowledge relates to the entire school community gaining
an understanding of learning community concepts and practices and then
demonstrating the discipline to apply those concepts and practices in their own
settings if their schools are to be transformed (DuFour, 2005). Sun Valley Middle
School not only switched to the concept of a PLC, but also introduced an entirely
new administrative team, changed the master schedule from teacher-centered to
student-centered, and introduced a new system of rewards and consequences in
terms of student attendance, behavior, and activities.
Sustaining the hard work of change is always the most difficult thing to do
once change has taken effect, especially in schools. Administrators and teachers
will now be called upon to do the hard work associated with significant school
reform. Collins (2001) found that the success of organizations that were able to
93
make the leap from “good to great” was never the result of a single defining action,
groundbreaking program, or miracle moment. According to Collins (2001), “good
to great comes by a cumulative process, step by step, action by action, decision by
decision, turn upon turn of the flywheel that adds up to sustained and spectacular results.
By pushing in a constant direction over an extended period of time, they inevitably
hit a point of breakthrough.” Similarly, Richard DuFour (2005) stated: “Educators
can create professional learning communities, but there are no easy shortcuts for
doing so.”
Finally, the idea of transforming school culture into one of a PLC is the
most difficult of all to pull off. The PLC concept is built on a set of beliefs,
assumptions, habits, and expectations; it is these that must become the norm of the
school for the PLC concept to take root in the culture of the school. The Sun
Valley Middle School story is one that constituted a complete change in the
school’s beliefs, assumptions, expectations, and habits. As a result, over a period
of three years, Sun Valley Middle School was transformed into a PLC that valued
teacher collaboration, focused on results, and did everything it could to ensure
learning for all.
Survey of Professional Development and Support from Action Learning Systems
This April 2005 survey examined the responses of 74 Sun Valley Middle
School teachers regarding the amount of professional development training, quality
of professional development training, and type of effect these trainings had directly
94
on their students at Sun Valley. The survey is divided up into nine sections:
Reciprocal Teaching, Direct Instruction, Specially-Designed Academic Instruction
in English (SDAIE), Balanced Approach to Math, Student-led Conferences,
Student-based lesson design, Focus Standards, Test Prep Strategies, and Data Team
training. For purposes of this study, the researcher will examine four of these
areas: Reciprocal Teaching, Direct Instruction, Focus Standards, and Test Prep
Strategies. Within each section there are 11 statements to which each teacher was
asked to respond by circling either: Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Not Sure
(NS), Disagree (D), or Strongly Disagree (SD). Statements 6, 7, 8, and 9 are
directly related to research Question #1. Responses are calculated on a percentage
basis of the total respondents to that particular question. Results are listed below in
Tables 3 through 6.
Table 3. Action Learning Systems Survey Responses (Reciprocal Teaching)
Teachers (# of Respondents) SA A NS D SD
The training provided enough information for
me to fully understand these strategies. (72)
36% 50% 4% 6% 4%
I have received sufficient training in this area
to implement it effectively. (72)
38% 40% 11% 8% 3%
I believe these strategies would be useful to
most teachers at my school. (73)
32% 51% 11% 7% 0
These strategies had a positive effect on my
students. (69)
23% 42% 29% 3% 3%
SA-Strongly Agree; A-Agree; NS-Not Sure; D-Disagree; SD-Strongly Disagree
95
Table 4. Action Learning Systems Survey Responses (Direct Instruction)
Teachers (# of Respondents) SA A NS D SD
The training provided me with enough information
for me to fully understand these strategies. (72)
36% 56% 4% 4% 0
I have received sufficient training in this area to
implement it effectively. (71)
37% 54% 7% 2% 0
I believe these strategies would be useful to most
teachers at my school. (72)
36% 49% 11% 4% 0
These strategies had a positive effect on my
students. (72)
26% 54% 18% 1% 0
SA-Strongly Agree; A-Agree; NS-Not Sure; D-Disagree; SD-Strongly Disagree
Table 5. Action Learning Systems Survey Responses (Focus Standards)
Teachers (# of Respondents) SA A NS D SD
The training provided me enough information for
me to fully understand these strategies. (17)
29% 67% 2% 2% 0
I have received sufficient training in this area to
implement it effectively. (58)
33% 62% 3% 2% 0
I believe these strategies would be useful to most
teachers at my school. (58)
31% 62% 7% 0 0
These strategies had a positive effect on my
students. (57)
26% 53% 19% 2% 0
SA-Strongly Agree; A-Agree; NS-Not Sure; D-Disagree; SD-Strongly Disagree
Table 6. Action Learning Systems Survey Responses (Test Prep Strategies)
Teachers (# of Respondents) SA A NS D SD
The training provided enough information for
me to fully understand these strategies. (31)
32% 58% 7% 3% 0
I have received sufficient training in this area
to implement it effectively. (32)
31% 50% 13% 6% 0
I believe these strategies would be useful to
most teachers at my school. (32)
41% 50% 3% 6% 0
These strategies had a positive affect on my
students. (32)
28% 53% 13% 6% 0
SA-Strongly Agree; A-Agree; NS-Not Sure; D-Disagree; SD-Strongly Disagree
96
An examination of the results of the ALS survey in the aforementioned
areas indicates a significant and positive relation between the professional
development training the teachers received from ALS and their belief that this led
to higher student achievement. The critical statement (i.e., Question #9) in this
survey is: These strategies had a positive effect on my students. Table 7 below
illustrates the strong belief in a connection between these strategies and improved
student achievement.
Table 7. Action Learning Systems Survey Responses (Effects on Students)
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Strongly
Agree/Agree
Disagree/Strongly
Disagree
RECIPROCAL TEACHING 65% 6%
DIRECT INSTRUCTION 80% 1%
FOCUS STANDARDS 79% 2%
TEST PREP STRATEGIES 81% 6%
The findings revealed that there were significant and positive correlations at
the .01 level among the four statements (r = .633, p < .000) and the four types of
professional development training that were brought to Sun Valley Middle School.
The results of this survey indicate that the training had a positive effect on student
achievement.
97
Survey — “What Works in Schools” from ASCD
Facilitated by Sun Valley Middle School administrative staff, this online
survey from ASCD was completed by the school’s teachers in April 2005.
Teachers were provided the Web site address (www.whatworksinschools.org) and
asked to volunteer to take the survey. Sun Valley Middle School had 70 teachers
respond to this request.
This survey asked teachers to respond to 66 statements in this “Snapshot
Survey of School Effectiveness Factors (School Focus),” which included 11 key
factor areas: Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum; Challenging Goals and Effective
Feedback; Parent and Community Involvement; Safe and Orderly Environment;
Collegiality and Professionalism; Home Environment; Learned Intelligence and
Background Knowledge; Student Motivation; Instruction; Classroom Management;
and Classroom Curriculum Design. Areas related to Research Question # 1 are:
Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum; Challenging Goals and Effective Feedback;
Instruction, and Classroom Curriculum Design. The respondents had three
questions to answer for each statement:
#1 — To what extent do we engage in this behavior or address this issue?
#2 — How much will a change in our current practices on this item increase the
academic achievement of our students?
#3 — How much effort will it take to significantly change our current practices
regarding this issue?
98
In looking at factor-level priorities, there were seven key statements related
to research Question #1. Table 8 below indicates the averages of each response by
item regarding these seven key statements.
Table 8. ASCD “What Works in Schools” Survey (Median Factor Levels)
Question 1 Question 2 Question 3
Guaranteed & Viable Curriculum
1. Essential & supplemental content
is identified
3.17 2.76 2.46
2. Teachers are monitored for
teaching essential content
2.77 2.71 2.43
Challenging Goals and Effective Feedback
3. Performance on individual
student & school goals drives
planning
2.86 2.83 2.61
Instruction
4. Teachers begin lessons by
presenting clear learning goals
3.34 2.73 2.06
5. Teachers organize students into
cooperative groups when appropriate
3.19 2.96 2.20
6. Teachers ask students to take
notes on new content
3.36 2.91 2.19
Classroom Curriculum Design
7. In planning, teachers identify
specific types of important
knowledge for students to learn
3.16 2.87 2.40
Weighting Factors
1: Not effective
2: Low degree of effectiveness
3: Moderate effectiveness
4: High degree of effectiveness.
An analysis of these items in relation to research Question #1 shows a
significant correlation between the exponential increase in student achievement at
99
Sun Valley Middle School in a three-year period in connection with the key items
in the areas of Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum, Challenging Goals and Effective
Feedback, Instruction, and Classroom Curriculum Design. Items 1, 4, and 9
correspond directly to the ALS survey (focus standards, administrators
supervising/monitoring instruction, and utilizing data to inform instruction), where
there was a significant correlation between these factors and the improvement at
Sun Valley Middle School since the SSA.
When examining items 30, 37, 46, and 62, the researcher must relate these
items to the clearly stated goals and expectations of the site principal. Some of the
new curricular programs that I brought forward to the faculty were: each class will
begin with clearly stated goals, objectives, and standards written on the board and
communicated to the students by the teacher (#30); facilitate the use of cooperative
learning groups to allow students opportunities to utilize accountable talk (#37);
implement Cornell Note-taking on a school-wide basis (#46), and scaffold
instruction to align with the various levels of Bloom’s taxonomy so students are
challenged to become critical thinkers (#62).
Research Question 2. What resources were available to the school?
Superintendent Judy Burton Interview
This interview relates to Research Question #2 because the support the site
principal received from the local and central district offices was critical to the
turnaround of Sun Valley Middle School. The first question posed to Ms. Burton
100
was: How many extra “manpower” hours/resources did you have to provide Sun
Valley, as opposed to the other middle schools in District B?
Once Sun Valley was identified by the State Department of
Education for the state academic audit, our entire approach
changed in terms of how we worked with this school. Sun Valley
was not the lowest performing middle school in our district, but
they were having significant difficulty with administrative
leadership and school culture. Sun Valley was actually making
academic progress, but not sufficient to meet growth targets.
Every single staff member in District B was called into service to
support and assist Sun Valley in responding to the state audit and
assisting the school with both developing a plan of corrective
action and following through with the implementation of corrective
actions each step of the way. As Superintendent, I personally met
with teachers, parents, and administrators at the school. All
District B staff met once a week to discuss, plan, and update
progress with actions, to complete commitments for the
improvement of Sun Valley Middle School. Previously, the
Directors and I met weekly to discuss the progress of all of our
schools. The entire staff was now meeting every Monday for 2-4
hours just about Sun Valley. Each staff member was assigned
specific responsibilities and was held accountable for taking action
at the school, documenting actions taken, and reporting back to the
rest of the team on Monday morning. The entire focus of our time
and effort was centered on Sun Valley. From visiting classrooms
to giving feedback for improvement, to planning and leading the
initial professional developments and parent training, and
documenting the completion of everything deliverable agreed to in
the JIA.
Burton added:
Generally, I estimate that the number of people regularly focused
on Sun Valley increased from 2 or 3 on average for most middle
schools, to almost everyone on a staff of over 50 people. The time
increased in terms of time on campus, working with the new
principal, the new administrative team, visiting classrooms, leading
professional development. Compared to other middle schools we
were spending 15−30 hours per week at Sun Valley, instead of the
usual 2−3 hours per month, per school.
101
The third and final question asked to Ms. Burton also relates to Research
Question #2, as follows: In your opinion, was it the audit, the commitment letter,
or was it something else that got the teachers and staff to “buy-in” to improve their
school?
Actually, I have to say that the commitment was generated by a
variety of key elements, and the absence of any one of them could
have resulted in failure. Key elements that paved the way for
“buy-in” to improve the school, when it could have been just as
easy to fight change, as many of the other audit schools did, were:
changing the entire administrative team and union leader so that a
new culture could be established with a new team, with no
baggage; bringing in a new visionary, high energy, principal leader
who had the capacity to establish a culture of team-work and
higher expectations; and the audit itself provided the opportunity
for in-depth urgent change. I would otherwise not have been able
to replace staff, require the commitment letter from teachers to
continue working at the school, or bring in the needed resources of
money and time to be able to move with the urgency necessary to
achieve the goals established by the audit process.
Burton added:
That said the teachers could have still chosen to just go through the
motions of improvement. I observed that they wanted to be proud
of their school and their students, and that they had renewed hope
with the new leadership at the school. I think teachers were
motivated by the students as well, who immediately saw changes
in the tone of the school campus, and in the way they were treated
by the new principal. I think the changes at Sun Valley were about
more than the audit, though it was certainly the catalyst for change.
The JIA was a tool utilized by the site principal to effect change on the Sun
Valley MS campus. The 5 general area findings in the JIA were (See Appendix K):
1. The curriculum lacks consistent rigor and is not fully aligned to the state
English/language arts/mathematics standards.
102
2. The school does not fully engage students in grade-level content/performance
standards using effective, varied, research-based practices to improve student
performance in reading, language arts, mathematics, and English language
development. The school does not consistently use multiple assignment
strategies to monitor and modify instruction in order to develop the complex
thinking and reasoning skills embedded in the standards. There is an absence
of comprehensive school-wide interventions to meet student learning needs.
3. The school does not function as an efficient learning community and does not
provide a climate conducive to performance excellence. Each segment of the
school community fails to recognize and accept its personal and professional
responsibility in student success and failure. There are significant barriers to
parent involvement.
4. Sun Valley Middle School does not maximize its resources (time, staffing,
funding, parents, school district and community resources) to support a high-
quality, student-centered academic program and to enhance staff performance.
5. There is little evidence of coherent, long-term professional development or the
use of evaluation data contributing to the continuous improvement of
curriculum and instruction (CDE, 2002).
Items identified in the surveys (former principal’s, ALS, ASCD) that are also
included in the JIA are as follows:
1. Develop and implement a plan for academic intervention within the school
day, extended day, and during intersession (1C).
103
2. Require schoolwide content literacy in every classroom for every student
daily, or, at a minimum, weekly (1E).
3. Develop and schedule a variety of exploratory/elective courses that
support/reinforce the core curriculum (2G).
4. Leadership needs to supervise and monitor instruction regularly and
effectively; provide teachers with constructive feedback (2A).
5. Develop a comprehensive plan to promote family/community involvement
(3G).
6. Reorganize leadership team members to cover all tracks to improve
communication and school-wide improvement (4F).
7. Incorporate two hours per day of English/Language Arts (4H, Section 3).
8. Consolidate grade-level classes in specific areas to reduce passing time (4H,
Section 2).
9. Develop and implement a technology plan that includes: an operational
technology center, one teacher computer in each classroom connected to the
Internet, etc.
10. Implement systemic academic intervention and support programs for all
students.
11. Develop a collaboratively planned, coherent, ongoing professional
development plan (grade-level standards, scaffolding instruction, focus
standards, classroom management, etc.).
104
12. Provide teachers with adequate training in how to use data assessment
techniques to inform and revise instructional practice.
At Sun Valley Middle School, with the JIA as our mandate to improving the
entire school, we focused on ensuring that all of our teachers were delivering
standards-based instruction on a daily basis, exuding high expectations to their
students, and feeling responsible for their students’ learning (See Appendix C).
The JIA mandated these items, including increased and substantive administrative
supervision and monitoring of these requirements (JIA, 2002, 5, 7-9, 11, 14-17, 28,
31, 33, 35, 36). The ideas of increased levels of rigor, relevance, and relationships
are also communicated throughout the JIA (JIA, 2002, 1, 5, 7-9, 15, 20, 33).
Moreover, the “Certificated Staff Letter of Commitment” that all teachers signed at
Sun Valley Middle School included the following: “I understand that this is a letter
of commitment of action and support with the express purpose of assuring the
highest quality of teaching and learning to meet the expectations of the students,
parents, LAUSD, and the California State Department of Education.” Furthermore,
in another part of the letter, teachers were asked to commit to “specific benchmark
actions” that included standards-based instruction and professional development
activities.
Finding Number 2 in the JIA for Sun Valley addressed the use of multiple
assessment strategies and the utilization of data to monitor and modify standards-
based instruction and to develop comprehensive school-wide interventions to meet
student learning needs. With the assistance of our Literacy and Math coaches,
105
along with our department chairpersons, we developed a system of professional
development workshops in an effort to examine CST subgroup data, periodic
assessment data in English and math, and various examples of student work.
This system of rotating workshops (every other Tuesday and during their
off-track time) allowed our faculty to examine both overall school data and to
evaluate test data of their individual students while in their departments. On
Thursdays, during their common planning time, our teachers would meet in their
grade-level interdisciplinary teams to work together on the needs of individual
students in regard to targeted intervention for these students.
Site and district administrators, along with classroom teachers, performed
“learning walks” once per month to monitor classroom instruction and diagnose
areas of strength and weakness for our faculty. This information was disseminated
to our staff during faculty meetings.
Our teachers worked together within their departments to focus on the main
areas of need based on the skill cluster reports from the CDE. Teachers shared best
practices and their own innovative ways of teaching specific concepts or skills. We
also spent a great deal of time working on the calibrating of student work to the
expected grade-level standard (JIA, 2002, 11). During their off-track time, our
teachers were provided 15 additional days of professional development training.
During these trainings, we worked with our teachers on breaking down the
standards, reviewing the state blueprints, and developing content-area formative
assessments based on the standards and blueprints.
106
We also developed a system of targeted intervention within the school day
by utilizing the information gained from the aforementioned workshops and
providing double block periods for all of our students in English (except for our
honors students). In mathematics, we took our struggling 8th-grade algebra
students and placed them in a math tutorial class in which they reviewed both 6th-
and 7th-grade math concepts during the first semester. We did not even teach
algebra until the second semester. We also developed a tutoring referral form for
our teachers on which they would list the areas of need for individual students for
the teacher who would be tutoring them after school or on Saturdays.
At Sun Valley Middle School, the JIA (2002, 3) required all teachers to
develop content literacy activities each day so that every student daily, or, at a
minimum, weekly, had an opportunity to improve his or her English skills. As
principal, I mandated that teachers have “sponge” or “warm-up” activities related to
the standards each day so that students would have greater access to improving
their literacy skills. As mentioned previously, I mandated double blocks of English
for all of our students, excluding honor students.
To ensure school-wide literacy improvement, I implemented “physical
English” each Thursday in our Physical Education classes. I purchased more than
300 mini-clipboards for our physical education students to facilitate their greater
participation in our writing program in P.E. Each Thursday, the students would be
given a health-, wellness-, or athletics-related article to read and then respond to
based on prompts their P.E. teachers provided. The teachers would grade the
107
students on effort, and the assignments were based on the English-Language Arts
content standards.
In terms of curriculum and instruction, our English-language learners used
High Point, our English teachers used McDougal-Littell, our math teachers used
Connected Math, our Social Studies teachers used McDougal-Littell, and our
science teachers focused much of their instruction around the FOSS kits. These
textbooks were all aligned to the state standards, and, in addition, our teachers used
consumable workbooks for each of these subject areas. We also had a very
effective Scholastic READ 180 reading/writing lab for our students who were
working above the levels of ESL yet not ready for the regular English curriculum.
Sun Valley Middle School also contracted with Action Learning Systems
(ALS) to work with our teachers and departments in the areas of reading
comprehension, the writing process, and standards-based instruction. ALS, which
was on our campus each Wednesday for three years, worked with our four core
departments (a different department each week) in each of these areas. ALS
provided training in research-based strategies such as Reciprocal Teaching and
Direct Instruction.
In the JIA for Sun Valley, Finding Number 5 is focused entirely on the
school’s professional development plan. The plan mandates a collaborative,
coherent, ongoing professional development plan connected to the school plan that
reflects district priorities and individual teacher needs. The “Certificated Staff
Letter of Commitment” also mandated that the faculty commit to five to fifteen
108
additional days of paid professional development to take place outside of the school
calendar and actively participate in common planning time meetings with
colleagues during the 18-month monitoring period.
As mentioned previously, we developed a rotating workshop system of
professional development trainings for our Tuesday “banked time” days. On these
days, workshops would run for the first hour of the 90-minute period; the
remaining 30 minutes were spent in departments sharing workshop-related
information with one another. Our instructional coaches and classroom teachers
were always the presenters at these workshops, and our administrators monitored
the department meetings.
Our Thursday common planning time meetings were also scheduled for 90
minutes. These were held with the interdisciplinary teams to enable teachers to
focus on individual student needs and share information from their Tuesday
department meetings.
Action Learning Systems’ ongoing, weekly trainings within our
departments allowed our teachers to weave new strategies and techniques into their
daily classroom instruction. Additional trainings included a five-day session by the
Los Angeles County Office of Education, another five-day session from the UCLA
School Management Program, and various training sessions attended by our
literacy and math coaches.
109
As mentioned previously, all students at Sun Valley had two-hour blocks of
English unless they were honor students. One of these blocks focused on reading
comprehension and the other was a writing period.
School Staffing
In terms of staffing, in the 2001−02 school years, Sun Valley Middle School
employed 128 full-time teachers with an average of 9.4 years of teaching
experience. Of these full-time staff members, only 71.9% had their professional
clear teaching credential. In the 2004−05 school year, Sun Valley Middle School
employed 125 full-time teachers with an average of 7.3 years of teaching
experience. However, 87.2% of these teachers had earned their professional clear
teaching credential (www.ed-data.k12.ca).
The reforming of the master schedule was critical in improving student
achievement and attendance. The administrative team made a conscious decision
to follow the classic middle school model of teaming/coring.
The school developed interdisciplinary teacher teams at each grade level
(English, math, science, and history) and also developed grade-level “houses”
separated geographically on our campus. For example, in the 6th grade, our teacher
teams comprised teams of two. In California multiple-subject credentials allow
teachers to teach K-6. Because of their multiple subject credentials, 6th-grade
teachers were separated into English/history teachers and math/science teachers
based on their training and experience. The teams of two 6th-grade teachers shared
110
the same 60 students. The science/math teacher taught the eight-week “exploratory
wheel” elective, which included keyboarding, conflict resolution training, and
school orientation, followed by the elective of the teacher’s choice for the final
eight weeks. Our ESL students in 6th grade received their English instruction from
an ESL teacher and received the exploratory as their lone elective, while the core
and gifted 6th graders received two electives. When the students had their physical
education class, the teachers shared a common conference period so they could
discuss issues regarding students.
In the 7th and 8th grade, the teacher teams were made up of four or five
teachers, and students were placed on teams based on their English
language/reading level. In more than 90% of the teacher teams, the school was able
to create common conference periods for the teachers. Our 7th- and 8th-grade ESL
students received their English instruction from an ESL teacher and then joined
their team for all of their other classes.
The development of the School for Advanced Studies (SAS) and the major
expansion of the gifted program was another factor in the exponential gains in
student achievement and attendance. When the researcher arrived at Sun Valley
Middle School in early 2002, the school had only 31 identified gifted students out
of a student population of 3,000. With the assistance of the administrative team,
literacy coaches, and math coaches, Sun Valley Middle School was able to develop
the SAS program into a very desirable academic program for students. The
students must meet the district criteria of over 73% on their CST scores in math and
111
English and must also have a high student attendance rate. In three years, Sun
Valley Middle School was able to build the SAS program into 170 students. These
students, who take all honors courses, were a big factor in Sun Valley Middle
School’s gains in AYP over the past three STAR testing cycles (See Appendices L1
and L2).
The advent of technology throughout the campus also helped in regard to
student achievement. In 2001−02, there were 234 computers for 3,000 students
(only 8% of students had access to computers) to utilize at Sun Valley Middle
School. By June 2005, the school had 826 computers for 2,901 students, providing
28% of our students with access to computers at any time on campus (www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/ profile/August 2005).
SVMS also created two state-of-the-art on-campus computer labs (34 PC’s
per lab) with extended hours before school, at nutrition, at lunch, and for one hour
each day after school. To implement the new computer-based math (Compass
Learning) and literacy (My Access) programs, Sun Valley Middle School
purchased 10 wireless laptop carts with airport cards for each cart, and the school
also purchased 10 additional laptops for our READ 180 reading intervention
program.
The lessons learned from Sun Valley Middle School’s three-year journey
can be helpful to site and district administrators throughout the nation. This
research does not have all of the answers for making a predominantly Latino,
urban, Title I public school successful. However, the new culture, structure, and
112
programs instituted at Sun Valley Middle School could bring similar changes and
success to other schools that find themselves in the same type of predicament that
Sun Valley Middle School was in, back in early 2002.
On the opposite side of the student achievement spectrum, the JIA (2002, 5-
13) was very clear that Sun Valley Middle School must create better systems to
identify students for intervention and must implement a better intervention
program. In three years, the school developed an extensive program of after-school
tutoring and Saturday School classes. The SMART program, a system of academic
intervention within the school day, was also created. This program was the primary
academic tutoring vehicle, and the school’s teachers worked with students for one
hour a day on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays. The school also had academic
tutoring through the KYDS program (Monday through Friday after school) and
with Volunteers of America tutors three days per week.
The Saturday School program, called the Extended Learning Academy
(EXLA), was funded by the LAUSD’s Beyond the Bell branch. The EXLA offered
two hours of English/language arts instruction and two hours of mathematics
instruction for our struggling students (far below basic and below basic). These
students received both interactive computer-based instruction and intensive
instruction from a regular Sun Valley teacher. To reach the higher-level students
(both Basic and Proficient), the researcher developed and offered a “Shining Stars
Academy” (SSA) that provided them with a combination of computer-based
instruction and teacher-directed instruction. These programs, combined with our
113
intersession classes for students who earned “Fails” or “D”s in their regular-term
classes, were targeting the areas of weakness or challenge for each student. The
SSA was funded by carry-over Title I money provided by the district.
As site principal, I was able to motivate the teaching staff by reviewing the
JIA with them on a regular basis and by meeting with them following each of the
five state monitoring visits. Teachers were provided with summary sheets of the
commendations/recommendations after each visit by the state audit team, and I
used these “teachable moments” to reinforce the sense of urgency that came with
the entire state audit process.
Wyoming Model of School Resources
Was Sun Valley Middle School allocated adequate resources to double
student performance? In looking at the Wyoming model below (Table 9), Sun
Valley Middle School was understaffed in the following areas: core academic
teachers, specialist and elective teachers, librarians, tutors, English as a Second
Language staff, assistant principals and clerical staff. For a middle school of 3,090
students, with 94% of the student body receiving free/reduced priced lunch and
54% English language learners, Table 9 describes the appropriate number of
personnel needed to adequately serve the students.
In terms of the specific differences between Sun Valley Middle School and
the Wyoming model the most critical areas are: specialist and elective teachers,
tutors, assistant principals, and clerical staff. Sun Valley Middle School was
114
staffed at 43 in terms of specialist/elective teachers as opposed to the Wyoming
model (48.6); Sun Valley Middle School had just 11 tutors, while the Wyoming
model suggests 29; Sun Valley Middle School had 5 assistant principals in the
2002-2003 school year, and four each year thereafter, while the Wyoming Model
recommends 8.8; and at Sun Valley Middle School, there were 14 clerical positions
available, whereas the Wyoming model provides for 20 clerical positions. Despite
being understaffed in terms of many resources, even with the CSR grant and
additional money from the district to help us as an audit school, Sun Valley was
able to make double student performance over a three-year period.
Table 9. “Wyoming Model” Resource Use in School “A” Evidence-Based
Model —Sun Valley Middle School
Staffing
Evidence-Based Model
(Provided from the funding
model)
Actual
(Sun Valley MS)
Core Academic Teachers 147.1 143.1
Specialist and Elective Teachers 48.6 43.0
Librarians 4.9 librarians,
9.8 Media Specialists
1.0 librarians, 1.0
Media Specialists
Extra Help
- Tutors 29 11
- Extra Help Laboratories See below
- English as a second language staff 16.7 12.0
- Extended Day and Summer
School
(if fully funded by WY): 24.2
extended day, 24.2 summer
school
Intersession (Year-
round school) 25.1
Professional Development
[Instructional Facilitators] (if fully funded by WY): 14.7 2.0
- Teacher Time - Substitutes &
Stipends
Impossible to gage via
model—have to visit school to
determine
- Trainers and Coaches (Instructional Facilitators
above, funding for trainers:)
$321,360
115
Table 9 (continued).
Staffing
Evidence-Based Model
(Provided from the funding
model)
Actual
(Sun Valley MS)
- Administration Impossible to gauge via
model—have to visit school
to determine
- Materials, Equipment and Facilities Impossible to gage via
model—have to visit school
to determine
- Travel & Transportation Impossible to gage via
model—have to visit school
to determine
- Tuition and Conference Fees See Trainers and Coaches,
above—this category is
included
[Extra PD days for PD] $459,154 $650,000 (CSR
grant)
Other Non-Classroom Instructional
Staff
- Building Substitutes & Other
Substitutes
No permanent FTE subs, but
$241,344 for subs.
*Above funding
also paid for subs
- Instructional Aides 0 8
[“non-instructional aides”] 19.6 17.0
Student Support
- Counselors Counselors, Nurses, Psych,
and Social Workers are
combined in WY Model:
41.4
44.0
- Nurses See above
- Psychologists See above
- Social Workers See above
- Extra-Curricular and Athletics $222,773
[Supplies] $917,708
[Equipment/technology] $803,400
[Gifted and Talented] $80,340
[Assessment] $103,750
-Non-Instructional Administration
[Principal] 1.0 1.0
[Asst. Principal] 8.8 4.0
[Secretary] 9.8 8.0
[Clerical] 9.8 9.0
Note: 6-8 MS, 3090 ADM, 94% FRL, 54% ELL unduplicated.
School-level cost given district “Big Horn #1” salaries is $25,288,007.
116
Research Question 3. How did the staff participate in the exponential gains
in student achievement at the school?
The survey put forth by the researcher (former site principal) to the Sun
Valley Middle School teaching staff has five statements (5, 13, 15, 18, and 20) that
relate to Research Question No. 3:
#5 — School administrators empowering teachers to teach elective courses.
#13 — The interdisciplinary teaming at all grade levels improved student
achievement.
#15 — Students receiving double blocks of English Language Arts.
#18 — Calibration of student work across departments and content areas led to
improved student achievement.
#20 — The seven-period day.
Table 10. Principal’s Survey (Master Schedule / Student Achievement)
Statements (Respondents) 4 3 2 1 Mean
5. School administrators empowering
teachers to teach elective courses.(27)
18 7 1 0 3.16
13. The interdisciplinary teaming at all
grade levels and improved student
achievement. (26)
18 8 0 0 3.19
15. Students receiving double blocks of
English Language Arts. (26)
21 5 0 0 3.30
18. Calibration of student work across
departments and content areas. (27)
17 9 1 0 3.23
20. The seven-period day. (26) 15 7 2 2 2.83
Scale for Table 10: 1−Not effective; 2−Low degree of effectiveness; 3−Moderate
effectiveness; 4−High degree of effectiveness
117
An examination of the data shows that four of the five statements received a
mean score of over 3.00, while just one statement (#20) received a mean score of
below 3.00 (2.83). Question #5 (School administrators empowering teachers to
teach elective courses) is related to the JIA, Finding 2, (G) “Develop and schedule a
variety of exploratory and elective courses that support and reinforce the core
curriculum equitably in all three tracks for all students (CDE, 2002).”
In May 2002, the principal stated that each teacher who would like to teach
an elective course that presently was not being taught at Sun Valley Middle School
may develop a proposal and write a desired curriculum for those elective courses
they would like to teach. There were several proposals accepted, mostly due to the
faculty approving (by vote) to move to the seven-period day. The seven periods
allowed for many more course offerings to be available to students. Some of the
proposals accepted were “National Pastime: A Correlation of Baseball History to
American History,” “Literature through Film,” “Mythology,” “Teen Living,” and
several others. These courses offered students another class period of thinking,
reading, writing, and learning, but in the context of subject matter in which the
students were actually interested.
Question #13 (The interdisciplinary teaming at all grade levels helped to
improve student achievement) is correlated to the teaming/coring that was
implemented with Sun Valley Middle School’s teaching staff in July 2002. Prior to
July 2002, Sun Valley Middle School was not following the “classic middle school
model” of teachers teaming and coring at all grade levels. Though at first a bit
118
resistant, our teachers were teamed and cored and physically placed in “common
areas” by grade level (JIA, CDE, Finding 4, (H,2). The 6th-grade science and math
teachers were teamed as were the English/language arts and history teachers. The
only classes students took outside of the team were their physical education class
and one of their electives (if they were in the SAS). Schoolwide, the students in
SAS had two electives, while all other students had just one elective. In the 7th and
8th grades, we implemented interdisciplinary teams of either four or five teachers.
We were able to schedule 85% of our “teams” with common conference periods.
The teaming allowed students to see the connections between each one of their
classes and to understand that all of their learning really is connected.
We also mandated one team interdisciplinary project per semester for all 8th
graders. These projects centered on a common theme (selected by the
students/nominated by the teachers), and students were given eight weeks to
complete these projects. Students had to prepare a three- to five-page paper
describing their project, facilitate a three- to five-minute PowerPoint presentation to
their peers and teachers, and create some sort of visual display. Members of the
audience had to critique and evaluate the student projects based on a rubric for
presentations that the students compiled with the teacher. The interdisciplinary
teaming forced these students to expand their technological and public speaking
skills, and also brought them into the key area of critical thinking that helps build
academic rigor.
119
In reviewing Question #15 (Students receiving double blocks of
English/Language Arts), the Sun Valley Middle School teachers rated this the
number one reason (mean of 3.30) we were able to raise our student literacy rate
and improve our student achievement during the time from February 2002 to June
2005. This question also correlates to the JIA, Finding 4 (H,3) “Incorporate two
hours a day of ELA as recommended in the reading/language arts framework”
(CDE, 2002). Though the framework simply recommended this for students who
were struggling/developing readers and writers, we implemented this “time on
task” for all of our students, with the exception of our students in our SAS program.
Research Question 4. What are the lessons learned from this school that can
be utilized at other schools that need to double student
performance in a short time period?
In the former site principal’s survey statements 2, 7, and 8 directly relate to
this research question, while in the ALS survey statements 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11 relate
to Research Question No. 4.
Former Principal’s Survey
#2 — Teachers receiving meaningful professional development opportunities.
#7 — Professional development regarding alignment of instruction with the state
academic content standards.
#8 — Professional development highlighted effective teaching practices.
120
From analyzing the information in Table 11, it is evident that the Sun
Valley Middle School teachers surveyed believed that the professional
development they received during the time period of February 2002 through June
2005 was meaningful, helped them learn how to align their instruction to the
academic content standards, and focused on effective teaching practices. An
examination of the statements on the ALS survey that indicate how professional
development training related to improvement in student literacy and academic
achievement allowed the researcher to focus on five key statements in each sub-
section of the survey.
#7 — I have received sufficient training in this area to implement it effectively.
#8 — I believe these strategies would be useful to most teachers at my school.
#9 — These strategies had a positive effect on my students.
#10 — I can teach or help others learn these strategies.
#11 — The in-classroom support that I received from an ALS Strategy Coach was
useful.
Table 11. Principal’s Survey (Professional Development Training / Effect on
Student Improvement)
Questions/Respondent(s) 4 3 2 1
2. Teachers receiving meaningful professional
development opportunities.(27)
24 3 0 0
7. Professional development regarding alignment of
instruction with the state academic content
standards.(27)
22 5 0 0
8. Professional development highlighted effective
teaching practices.(27)
24 3 0 0
Scale for Table 11: 1−Not effective; 2−Low degree of effectiveness; 3−Moderate
effectiveness; 4−High degree of effectiveness
121
The strategies pertinent to research Question #4 were: Reciprocal
Teaching, Direct Instruction, SDAIE, Balanced Approach to Math, Student-led
Conferences, Student-based lesson design, Focus Standards, and Test Prep
Strategies. The strategy coaches from ALS met with the Sun Valley administrators
prior to ever meeting with the teachers. ALS Executive Director Gary Soto and
Kate Bean, ALS facilitator, performed several “learning walks” with the Sun
Valley Middle School and District B administrators to determine the immediate
areas of concern related to delivery of instruction. Following three days of these
classroom observations and analysis of test data, it was determined by consensus
that the key issues that needed to be addressed were reading comprehension
strategies and standards-based instruction.
The first groups of teachers to receive the intensive training in these
strategies were the “A” track teachers, who were off-track in July 2002. The other
tracks followed in order of their being off-track and then ALS began their
reinforcement of these strategies in departments in September 2002 when the “A”
track teachers returned to school. During the next three years, all Sun Valley
Middle School teachers were trained in the eight research-based strategies listed
above (Reciprocal Teaching, Direct Instruction, SDAIE, Balanced Approach to
Math, Student-led Conferences, Student-based lesson design, Focus Standards, and
Test Prep Strategies).
The data from Table 12 indicates that the Sun Valley Middle School
teaching staff believed that the professional development training from ALS
122
contributed significantly to the improvement in literacy and overall academic
achievement for the school’s students. When combining the ratings of Strongly
Agree and Agree regarding each of the five statements, there were no ratings lower
than 73.9% and a rating as high as 88%. These are statistically significant and
show a positive correlation between teacher morale, student achievement, and
meaningful professional development trainings.
Table 12. Action Learning Systems Survey Responses (Professional
Development / Student Achievement)
* All Strategies combined
Statements SA A NS D SD
7. I have received sufficient training in this
area to implement it effectively
30.8% 53.5% 7.8% 5.8% 2.1%
8. I believe these strategies would be useful
to most teachers at my school
34.8% 53.2% 8.6% 3.25% 0.25%
9. These strategies had a positive effect on
my students
27.8% 50.5% 18.5% 2.6% 0.6%
10. I can teach or help others learn these
strategies
24% 49.9% 17.5% 5.3% 3.6%
11. The in-classroom support that I have
received from an ALS Strategy Coach was
useful
27.6% 55% 10% 3.8% 3.6%
SA-Strongly Agree; A-Agree; NS-Not Sure; D-Disagree; SD-Strongly Disagree
Research Question 5. How was Sun Valley Middle School able to produce
such exponential and longitudinal growth in their API
and AYP scores in just three years?
Judy Burton, former District B Superintendent, believed that there were
many factors that contributed to the success of Sun Valley Middle School. She
123
noted that “the audit itself was key, for without it she would have never been able
to replace staff or get the teachers to sign the commitment letter.” She also stated
that, “The changing of the administrative team, bringing in a new one with a new
culture, was huge.” She added, “Getting the union leader out, who was so
destructive to the ability of that school to function cohesively, was critical. Also,
bringing in a new, visionary, high-energy principal leader with the capacity to
establish a new culture of teamwork and high expectations was paramount to the
chances of Sun Valley being successful.”
Questions 3, 6, 9, 10, and 11 in the former principal’s survey of teachers are
correlated to Research Question No. 5.
#3 — A large increase in academic intervention opportunities for students.
#6 — SVMS teachers understanding the school improvement goals in the audit
plan.
#9 — Staff morale from February 2002−June 2005.
#10 — Student attitudes from February 2002−June 2005.
#11 — The site principal’s leadership during the time period of February 2002−
June 2005.
School Culture and Climate
“In effect, school reform cannot be episodic, one classroom at a time. Real
change and real accountability depend on a whole-school reform agenda with a
124
systemic plan that ensures continued interaction among faculty members at all
levels and across disciplines” (Tirozzi, 2001).
In terms of changing the culture and climate at Sun Valley Middle School,
the school worked hard to reflect Goldring’s (2002) “Six Traits of Culture,” which
are: 1) Shared Vision; 2) Traditions; 3) Collaboration; 4) Shared decision-making;
5) Innovation,; and 6) Communication. While the school utilized a whole-school
reform model (the JIA), there were a number of culture-changing events over the
three years that propelled Sun Valley to great heights in a short time span.
Nevertheless, the first step was to have all teachers and staff sign a “Letter of
Commitment” (See Appendix D) to the schoolwide goals embedded in the JIA.
Staff members were asked to pledge to implement a host of educational reforms,
support school policies, and participate in extra days of professional development.
Nearly all (95%) of the staff signed the agreement to become part of the
educational reforms at Sun Valley Middle School. Those who did not sign the
letter would be granted a transfer to another school, though not necessarily a school
of their choice. The commitment letter provided “a continuity of purpose and a
commitment to excellence that is essential for schools to bring about any real
reform” (Tirozzi, 2001). The first example of the staff’s commitment to the
reforms and to their own personal accountability regarding positive change was
their voting to implement a controversial alternative schedule: a seven-period day.
Following several informational period-by-period meetings, a review of
Taking Center Stage (the state blueprint for middle schools), and two faculty
125
meetings, the staff voted (66.23%) to approve this schedule. With a large
percentage of the students already taking a “double-block” of language arts, these
students would not receive an elective in a traditional six period-day schedule. By
electing to go with the seven-period day, the teachers would have an additional
class to teach. Nevertheless, the teachers would have fewer students per period,
shorter class periods, and the ability to propose and develop their own electives to
teach.
The teachers would now be teaching one more class per day, but this
student-centered approach created electives for ALL students, allowing them to be
exposed to various classes that would expand their educational opportunities and
provide them another opportunity to work on their thinking, reading, and writing
skills, while allowing them to discover talents they might not have ever known they
had. Examples of electives were: Literature through Film, Teen Living,
Mythology, Video/TV/Film Production, Beginning/Advanced Drama, Journalism,
the History of Baseball/America, Creative Writing, and Environmental Science.
Student Attendance
Between July 2001 and February 2002, the Sun Valley Middle School
monthly attendance statistics had dropped from 95% to a dismal (93.8%), and
many parents were transferring their students out of the school because of several
negative newspaper stories about SunValley Middle School. Among the first
things that needed improvement were parent and student attitudes about the school.
126
The school administration created parent task forces and several incentive programs
for students. The new attendance policy resulted from a combination of one of the
parent task forces created to help Sun Valley Middle School develop positive
reforms and from reviewing other successful attendance programs in the district.
Tardy sweeps were immediately implemented each period each day, and an
after-school beautification and detention program was initiated for first-time and
habitual tardy students. First- and second-time tardy students were assigned
campus beautification, and students with three to five tardy students were assigned
after-school detention. After five tardy students, students were placed on an
attendance contract, and any violations of that contract would result in a track
change or transfer to another school for habitual attendance issues.
The new attendance policy allowed the students no more than 10 absences a
school year. If students exceeded the 10-absence limit, they were placed on
culmination ceremony probation. If this occurred, the student could not be absent
more than five times each successive year to maintain his or her eligibility to
participate in the school’s elaborate graduation ceremony at Polytechnic High
School. The Sun Valley Middle School monthly attendance, which had ranked 75
th
of 79 district middle schools in 2001−2002 at 93.8% , immediately skyrocketed to
more than 96%, and the school placed first of all middle schools in student
attendance for the 2002−2003 school year. In the 2003−04 and 2004−05 school
years, the attendance rate stayed at a steady 96.5%, and Sun Valley Middle School
finished second in student attendance for middle schools in both of those years.
127
Effective Student Leadership is Critical
Engaging student activities sponsored by our new Student Body Leadership
program also helped spur attendance. As principal, I decided to expand student
leadership class to all grades and all tracks, and even offered the actual class during
period eight (after school) so that the off-track students could participate in the
planning of the activities. The student leadership group and its sponsors developed
innovative programs such as lip syncs, “Freaky Fridays,” “Who Wants to Beat the
CAT 6,” and other programs which helped build school spirit and improved student
attendance.
The administrative staff developed a campus beautification program called
“Stash Your Trash,” where students received raffle tickets for stashing their trash in
trash cans. Each Friday, a drawing was held where students received prizes for
participating. Another incentive program created was titled “Caught you Reading.”
It helped develop a love for reading among our students. The students received
raffle tickets when the administrators caught them reading or studying at nutrition
or lunch each day. These students also received prizes during the Friday drawing
for participating in this program. All of these programs developed a “school-
going” attitude and “Pioneer Pride that Cannot Be Denied” (our new slogan that
was promoted each day over the public address system) among the students, which
also helped to increase our student attendance rate.
By July 2002, state auditors were beginning to take notice of the changes
taking place at Sun Valley Middle School. “We feel that Sun Valley is really
128
making admirable progress and achieving its goals and the benchmarks we have set
for the school,” said Wendy Harris, director of the School Improvement Division of
the CDE (Gao, 2002).
Though the aforementioned programs designed to increase student
attendance and school pride were beneficial and did just that, the most empowering
factors in raising student attendance, school pride, and student achievement were
based on engaging classroom instruction, a school-wide focus on writing across the
curriculum, meaningful and relevant professional development, and the changes
that occurred in our master schedule. With the assistance of the District B staff, the
school was able to earn the CSR (Comprehensive School Reform) grant from the
CDE to assist Sun Valley Middle School in implementing meaningful professional
development training for the teachers. As previously mentioned, the CSR Program
is a federally funded school reform initiative that offers schools and districts the
opportunity to implement school-wide research-based reform strategies to increase
student achievement. The program was initially known as the Comprehensive
School Reform Demonstration Program (CSRD) and was renamed with the passage
of NCLB (www.cde.ca.gov/ta/lp/cs/aboutcsr.asp). The CSR grant provided Sun
Valley with $966,000 for each of the three years and enabled the school to enter
into a contract agreement with Action Learning Systems (ALS), an external
educational provider from Monrovia, California. ALS provided the school ongoing
teacher trainings in the areas of the JIA related to curriculum and instruction. In
addition, ALS representatives worked with the academic departments in providing
129
additional training in portfolios, the writing process, reciprocal teaching, Cornell
Notes, and student-led conferences.
One of the many aspects of the delivery of instruction that ALS provided
was in working with the teachers in how to deliver effective warm-up activities for
each class. Along with the assistance from ALS on effective warm-up
assignments, the school implemented a policy at Sun Valley Middle School that if a
student is tardy to class, he/she could not receive full credit for his/her warm-up
activity. This proved to be an effective deterrent to tardiness in that now the
students had a reason to be in class on time.
After analyzing the data from these five survey statements, the indicators
that appear to be the most strongly correlated to Sun Valley Middle School’s
exponential growth in API/AYP are: principal leadership, staff morale, and an
increase in academic interventions for students (See Appendix M).
Table 13. Principal’s Survey (Sun Valley Middle School Raising Achievement
in Three Years)
Statements/Respondents 4 3 2 1 Don’t
Know
3. A large increase in academic intervention
opportunities for students. (27)
24 2 0 0 1
6. Teachers understanding the school
improvement goals in the audit plan. (27)
22 3 1 0 1
9. Staff morale from 2/02−6/05 (27) 25 2 0 0 0
10. Student attitudes from 2/02−6/05 (27) 22 5 0 0 0
11. The site principal’s leadership from
2/02−6/05 (27)
27 0 0 0 0
Scale for Table 13: 1−Not effective; 2−Low degree of effectiveness; 3−Moderate
effectiveness; 4−High degree of effectiveness.
130
As principal of this SSA school, I had to be a strong leader with a definitive
direction for the school, while at the same time I had to be able to build a culture of
teamwork and family. In regard to staff morale, I believe that providing
meaningful professional development training, allowing our teachers to work
together in teams, and acknowledging staff on a consistent basis for a job well
done, were factors that led to this high agreement on the improvement in staff
morale. I and other school-site personnel developed some of the increased
academic interventions (SMART program tutoring, Shining Stars Academy, double
blocks of English/Math, etc), while others such as the district’s Beyond the Bell
Saturday Extended Learning Academy were mandated by the district. Sun Valley
Middle School had the largest program in the district, perhaps due to the high staff
morale at the time, or this could be attributed to the “push” to get the school out of
the SSA.
Research Question 6. How can Sun Valley Middle School’s improvement
effort be understood in terms of a framework for
analyzing organizational change efforts in schools?
In referring back to Bolman and Deal’s four frames of leadership, Sun
Valley Middle School’s journey to becoming a highly effective public urban
middle school could not have been accomplished without the principal’s focus on
all four of these frames together: structural, political, symbolic, and human
131
resource. Without a focus on any one of these frames, Sun Valley Middle School
would have fallen apart and taken years to come back to life.
“Structural leaders develop a new model of the relationship of structure,
strategy, and environment for their organization” (Bolman & Deal, 1991). Much
like this, as principal of Sun Valley Middle School, I knew that the structure, my
strategies, and the environment in which we were going to do our work were all
inherently tied together. Therefore, I began to try to change the mind-set of the
students first, the parents second, and the teachers third. I knew that if we created a
student-centered structure with clear behavioral and academic expectations for the
students that we would be on our way to success. I focused on students first
because they are always the easiest to adapt to any type of change on a school site.
Second, I knew that if we were to reach out to our parents, that our parents would
grab hold of us and never let go. Third, the teachers would be the slowest to
change because many of them had been doing the same things the same way for so
many years that it would take something drastic to move them from their comfort
zones.
“Effective structural leaders continually experiment, evaluate, and adapt”
(Bolman & Deal, 1991). The administrative team was continuously trying new
incentive programs, modifying our attendance/tardy policies, experimenting with
various formats for teacher observations, and evaluating the master schedule to
ensure that it was student-centered. This continual process of experiment/evaluate/
132
adapt to do what we needed for the students to be successful became part of the
administrative team’s culture.
In terms of the human resource frame, we had to handle this in a very
delicate manner. The Sun Valley Middle School teachers were, in their words,
“already beaten down” from the previous few years of negative publicity about the
school and the various personal agendas of people that basically tore at the very
core of the school. Bolman and Deal (1991) explained that in the human resource
frame “the leader is viewed as a facilitator and catalyst who motivates and
empowers subordinates to perform at their best. The position does not provide
them the power, the power they possess comes from talent, sensitivity, and
service.” As principal of Sun Valley Middle School, I made it a point to always
communicate to our parents that we have the day shift and they have the night and
weekend shift with their kids. This was always combined with a picture of a
triangle that showed how the parents, school, and students need to work together to
educate the students. The students and parents were truly our clients, and we
always made it a point to treat them as such. Bolman and Deal (1991) also
emphasized that human resource leaders need to be visible and accessible. My
administrative team and I put forth a great effort to be both at Sun Valley Middle
School. The JIA also emphasized that “school leadership needs to supervise and
monitor instruction regularly and effectively” (CDE, Finding 2, A, 2002).
However, being visible and changing a school culture is not just about being in
classrooms; being visible also means being available to all stakeholders.
133
“Mr. Davis talks to a lot of parents. He gets to know them. He spends a lot of time
at school,” 8th grader Denise Perez said. Perez adds, “The previous principal, as
soon as the bell rings, he would leave. Mr. Davis goes out and talks to the parents
and the students” (LA Daily News, July 29, 2002). Math teacher Jose Olivas sees
the visibility as a new way to solve problems at the school. “Back then, most of the
people who were on the top got complacent,” Olivas said. “They saw so much
struggle and decided not to do anything. The last two years, they just gave up.”
Olivas added, “Over the last six months, I have been able to talk to specific people,
about specific problems” (LA Daily News, July 29, 2002).
We also knew that to provide incentives for students to want to be at school
and achieve at higher rates, we had to create programs to make it worthwhile for
them to be at Sun Valley Middle School. According to a 2002 Los Angeles Daily
News article:
Davis typically begins the school day with a pep talk to the entire
student body through the public address system. For example,
urging students “to do the right thing” and reminding them that
“readers are leaders.” Davis also employs an array of recognition
and incentive programs to motivate students and encourage good
behavior. Every student who picks up trash is given a raffle ticket,
and every Friday there is a drawing for prizes ranging from pens
and pencils to Lakers’ T-shirts. Students who excel and do good
deeds also receive recognition and gift certificates every month.
(LA Daily News, July 29, 2002)
Bolman and Deal (1991) also stressed that “human resource leaders
empower: they increase participation, provide support, share information, and
move decision making as far down the organization as possible.” In Finding 5 (A)
134
of the JIA, we were mandated to “develop collaboratively a coherent, ongoing
professional development plan connected to the school plan, which reflects district
plan site-based priorities and individual teacher needs” (CDE, 2002). We
developed a system of “rotating workshops” for professional development sessions
at Sun Valley Middle School. In our department meetings and during common
planning time, our teachers shared best practices and signed up to present
workshops during our Tuesday banked time professional development days. Our
school leadership council also approved a policy proposal of mine that mandated
teachers to present a workshop to the faculty after they have returned from a
conference/seminar that was paid for by school funds.
The political aspects of being principal of an SSA school were wide and
varied. On the positive side, we received assistance from many community and
political leaders. On the other side, many people at school sites throughout the
local district were irritated because we had received so much notoriety for the
improvements we were constantly making. Typical comments I used to hear were
“if I had that much money, I could get in the newspaper all the time too,” or “let’s
see what you would do with no money, superstar.” These comments were from
other principals in local district two, and, thankfully, I received great support from
both Judy Burton and Sue Shannon (who replaced Burton as superintendent)
whenever they would hear the jealous comments start to be made. These two
wonderful superintendents stepped up to support me numerous times during my
tenure at Sun Valley Middle School.
135
“Political leaders clarify what they want and what they can get” (Bolman &
Deal, 1991). In a school setting such as at Sun Valley, clear expectations and
realism were the guiding lights of each day. I had to pick and choose the battles to
fight so I would eventually win the war. In short, I had to be coy and smart
regarding every decision because when dealing with a school that was “beyond
triage” a few months earlier, one hasty decision could kill the patient. “Political
leaders assess the distribution of power and interests” (Bolman & Deal, 1991). I
also had to “think carefully about the players, their interests, and their power.” Sun
Valley Middle School was a political time bomb; therefore, I needed to be sure that
I empowered my stakeholders to a point but did not grant them too much power.
Moreover, I also had to find out my key stakeholders’ best skills and attributes and
place them in jobs where they would allow us to get the biggest bang for our buck,
and, at the same time, help to allow them to be their most productive selves by
being in their comfort zone intellectually. Examples of this were my decisions to
move two great math teachers, two outstanding English teachers, and one excellent
social studies teacher into coordinator/coach positions so that they could have their
talents and skills exposed to all of our students/teachers, and, at the same time, I
hired several new 6th-grade teachers (from elementary schools) for the beginning
of the 2002−03 school year (and again in 2003−04) because 6th grade is the key
year (we have three years to work with them). These were easy political moves
because the teachers I appointed as coordinators were well-liked and respected by
the staff.
136
However, when I moved three of my best English teachers from 8th grade
to 7th grade, I was questioned by my UTLA reps and almost grieved by the union.
My thinking was very clear on this matter: if I have very nurturing, elementary
school-trained 6th-grade teachers to provide our students with an outstanding
fundamental base (especially in reading) to begin middle school with, then I needed
my best “writing teachers” in 7th grade because 7th grade is the year the students
have several writing tasks to complete for the LAUSD and on the CST and CAT-6.
I decided to take this political gamble, and it paid off in three years.
Table 14. Longitudinal AYP Improvements at Sun Valley Middle School
(Language Arts)
***Percent Proficient/Advanced
Subgroups 2002− − − −2003
(As 6
th
graders)***
2003− − − −2004
(As 7
th
graders)***
2004− − − −05
(As 8
th
graders)***
% improvement
over 3-year
period ***
Latino 6.6% 13.5% 21.6% 15%
English Language
Learners
5.8% 10.6% 15.5% 9.7%
Socio-economically
Disadvantaged
7.3% 14.0% 21.9% 14.6%
(Average % per year) (6.1%) (12.7%) (19.7%) (13%)
This group of students, the Class of 2005, excelled and advanced at an
incredible rate in their English/language arts skills. The above data reflects a
statistically significant improvement at the .01 level for the Latino, ELL, and socio-
economically disadvantaged students from this group of students. In fact, Sun
Valley Middle School exhibited the greatest six-year increase (190 points) in its
137
API among all 12 District 2 middle schools (LAUSD, District 2, November, 2005).
Bolman and Deal (1991) also linked the political frame of leadership to building
linkages to other stakeholders and the process of persuading, negotiating, and
coercion.
In my experience at Sun Valley Middle School, because I was dealing with
a staff that felt like and believed that they were “abused” by the former principal, I
first needed to understand their concerns and in what ways they were interested in
turning around this school. This probably made my job a bit easier because I was
privy to information from the state scholastic audit team’s visit in October 2001,
which referred to some of the focus group interviews with staff. This allowed me
to a have a head start on my understanding of their needs as individuals and as a
staff.
The persuasion, negotiation, coercion aspect of this frame was most
appropriately evidenced by the way we worked with staff to try and get them to
“buy-in” to the idea of a seven-period day. My administrative team and I held
period-by-period conference meetings with teachers to discuss the pros and cons of
this schedule; then we held two faculty meetings to discuss this idea; and then we
brought the item to a vote. The faculty agreed to try this for a one-year period as a
pilot project. By the end of the 2004−05 school year, the faculty had voted to
utilize this schedule for the next two years.
Symbolic leadership is the final frame, and sometimes this idea is coupled
with transformational leadership to provide a better understanding of the concept.
138
Burns (1978) described transforming leaders as visionary leaders, and, therefore,
invariably symbolic. I had to be this type of leader at Sun Valley Middle School or
we would not have been able to effect such an impressive change in student
achievement. Symbolic leaders discover and communicate a vision (Bolman &
Deal, 1991). My vision for Sun Valley Middle School was that the kids “can do
anything they want — get straight “A”s. “I want them to believe in themselves and
to know people here care about them and will do anything for them.” (LA Daily
News, July 29, 2002). Symbolic leaders are storytellers who understand what their
constituents want and value and do all they can to make that happen, while always
sticking to their vision. No matter what hurdle we had to jump over at Sun Valley
Middle School, we jumped it, while always keeping our eyes on the prize. The Sun
Valley Middle School story is one of teamwork, high expectations, great hope, and
how to work within four separate leadership frames and stay focused on improving
student achievement each and every day for three and a half years.
139
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
This chapter will consist of four core parts: 1) personal leadership journey;
2) summary of the study including a review of the major purposes, research questions,
and selected findings; 3) conclusions; and 4) implications for additional research.
My Personal Leadership Journey
Bolman and Deal (1991) described four common sense definitions of
leadership. The first is that “leadership is the ability to get others to do what you
want.” The second is that “leaders motivate people to get things done.” The third
is that “leaders provide a vision.” The fourth is that “leadership is really
facilitation.” I believe that to be able to improve student achievement to the levels
that we were able to do at Sun Valley Middle School, I had to utilize each of these
definitions of leadership. Furthermore, as an architect and catalyst for change, I
needed to follow each of the four frames of leadership, structural, human resource,
political, and symbolic, to be able to increase student achievement levels to the
heights we achieved in such a short time span of three years.
The structure of Sun Valley Middle School was dramatically changed in
terms of the master schedule, the establishment of Small Learning Communities
(SLC), and in the duties and responsibilities of the site administrators. However, as
140
Elmore (2004) stated, “Improvement is a process, not an event. Schools don’t
suddenly ‘get better’ and meet their performance targets.”
The meshing of these structural changes, along with changes in the
previously mentioned four frames of leadership, helped bring about change at Sun
Valley Middle School at a much more rapid rate than most thought possible. With
the advent of the seven-period day, additional electives, and the double-block
periods of English for all students except the honors group, the revamped master
schedule enabled us to develop a system of widespread academic opportunities for
our students.
The creation of our “house system” (our version of SLC) for all of our
grade levels, along with the teaming/coring within the houses, helped to develop
more personalized instruction for our students, more time to collaborate for our
teams of teachers (due to common conference periods), and helped to
geographically separate the grade levels on campus, providing a much more
cohesive learning environment for each grade level. Regarding the duties and
responsibilities of site administrators, we assigned two administrators to each track,
allowing them to focus on the houses for that track. Moreover, these administrators
were also assigned either math/science or social studies/English to provide direct
administrative supervision over the core academic departments. The other
academic departments, electives, and P.E. were split between these two
administrators. These administrators were joined by a counselor, dean, and our
141
instructional coaches and coordinators (intervention, bilingual, and Title I) to create
a student support team for each track.
The human resource frame was probably the most difficult frame to modify
due to the teacher’s union contract and other district policies that I had to follow as
principal. However, we were able to develop instructional coherence through the
JIA, commitment letter, and team-building. As Elmore (2004) so aptly stated,
“Accountability systems fail when they fail to command authority and consent on
the part of the people they are designed to influence.” Our teachers became part of
the audit process through several reviews of the JIA, by receiving copies of the
quarterly reviews from the CDE, through discussions at faculty meetings of the
quarterly reviews, and by speaking with the state audit team on its various visits to
our school.
The commitment letter provided the “consent” part of Elmore’s argument.
By signing the commitment letter, our teachers consented to follow through on the
improvement efforts underway at the school. Prior to the audit, Sun Valley Middle
School was organized into isolated departments, much like the traditional high
school in America. By redesigning the school into houses, with interdisciplinary
teacher teams, we knew that we could only pull-off this cultural shift successfully
by having continuous team-building training with our teacher teams. At the end of
each school year (May or June), we had either on- or off-campus retreats where we
utilized “low-risk” team-building teacher training and encouraged teamwork in
basically everything we did. I also rewarded our teachers prior to winter break
142
each year with a surprise gift. One year, I presented all of them with Sun Valley
Middle School windbreaker jackets, while in other years they received personalized
notepads and business cards. I also provided them “kudos from the principal”
notes when I observed an excellent lesson or when I felt they had gone above and
beyond the call of duty.
In terms of the political frame, I worked very closely with my UTLA
chapter chairs and met with them on a daily basis. We had an outstanding working
relationship, and though we did not always see things from the same perspective,
we always put those feelings aside for what was best for Sun Valley Middle
School.
The other political aspect I dealt with at Sun Valley Middle School was that
many local politicians and community groups wanted to help us once they saw that
the school was improving. I had to work much harder than I realized to keep the
various constituencies informed of what we were doing at the school and to ensure
that things did not get too political.
The crowning achievement politically for Sun Valley Middle School was
the April 2005 visit by First Lady of the United States Laura Bush. This visit was
part of her “Helping America’s Youth” tour across the country, where she
highlighted schools and community programs that were making a big impact on
their communities. She selected Sun Valley Middle School for the outstanding
improvements we had made in our English/Language Arts CST scores, with such a
high ESL population and for being in such a gang-infested area. She noted that our
143
Scholastic Read 180 and Language! programs were huge parts of our improvement
in this area, and she also spoke of how, in just three years, we had transformed
ourselves from a school on the brink of state takeover to a school that had shown
tremendous improvements and results. The symbolic frame of my leadership at
Sun Valley Middle School came in the form of our test results each year; the many
visits to our school by politicians, school board members, school district officials,
and by Mrs. Bush (See Appendix O).
These things were symbolic of my leadership and important to our school
because the district had placed a great deal of blind faith in my abilities to help
transform this school. If we did not produce significantly higher test scores each
year, the politicians and school district officials would have been visiting Sun
Valley for negative reasons.
The higher scores and political visits helped to build pride in our school
community, and helped to connect the school with the parents and community.
Elmore (2004) stated:
There are two fundamental design problems with the current
accountability systems that are present in No Child Left Behind.
These are the arbitrary nature of the proficiency targets against
which schools’ performance is measured, and the lack of
correspondence between the straight-line linear expectation for
annual improvement and what we know about how schools
actually improve . . . the important thing to recognize about these
design flaws is that they actually make it more difficult for schools
to improve. Whether the proficiency target is valid, whether or not
the annual performance increments required to meet that target are
reasonable, schools are judged by that standard . . . . The reality is
that this condition makes it extremely risky and difficult for a
school to engage in any improvement effort that doesn’t guarantee
144
immediate gains, which eliminates many of the capacity-building
measures that would ultimately turn these schools around (Elmore,
2004).
Nevertheless, at Sun Valley Middle School, we were able to make dramatic
improvements in a short amount of time, even with these design flaws in NCLB.
The core feature of the school that drives all other improvement efforts is the
student-centered culture. This led Sun Valley Middle School to create a unifying
vision, a challenging curriculum, standards-based instruction and assessment,
professional development for the faculty, collaborative decision-making by key
school stakeholders, and a trusting relationship that made my distributive
leadership style effective.
Summary
Purpose of the Study
The study described and explored how one urban, public middle school,
identified as one of California’s most troubled, turned things around in just 18
months, producing exponential growth in their API and AYP over a three-year
period of time. This study also examined my personal journey as a first-year
principal faced with the task of completely restructuring and reforming this state
scholastic audit school. The areas that were studied included: 1) how student
learning and academic achievement improved after the school was identified as an
SSA school, while working under the parameters of both federal and state
145
accountability systems; 2) ongoing professional development training for teachers;
3) new programs and curriculum structures that shaped the culture and learning
environment for the students; and 4) how this school’s plan can be a framework for
analyzing organizational change efforts, and how I, as principal, was able to affect
such tremendous positive student achievement in three years.
Research Questions to be Answered
The study attempted to answer the following research questions:
1. What was the instructional vision of the school?
2. What resources were available to the school?
3. How did the staff participate in the exponential gains in student achievement
at the school?
4. What are the lessons learned from this school that can be utilized at other
schools that need to double student performance in a short time period?
5. How was Sun Valley Middle School able to produce such exponential and
longitudinal growth in their API and AYP in just three years?
6. How can Sun Valley Middle School’s improvement effort be understood in
terms of a framework for analyzing organizational change efforts in schools?
Discussion of Findings
Overall, the data collected in this case study revealed a phenomenon that
occurred at Sun Valley Middle School. This phenomenon consists of several
different themes, all of which emerged from the various sources of data that were
146
examined. The themes are under the central premise of a student-centered culture.
From that foundation, a unifying vision or identity was formed that developed
dynamically and collectively as a byproduct of the JIA. From that point, I worked
to develop a rigorous standards-based curriculum, focused instruction and
meaningful assessment, distributive leadership, collaboration with parents and
community, ongoing professional development, and a democratic decision-making
culture.
Unifying Vision
The tools used to collect the data all reflected that a unifying vision led to
the exponential growth in student literacy and academic achievement at Sun Valley
Middle School. The data collection tools portray a school that was one of the
original 10 SSA schools in the state of California, a school perennially described as
low-performing (API in the low 400’s), where rigorous, standards-based instruction
did not exist in most classrooms, and where student behavior was out of control.
With the onset of the JIA, the school district hired me, feeling that I was a
charismatic, resourceful, and active leader. The vision that was created under my
administration empowered the teaching staff, motivated the students and parents,
and energized the school community in a collective effort to turn around the school.
The motto of “The students don’t care what you know, until they know that you
care” became a rallying point to focus on student affect as well as the standards.
This attitude created a mind-set and belief that all students can achieve academic
147
success and that they will reach the high expectations presented to them. These
expectations are evident in the data tools.
Rigorous Standards-based Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
The data collected also reflects a schoolwide focus on a rigorous standards-
based curriculum, instruction, and assessment. All teachers and administrators
interviewed and surveyed revealed the wide-ranging, schoolwide efforts for
standards-based lessons, interdisciplinary projects, and culminating tasks that were
created with the assistance of many hours of professional development training in
backwards planning, co-planning/co-teaching, and standards-based lesson design.
Most teachers reported that the ongoing professional development training they
received from ALS and the training from their peers in the Sun Valley Middle
School rotating workshop design assisted them in being able to produce these types
of learning experiences for their students. They also indicated that the instructional
coaches (literacy/math), the coordinators (Bilingual/Title I), and the administrators
that were assigned to each of the three tracks were effective in focusing them on
specific aspects of instruction.
Through the central and local districts, the school utilized periodic
assessments in math and English to measure student progress throughout the school
year each quarter. These assessments were based on the district’s pacing plans for
both content areas and are similar to the California Standards Tests (CST) in
content, format, and structure. Though the survey data indicated mixed results in
terms of the effectiveness of these assessments, nevertheless, students are receiving
148
more experience taking standardized-type tests and the teachers receive information
regarding which standards their students are struggling with. These assessments
provide the teachers opportunities to modify their instruction or to “spiral back”
and re-teach the content to ensure that the students are learning the concepts and
standards.
Professional Development
Professional Development (PD) also became a practical, relevant part of the
culture of the school in which teachers were able to utilize the various strategies
they were learning and put them to use in their classrooms. The ongoing assistance
from ALS was especially effective, as indicated by the teacher surveys. The
instructional support staff (instructional coaches, coordinators, administrators, and
department chairs) sustained the effort and provided critical feedback to the faculty
and administration.
Democratic Decision-making Culture
Sun Valley had a tradition of top-down administrative style that had caused
a great deal of anxiety between the teaching staff and the previous administrators.
With the onset of shared decision-making in the mid 1990’s, both sides struggled to
gain an advantage at the school. From 2000 to late 2002, the decision-making
processes at the school were at a standstill due to a rift between the site union
representative (chapter chair) and the principal. The JIA mandated that the union
representative be moved off of the campus and also mandated that the site principal
149
be removed. This created the perfect opportunity for myself, as the new principal,
and the new union representative, to forge an effective working relationship. This
happened immediately and as aforementioned, a powerful part of the school’s
success was our ability to move to a seven-period day, implement school uniforms
for students, and allow teachers to create and teach new elective classes.
Due to the positive working relationship and democratic decision-making
culture that has been developed, the school continued to work under the school-
based management (SBM) plan, despite not legally having to because of the JIA.
This created even more respect for myself as principal and showed my desire to
work collaboratively with all stakeholders.
Distributive Leadership
A major factor that is also evident through the various data collection tools
is the idea of distributive leadership. Distributive leadership is the glue of a
common task or goal (improvement of instruction) and a common frame of values
for how to approach the “task-culture” (Elmore, 2000). This became quite evident
through an examination of the teacher surveys. Most of the teachers surveyed saw
my leadership style as distributive, one in which collaboration, teamwork,
empowerment, and cooperation were part of the culture at Sun Valley. The surveys
reported that I was able to empower staff to provide leadership both formally and
informally.
150
Selected Findings
Through the analysis of the data, the following major findings resulted:
1. An overwhelming majority of teachers were familiar with the JIA and the
corrective actions that needed to be met.
2. Most teachers who participated in the former site principal’s survey indicated
that they understood the urgency (18 months) of how quickly Sun Valley
Middle School needed to turn around.
3. Most teachers who participated in any of the surveys indicated that after the
JIA and the new principal took over, they were visited much more frequently
in their classrooms by administrators.
4. Most teachers who participated in the ASCD survey indicated that they have
high expectations of their students.
5. Most teachers who participated in the former site principal’s survey indicated
that they believe collaborative decision-making is now part of the school
culture.
6. Teachers at Sun Valley Middle School have had a multitude of professional
development opportunities such as professional development sessions,
common planning time, and ongoing training from ALS.
7. Teachers at the school site generally felt more empowered than they felt
under the previous administration.
8. Most teachers believe that the working culture of the school is now one of
positive relationships.
151
9. Teachers at the school site believe that the ongoing support from ALS and
the instructional support staff has led to higher student achievement in their
classes.
10. Teachers are not satisfied with the level of parent involvement at the school,
though they believe that the level of involvement has improved since the
audit.
Conclusions
On the basis of the findings, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. Together with the local district administrators, I communicated the JIA and
specific corrective actions to the school faculty on a consistent basis over
time. In addition, the site UTLA reps, local district administrators, and
myself, were able to communicate the urgency of meeting all corrective
actions within the set time limits.
2. During the time of the audit administrators performed more classroom
observations and communicated the need for teachers to have high
expectations for their students.
3. As new principal, through my style of distributive leadership, I was able to
develop collaborative decision making at the school and facilitated the onset
of additional professional development opportunities, ongoing trainings
through ALS, and common planning time. I allowed teachers to become
152
empowered, by having them develop course descriptions and syllabi for new
elective courses and by allowing them to develop curriculum for double periods of
English/Language Arts and targeted mathematics intervention.
4. A positive school culture developed healthy working relationships amongst
the adults, and between the adults, students, and their families. Coupled with
increased parent involvement, and support from ALS, instructional coaches,
coordinators, counselors, and assistant principals, the school was able to
focus on increasing student achievement.
Implications
The following implications are suggested from the results of this study:
1. Any underachieving school would benefit from an independent audit of its
practices so that it can begin to improve the services that they are providing
to all stakeholders and to develop an action plan for these improvements.
2. The plan must have benchmarks and deadlines that are determined from the
outset and the plan and goals must be communicated on a consistent basis to
all stakeholders.
3. For any school improvement plan to succeed in terms of students doubling
their performance the following must be present: teachers must
communicate high expectations to their students, administrators must
consistently be in classrooms, teachers must feel empowered as change
agents, meaningful and relevant professional development must become part
153
of the school culture and collaborative decision-making must be
implemented to create real improvement.
4. In terms of overarching ideals, there must be a positive working culture and
climate that all stakeholders feel for change to occur, and the school must
develop ways to get the parents more involved.
A case study of one of the original 10 SSA schools in the LAUSD situated
in a low-socioeconomic area of the northeast San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles
demonstrates the various elements of what truly impacts academic achievement in
urban public schools. These elements include: 1) building a positive school
culture and family atmosphere with all stakeholders; 2) developing a belief in all
stakeholders that the school can be successful; 3) creating a plan of action,
communicating this plan to all stakeholders, and providing pre-determined
benchmarks and deadlines for successful implementation of the plan; monitoring
classroom instruction on a consistent basis; 4) providing meaningful ongoing
training to all teachers; 5) empowering teachers; 6) building a culture of
collaborative decision-making; 7) standards-based instruction in all classes;
8) increased parent involvement; and, most importantly, 9) communicating high
expectations to all stakeholders.
While there continue to be many underperforming schools throughout Los
Angeles, California, and the nation, these schools would benefit from following the
practical, structured plan that allowed Sun Valley Middle School to move from
154
underperforming to a school recognized for gains in student achievement from
Laura Bush, the First Lady of the United States.
In July 2005, I was promoted to a high school principal-ship in a different
local district of the LAUSD. Before my departure from Sun Valley Middle School
it was my recommendation that the new principal be selected from my
administrative team. My Sun Valley Middle School administrators were familiar
with the history of the improvements, the school culture, and the JIA. I felt very
strongly that the only way to maintain and enhance the improvements made was to
choose a leader from our original team who would stay consistent to the
benchmarks and corrective actions of the audit and would continue to guide the
school in a positive direction. My administrative staff was greatly respected by
most of our faculty due to their hands-on approach on a daily basis. It was my
concern that all Sun Valley Middle School stakeholders had experienced such
tremendous change over the past three and a half years, that the last thing they
needed was someone from the outside leading them in a different direction.
As it turned out, District 2 had selected a seasoned principal from another
middle school to lead Sun Valley Middle School. Although this principal was
greatly respected and had a strong following from his previous middle school, he
didn’t have any knowledge or experience with the state audit to guide him in his
choices at Sun Valley Middle School. Therefore, he chose to eliminate some of the
key programs that were critical to the school’s success during the time of the audit.
These decisions resulted in a decrease of employee morale (high number of
155
teacher/clerical transfers), an increase in student discipline problems, and a drop in
the school’s API (6 points) during the 2005-2006 testing cycle (www.cde.ca.gov/
2005/api). Interestingly, many Sun Valley Middle School teachers who were at
one time resistant to any change, did not want to move away from the JIA for they
had experienced first-hand the positive gains in student achievement. I truly
believe that their experience through the audit process has made them more
thoughtful of their educational practices.
The key factor in ensuring that a state audited school continues to improve
is the threat of “being shut down” and “being taken over” by the state department
of education. Although it is important to reward the successes of a school that is
improving, it is very necessary for the state to continue to make their presence
known by requiring quarterly monitoring visits to provide the external impetus
needed for any school to understand the seriousness of the situation. These visits,
as part of a probationary period, should continue for many years after a school exits
from an audit. This probationary period is necessary to ensure that any new leaders
who were not involved in the audit, continue the positive aspects of change.
Without this external impetus, a Sun Valley Middle School type of plan, and strong
site principal leadership, schools will most likely travel in a circle, only to end up
where they began.
156
REFERENCES
Abcarian, R. (2005, April 28). First Lady touts programs for youth. Los Angeles
Times, pp. B3.
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2005). What Works in
Schools. Retrieved April 18, 2005, from http://www.whatworksinschools.
org/.
Bell, J.A. (2001). High performing, high poverty schools. Leadership 31(1), 8-11.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice,
and Leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burton, J.I. (2005). Personal interview: Los Angeles, California.
California Department of Education. (2000). School Report API. Sun Valley
Middle School. Retrieved August 7, 2005, from CDE Web site: http://api.
cde.ca.gov/reports/API4_new.asp/.
- - - - -. (2001). School Report API. Sun Valley Middle School. Retrieved August
7, 2005, from CDE Web site: http://api.cde.ca.gov/reports/APIG_sch.asp/.
- - - - -. (2002). School Report /API Report. Sun Valley Middle School. Retrieved
August 7, 2005, from CDE Web site: http://api.cde.ca.gov/reports/
2001Base_Sch.asp/.
- - - - -. (2002). California Academic Audit. On-site Investigation Audit Tool.
Retrieved August 21, 2005, from CDE Web site: http://www.cde.ca.gov.
- - - - -. (2002). Joint Intervention Agreement. Received from state audit team.
- - - - -. (2002). Map of the California Academic Audit Process. Received from
state audit team.
- - - - -. (2002). STAR School Summary Report. Sun Valley Middle School.
Retrieved September 3, 2005, from CDE Web site: http://star.cde.ca.gov/
star2002/report.asp/.
- - - - -. (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005). California English Language Development
Test. Sun Valley Middle School. Retrieved August 21, 2005, from CDE
Web site: http://celdt/cde.ca.gov/CELDT2003/CELDT/CELDT03_Sch.
asp/.
157
- - - - -. (2003). School Report /API Growth. Sun Valley Middle School.
Retrieved August 7, 2005, from CDE Web site: http://api.cde.ca.gov/
reports/2002Grth_Sch.asp/.
- - - - -. (2003). STAR Testing Report. Sun Valley Middle School. Retrieved
August 21, 2005, from CDE Web site: http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2003/
ReportPanel.asp/.
- - - - -. (2004). School API Growth Report. Sun Valley Middle School. Retrieved
August 21, 2005, from CDE Web site: http://api.cde.ca.gov/reports/API/
2003Grth_Sch.asp/.
- - - - -. (2004). School Report /API Growth. Sun Valley Middle School.
Retrieved August 7, 2005, from CDE Web site: http://api.cde.ca.gov/
reports/API/2003Grth_Sch.asp/.
- - - - -. (2004). STAR Testing Report. Sun Valley Middle School. Retrieved
August 21, 2005, from CDE Web site: http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2004/
ReportPanel.asp/.
- - - - -. (2005). Educational Demographics. Sun Valley Middle School.
Retrieved October 16, 2005, from CDE Web site: http://data1.cde.ca.gov/
dataquest/ Cbeds4.asp/.
- - - - -. (2005). Program Improvement. Retrieved January 16, 2006, from CDE
Web site: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/ programimprov.asp/.
- - - - -. (2005). School API Growth Report. Sun Valley Middle School. Retrieved
August 7, 2005, from CDE Web site: http://api.cde.ca.gov/reports/API/
2004Grth_Sch_asp/.
- - - - -. (2005). School AYP Accountability Progress Report. Retrieved August
21, 2005, from CDE Web site: http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/apr2004/API/
2004API_Progress_sch2.asp/.
- - - - -. (2005). School Adequate Yearly Progress Report. Sun Valley Middle
School. Retrieved September 3, 2005, from CDE Web site: http://ayp.cde.
ca.gov/reports/APR/2005APR_Sch_ AYP_Report.asp/.
- - - - -. (2005). Spotlight on STAR 2005. Retrieved September 3, 2005, from CDE
Web site: http://star.cde.ca.gov/star.
- - - - -. (2005). STAR Testing Report. Sun Valley Middle School. Retrieved
January 16, 2006, from CDE Web site: http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2005/
ReportPanel.asp/.
158
- - - - -. (2005). Supplemental Educational Services. Retrieved January 16, 2006,
from CDE Web site: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ ta/ac/ti/supplemental.asp/.
- - - - -. (2005). Talking Points for Local Educational Agencies. Retrieved January
16, 2006, from CDE Web site: http://www. cde.ca.gov/api.
- - - - -. (2005). Title I PI Status Determinations. Retrieved January 16, 2005,
from CDE Web site: http://www.cde.ca. gov/ta/ac/ay/tidermine.asp/.
- - - - - (2006). School Report API Base, Ranks, and Targets. Sun Valley Middle
School. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from CDE Web site: http://www.api.
cde.ca.gov/APIBase2006/2005BaseSch.asp/.
- - - - -. (2006). Who Receives an API? Retrieved January 16, 2005, from CDE
Web site: http://www.cde.ca.gov/api.
Chrisman, V. (2005). How schools sustain success. Educational Leadership
62(5), 16-20.
Conchas, G.Q. (2001). How to Explain Latino Students’ Poor Academic
Achievement? School Factors should Play an Important Role. Retrieved
July 3, 2005, from NCREL Web site: http://www.ncrel.org/gap/library/
text/howto.htm./.
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and Student Achievement: What the Research Says.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Covey, S. (1991). The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
DuFour, R.I., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R.E. (2005). On Common Ground.
Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
EdSource. (2005). Holding School Districts Accountable. Mountain View, CA:
Author.
EdData. (2005). Sun Valley Middle School: School Profile. Retrieved August 7,
2005, from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/profile.asp/.
159
Elmore, R.F. (2004). Doing the Right Thing, Knowing the Right Thing to Do: The
Problem of Failing Schools and Performance-based Accountability.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education and the
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Elmore, R.F. (2000). Building a New Structure for School Leadership.
Washington, D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute.
Gall, M.P., Borg, W.R., & Gall, J.P. (2003). Educational Research: An
Introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gao, H. (2002, July 29). School is learning the lesson. Los Angeles Daily News.
Retrieved February 18, 2006, from http://www.freerepublic.com/
focus/news/.
Goldring, L. (2002). The power of school culture. Leadership 41(6), 32-34.
Karp, S. (2006). Band-aids or bulldozers: what’s next for NCLB? Rethinking
Schools 20(3), 10-13.
Lambert, L. (2005). Leadership for lasting reform. Educational Leadership 62(5),
62-65.
Lashway, L. (1995). What is Facilitative Leadership? Reston, VA: National
Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin.
Los Angeles Daily News. (2002, April 24). Fixing education [editorial].
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2004). Addressing the Challenge: The Los
Angeles Unified School District Accountability Plan for Implementing No
Child Left Behind.
- - - - -. (2004). Local District 2, Tables 1-7, Closing the Achievement Gap.
- - - - -. (2005). District 2 API Six-year Report (ranked). Local District 2.
- - - - -. (2005). Local District 2 Accountability Report Card. Retrieved
September 10, 2005, from LAUSD Web site: http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/
cgi-bin/fccgi.exe/.
- - - - -. (2005). LAUSD Profile. Retrieved September 10, 2005, from LAUSD
Web site: http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/.
160
National Education Association. (2004). Organizations Urge Major Changes for
“No Child Left Behind.” Retrieved April 8, 2006, from NEA Web site:
http://ww.nea.org/newsreleases/2004/.
- - - - -. (2006). School Improvement. Retrieved April 8, 2006, from NEA Web
site: http://www.nea.org/esea/eseaschools.html/.
Newman, F.M. (2001). Improving Chicago’s Schools: School Instructional
Coherence: Benefits and Challenges. Chicago, IL: Consortium on
Chicago School Research.
Odden, A. & Picus, L. (2006). An Evidenced-Based Approach to School Finance
Adequacy in Washington. North Hollywood, CA: Washington
Learns/Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
- - - - -. (2006). Washington Learns: Successful District Study. North Hollywood,
CA: Washington Learns/Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
Public Agenda. (2001). Trying to Stop Ahead of the Game: Superintendents and
Principals Talk About School Leadership (pp. 37-40). Washington, D.C.:
The Wallace Foundation.
- - - - -. (2003). Rolling Up Their Sleeves: Superintendents and Principals Talk
About What’s Needed to Fix Public Schools (pp. 49-71). Washington, D.C.:
The Wallace Foundation.
Public Works, Inc. (2003). We Did It Together: The Rapid Rise and
Transformation of Sun Valley Middle School. Pasadena, CA.
Richardson, J. (1999). High poverty doesn’t have to mean low performance (p.4.).
RESULTS Newsletter: National Staff Development Council.
Risling, G. (2005, April 28). Laura Bush encourages at-risk youth in state visit to
avoid gangs, drugs. The Desert Sun, p. A3.
- - - - -. (2005, April 28). They Need Us. Riverside Press-Enterprise, p.A3.
Schmoker, M. (2001). The Results Fieldbook: Practical Strategies from
Dramatically Improved School (p. 101-119). Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
- - - - -. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive instructional
improvement. Phi Delta Kappan 85(6), 424-432.
161
Sturrock, C. & Asimov, N. (2005). California: 320 More Schools Placed on
Probation.
Retrieved April 8, 2006, from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/.
Tirozzi, G.N. (2001). The artistry of leadership: The evolving role of the
secondary school principal. Phi Delta Kappan 82(6), 434-449.
Tornatzky, L.G. (2003). Closing Achievement Gaps: Improving Educational
Outcomes for Hispanic Children. Los Angeles, CA: Tomas Rivera Policy
Institute: University of Southern California.
Trimble, S. (2003). Research-based classroom practices and student achievement.
Middle School Journal 35(1), 52-58.
Tucker, M.S. (2004). Hire ed: The secret to making Bush’s school reform law
work? More bureaucrats. Washington Monthly. Retrieved April 8, 2006,
from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles.
Waters, J.T., Marzano, R.J., & McNulty, B.A. (2003). Balanced Leadership:
What 30 Years of Research Tells Us About the Effect of Leadership on
Student Achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education
and Learning.
Wiley, E.C., Mathis, W.J., & Garcia, D.R. (2005). NCLB AYP: Fail Now or Fail
Later. Tempe, AZ: Great Lakes Center for Educational Research and the
Education Policy Studies Laboratory.
United States Department of Education. (2004). No Child Left Behind: A Toolkit
for Teachers. Washington, D.C.
Valentine, J.W., Maher, M.C., Quinn, D.M., & Irvin, J.L. (1999). The changing
roles of effective middle school principals. Middle School Journal 30(5),
53-56.
162
A P P E N DI C E S
163
APPENDIX A
TABLES REPRESENTING PERCENTAGES OF STUDENTS’ SCORES
Percent of Students Scoring at Each Proficiency Level
California English Language Arts Standards Test, 2001 & 2002
Grade Level / Year
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Proficiency Level
2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002
Advanced 1 1 0 0 1 1
Proficient 4 6 5 7 6 8
Basic 25 27 28 24 30 31
Below Basic 34 29 34 33 31 29
Far Below Basic 36 37 32 36 33 32
Percent of Students Scoring at Each Proficiency Level
California Mathematics Standards Tests, 2002
Grade Level
General Mathematics Proficiency Level
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Algebra I
Advanced 1 2 0 3
Proficient 8 9 5 25
Basic 21 22 28 38
Below Basic 48 44 49 27
Far Below Basic 22 23 18 6
164
Percentage of 6
th
Grade Students Scoring At or Above the 50
th
Percentile and Average Percentile Rank
Sun Valley Middle School vs. Los Angeles Unified School District
Grade 6 Percent At or Above 50
th
Percentile Average National Percentile Rank (NPR)
Year Reading Math Language Spelling Reading Math Language Spelling
Sun Valley Middle School
1999 11% 18% 19% 13% 20 26 22 18
2000 16% 23% 18% 15% 23 28 22 21
2001 17% 26% 21% 18% 25 31 24 23
2002 19% 25% 30% 22% 25 28 30 25
LAUSD
1999 24% 30% 31% 24% 28 34 32 26
2000 25% 32% 34% 27% 30 37 35 30
2001 27% 35% 37% 30% 32 39 38 33
2002 29% 39% 41% 34% 33 42 41 37
Source: California Department of Education, http://star.cde.ca.gov
164
165
APPENDIX B
CALIFORNIA STANDARDIZED TESTING AND REPORTING (STAR) /
ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
Sun Valley Middle School
All Students
Total Enrollment on First Day of Testing: 2,788 County Name: Los Angeles County
Total Number Tested: 2,790 District Name: Los Angeles Unified District
Total Number Tested in Selected Subgroup: 2,790 School Name: Sun Valley Middle School
California Standards Test Scores – 2005
Grades
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 EOC
Reported enrollment 957 807 1024
CST English-Language Arts
Students Tested 953 798 1016
% of Enrollment 99.6% 98.9% 92.5%
Mean Scale Score 307.8 316.0 309.4
% Advanced 4% 3% 3%
% Proficient 13% 22% 17%
% Basic 35% 37% 37%
% Below Basic 29% 23% 29%
% Far Below Basic 19% 14% 15%
CST Mathematics
Students Tested 952 796
% of Enrollment 99.5% 986%
Mean Scale Score 307.6 302.5
% Advanced 5% 3%
% Proficient 17% 16%
% Basic 25% 26%
% Below Basic 36% 36%
% Far Below Basic 16% 19%
CST General Mathematics
(Grades 6 & 7 Standards)
Students Tested 872 872
% of Enrollment 85.2%
166
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
District B
Sun Valley Middle School – Assessment of Academic Strengths and Weaknesses
Sun Valley Middle School has made steady academic progress over the past four
years, as measured by the California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
system date and the district’s School Performance Indicators. This document
provides a brief outline of the school population and academic trends, including an
analysis of strengths and weaknesses at Sun Valley Middle School over the past
four years.
School Population and Academic Trends, 1998-1999 to 2001-2002
Enrollment and Attendance
• Enrollment increased ≈ 10%
• In-seat attendance rate increased
• Suspension and Expulsion rates increased
• Drop-out rate increased
Staffing
• Decrease in the percent of continuing/permanent teachers (less than 45%)
• Increase in percent of probationary/provisional teachers
• Average years of teaching experience decreased
Academic Performance Trends
• API – exceeded growth targets for all but one subgroup in 2001, which did
not meet its target
• English Language Arts Content Standards – more than 90% of students
not proficient
• Mathematics Content Standards – in general mathematics, 89% to 95%
of students not proficient; 28% proficient or advanced in Algebra I
• SAT-9 Reading – small but steady increase in average percentile rank and
percent of students at or above the 50
th
percentile in grades 6 and 8; initial
increase in grade 7 turned to decrease in 2002
• SAT-9 Math – increase in average percentile rank and percent of students
at or above the 50
th
percentile in all grades over 1998-99 levels, although
grade 6 showed a slight decrease in 2002
• SAT-9 Language – increase in average percentile rank and percent of
students at or above the 50
th
percentile at all grade levels; strong growth
seen in grades 6 and 8 in 2002
167
• Grade 7 California Standards Writing Test – only 3% of students scored
fully proficient (6 or higher)
• District Language Arts Performance Assignment – increase in percent of
students scoring proficient or advanced in grades 7 and 8; decrease in grade
6
• English Language Development – percent of English learner students
reclassified as proficient decreased to only two-thirds of district average in
2001
• California English Language Development Test – 83% to 90% of
English learners at each grade level scored below the Early Advanced (level
4) proficiency level on the 2001 annual assessment
Strengths
Improving Student Achievement in Math and Language — Small but steady gains
in average percentile rank and percent of students scoring at or above the 50
th
percentile over the past four years.
Algebra I Content Standards — 28% of the 203 eighth grade Sun Valley students
tested scored proficient or advanced on Algebra I standards test, compared to 22%
for LAUSD. Only 33% scored below basic, compared to 47% throughout LAUSD.
Academic Progress for Hispanic/Latino Students — API growth targets for this
subgroup were exceeded each of the past two years.
Weaknesses
English Language Arts Standards — 69% to 76% of Sun Valley MS students
scored below basic on the California English-Language Arts Standards Test.
English Language Development — The percent of English Learner students
redesignated to Fluent English Proficient (R-FEP) decreased over the three-year
period. The percent of English Learners scoring at or above the 50
th
percentile on
Stanford-9 tests was well below that of English proficient students, and 90% scored
below basic on the English Language Arts Standards test.
Staffing — Fewer teachers have continuing/permanent status, and average years of
teaching experience schoolwide has decreased to 7.7 years. More than 30% of
teachers in 2001-2002 had emergency credentials.
168
APPENDIX C
JOINT INTERVENTION AGREEMENT [COVER PAGE]
JOINT INTERVENTION AGREEMENT
California Department of Education
Los Angeles Unified School District
District B
Sun Valley Middle School
Progress Toward Benchmark Findings
Fifth Quarter Report – March 31, 2003
169
APPENDIX D
CERTIFICATED STAFF LETTER OF COMMITMENT
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Local District B
CERTIFICATED STAFF LETTER OF COMMITMENT
Joint Intervention Agreement between the
California Department of Education and the
Los Angeles Unified School District for
Sun Valley Middle School
I, _____________________ certificated staff member at Sun Valley Middle School, commit to
participate as a member of the learning community in the implementation of the Joint Intervention
Agreement between the California Department of Education and the Log Angeles Unified School
district, Local District B.
I understand that this is a letter of commitment of action and support with the express purpose of
assuring the highest quality of teaching and learning to meet the expectations of the students,
parents, LAUSD, and the California State Department of Education.
I commit to work toward the successful implementation and meeting of the benchmarks every 90
days of the eighteen-month monitoring period beginning March 30, 2002 and ending June 30,2003.
I further commit to the implementation of the raining strategies including ongoing assessments and
data analysis. I commit to actively participate in common planning meetings with colleagues during
the eighteen-month monitoring period.
Commitment to Specific Benchmark Actions
I commit participate in the professional development and implementation activities sponsored by
LAUSD Local District B and Sun Valley Middle School including:
• Five to fifteen day s of paid professional development to take place outside the school
calendar.
• The Principles of Learning (Clear Expectations, Academic Rigor, Accountable Talk) and
Learning Walks
• Standards-based Instruction, Criteria and Rubric Development Related to Content Area
Standards
• Secondary Literacy Plan training and implementation including content literacy strategies,
lesson study/lesson design
• SDAIE methods to ensure access to learning for English Language Learners
• Support the School’s tardy, discipline, and attendance improvement policies for students
• Parents as Learning Partners training and ongoing communication with parents
170
I recognize and understand that this is not a legally binding contract and shall not and does not
create any legal obligation or duty enforceable by law. I agree to this Letter of Commitment in the
spirit of professionalism and cooperation.
Employee Name __________________________________ Employee Number _______________
Employee Signature _______________________________ Date __________________________
Credentials(s) ____________________________________ Status _________________________
I prefer to be reassigned ____________________________________________________________
171
APPENDIX E
ATTACHMENT: DATA TABLES AND CHARTS
Enrollment by Grade Level
Academic Year
Grade
1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002
Sixth 919 918 951 1,031
Seventh 824 920 904 939
Eighth 780 816 916 892
Ungraded 144 156 145 123
Total 2,667 2,810 2,916 2,985
Source: California Department of Education, DataQuest – http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Attendance, Suspension, Expulsion, Drop-out Rates; Comparison to LAUSD
Academic Year
1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 Measure
Sun Valley LAUSD Sun Valley LAUSD Sun Valley LAUSD Sun Valley LAUSD
Avg. In-Seat
Attendance
91.41 92.44 92.29 92.73 92.82 92.83 93.90 93.24
Suspension Rate 3.52 8.13 3.02 8.28 7.06 8.81 7.91 10.50
Expulsion Rate 0.26 0.09 0.40 0.08 0.41 0.09
Drop-out Rate 0.60 1.77 0.50 1.93 1.30 2.16
Sources: Sun Valley Middle School online School Performance Indicator report and School Accountability Report Card.
Both are available through the LAUSC Website – http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us
171
172
Number and Percent of Teachers by Status Category
1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002
Teacher Status
Number of
Teachers
Avg. Expr
& pct of
Teachers
Number
of
Teachers
Avg. Expr
& pct of
Teachers
Number of
Teachers
Avg. Expr
& pct of
Teachers
Number of
Teachers
Avg. Expr
& pct of
Teachers
All Teacher Statuses 100 9.45 yrs. 114 8.5 yrs. 125 7.6 yrs. 123 7.7 yrs.
Continuing/Permanent 58 58.0% 53 46.5% 53 42.4% 55 44.7%
District Intern 6 6.0% 8 7.0% 8 6.4% 5 4.1%
Probationary 13 13.0% 21 18.4% 29 23.2% 30 24.4%
Provisional 22 22.0% 31 27.2% 31 24.8% 31 25.2%
Substitute 1 1.0% 1 0.9% 2 1.6% --- ---
University Intern --- --- --- --- 2 1.6% 2 1.6%
Source: LAUSC Decision Support System (DSS)
Academic Performance Index Base and Growth, 1999-2001
1999
Base
2000 Growth
Target / Actual
2000
Base
2001 Growth
Target / Actual
2001
Base
2002 Growth
Target
All Students 426 19 / 17 443 18 / 24 478 16
Hispanic / Latino 420 15 / 16 436 14 / 26 473 13
White, not Hispanic --- --- 545 14 / 1 549 13
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
432 15 / 11 443 14 / 25 478 13
- ‘White, not Hispanic’ was not considered a significant subgroup in the 1999 Base year.
Source: California Department of Education, http://api.cde.ca.gov/
172
173
APPENDIX F
SNAPSHOT SURVEY OF SCHOOL EFFETIVENESS FACTORS
(SCHOOL FOCUS): TOP TEN ITEMS
Item Test Mean Mean Mean
49 Ask students to revise and correct errors in 2.57 3.03 2.27
their notes as a way of reviewing and
revising content
16 Appropriate consequences for violation of 2.63 2.91 2.49
schoolwide rules and procedures have been
established and implemented
33 Systematically ask students to keep track of 2.57 2.94 2.51
their own performance on the learning goals.
28 Students are provided with opportunities 2.67 2.94 2.57
to construct and work on long-term
projects of their own design.
27 Students are involved in simulation games 2.36 2.93 2.59
and activities that are inherently engaging.
29 Students are provided with training 2.05 3.01 2.60
regarding the dynamics of motivation
and how those dynamics affect them.
17 A program that teaches and reinforces 2.36 3.07 2.61
student self-discipline and responsibility
has been implemented.
8 Specific achievement goals are set for 2.61 2.93 2.61
individual students.
18 A system for early detection of students 2.19 3.03 2.63
who are prone to violence and extreme
behavior has been implemented.
22 Training and support are provided to parents 2.30 3.11 2.74
to enhance their communication with their
children, their supervision of their children,
and their parenting style.
174
APPENDIX G
CONSENT FORM FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH / SUN VALLEY
MIDDLE SCHOOL SURVEY
University of Southern California
CONSENT FORM FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
A Case Study of the factors that contributed to the rapid ride and
transformation of Sun Valley Middle School, a State Scholastic Audit School
from February 2002 through June 2005
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Jeffrey A.
Davis, doctoral candidate in the Educational Leadership Program in the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, under
the supervision of Dr. Lawrence Picus.
You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you were at
the school during the time of the State Scholastic Audit, arrived shortly after
or have global knowledge about he state audit process at Sun Valley Middle
School.
• PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Sun Valley Middle School produced exponentially higher standardized test
scores, re-designation rates for English Language Learners and attendance
rates, and significantly closed the Achievement Gap during the time period of
February 2002 through June 2005. This study seeks to investigate what
accounted for such a radical improvement in student achievement at the
school. Using observations, previous surveys, and retrospective interviews,
this study will focus on how a specific school changed and what specific actions
and beliefs at the school led to higher student achievement.
• PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete the
enclosed survey and return it with this consent form to Hope Tropper, SSA at
Sun Valley Middle School. Ms. Tropper will, in turn, return the paperwork to
me at Chatsworth High School.
175
• POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR SOCIETY
You may not benefit directly from the study, but the District as a whole and
especially District 2 may gain in-sight into successful practices that helped to
exponentially improve this State Scholastic Audit school in such a short time
period.
• CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed ONLY with
your permission.
• IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact Jeffrey A. Davis at (818) 341-6211 x201 at work or at
jdavis16@lausd.,12.ca.us via e-mail. You may also contact me at Chatsworth High
School, 10027 Lurline Avenue, Chatsworth, CA 91311.
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
I understand the procedures described above. My questions have been
answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.
____________________________
Name of Subject
____________________________
Name of Legal Representative (if applicable)
____________________________ _______________
Signature of Subject of Legal Representative Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR (Researcher)
In my judgment the subject is voluntarily and knowingly giving informed
consent and possesses the legal capacity to give informed consent to participate
in this research study.
____________________________ _______________
Signature of Investigator (Researcher) Date
176
Thank you very much in advance for participating.
Jeffrey A. Davis
177
SUN VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL
SURVEY
Directions: Consider each of the following questions regarding SVMS during the State Audit
process. Use the scale below to rate the effectiveness of the following at Sun Valley during the
time period of February 2002 through June 2005, as compared to the previous three years at
the school (1999-2002) prior to the state audit.
Please circle the appropriate number for each response.
SCALE: 1 – Not effective; 2 – Low degree of effectiveness; 3 – Moderate effectiveness;
4 – High degree of effectiveness; 5 – I don’t know
1. Administrators supervising/monitoring classroom 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
instruction regularly.
2. Teachers receiving meaningful professional development 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
opportunities.
3. A large increase in academic intervention opportunities 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
for students.
4. The school utilizing student date to inform instruction. 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
5. School administrators empowering teachers to teach 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
elective courses.
6. SVMS teachers understanding the school improvement 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
Goals in the audit plan.
7. Professional development regarding alignment of 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
instruction with the state academic content standards.
8. Professional development highlighted effective teaching 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
practices.
9. Staff moral from February 2002 – June 2005. 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
10. Student attitudes from February 2002 – June 2005. 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
11. The site principal’s leadership during that time period 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
12. Student leadership opportunities from February 2002 - 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
June 2005.
13. The interdisciplinary teaming at all grade levels and 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
Improved student achievement.
14. Parents becoming more involved in their education of 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
their child through increased outreach to the parents.
15. Students receiving double blocks of English Language Arts 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
16. Students feeling more safe at school. 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
17. Increased use of technology in the classrooms. 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
18. Calibration of student work across departments and 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
contents areas.
19. Increase of student incentive programs. 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
20. The seven—period day. 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5
178
APPENDIX H
SUN VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL
MARCH SCHOLASTIC AUDIT QUARTERLY VISIT
REPORT OF FINDINGS
Progress made towards meeting the March benchmarks as listed in the Joint
Intervention Agreement for Sun Valley Middle School is listed below:
Benchmarks Met
March 30, 2002
Benchmarks due March
30, 2002 not completed
but expected to be met
June 30, 2002
Not due at this time /
Progress noted
towards completion
1 B
1 C
1 E
2 A
2 B
2 G
2 H
2 I
2 J
3 A
3 E
3 F
3 G
4 A
4 C
4 D
4 E
4 G
4 J
4 L
4 M
5 F
5 J
1 A1
1 A2
2 E
2 F
3 B
3 D
4 B
4 H
5 A
1 D
1 F
2 C
2 D
3 C
4 F
4 I
4 K
5 B
5 C
5 D
5 E
5 G
5 H
5 I
179
APPENDIX I
ETHNICITY, API BASE SCORES AND ENROLLMENT AT SUN VALLEY
MIDDLE SCHOOL (2001-02 AND 2003-04)
Students by Ethnicity – Sun Valley Middle School, 2001-02
School District
Enrollment Percent of
Total
Percent of
Total
American Indian 5 0.2% 0.3%
Asian 15 0.5% 4.0%
Pacific Islander 3 0.1% 0.3%
Filipino 25 0.8% 2.0%
Hispanic 2,784 93.3% 71.4%
African American 47 1.6% 12.4%
White 106 3.6% 9.6%
Multiple/No Response 0 0.0% 0.0%
TOTAL 2,985 100% 100%
Source: Educational Demographics Office, CBEDS (sifae01 5/1/02)
API Base Sources
Sun Valley Middle School 2001-02 and 2003-04
2002 2004
Base API 505 590
Statewide Rank 1 2
Enrollment by Grade
Sun Valley Middle School, 2003-04
Enrollment
Grade 6 869
Grade 7 1,031
Grade 8 977
Ungraded 106
TOTAL 2,983
180
APPENDIX J
CALIFORNIA ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT TEST
Annual Assessment – All Students
Sun Valley Middle School, 2003-04
Overall
Proficiency
Number and Percent of Students at Each Overall Proficiency Level
Grades K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Tested
Advanced 0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
26
5.0%
25
5.0%
39
9.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
90
6.0%
Early
Advanced
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
192
39.0%
177
34.0%
169
38.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
538
37.0%
Intermediate 0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
205
41.0%
215
41.0%
166
37.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
586
40.0%
Early
Intermediate
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
45
9.0%
74
14.0%
47
11.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
166
11.0%
Beginning 0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
29
6.0%
37
7.0%
25
6.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
91
6.0%
Number
Tested
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
597
100.0%
528
100.0%
446
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1,471
100.0%
Skill Area Mean Scale Scores
Listening /
Speaking
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 520.3 514.8 522.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Reading 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 506.4 501.8 515.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Writing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 525.4 520.8 524.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
***Summary data are not provided for groups of three or less.
180
181
Annual Assessment – All Students
Sun Valley Middle School, 2004-05
Overall
Proficiency
Number and Percent of Students at Each Overall Proficiency Level
Grades K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Tested
Advanced 0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
98
17.0%
47
13.0%
90
20.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
235
17.0%
Early
Advanced
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
237
42.0%
139
40.0%
197
45.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
573
42.0%
Intermediate 0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
172
30.0%
107
31.0%
96
22.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
375
28.0%
Early
Intermediate
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
36
6.0%
35
10.0%
29
7.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
100
7.0%
Beginning 0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
24
4.0%
22
6.0%
28
6.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
74
5.0%
Number
Tested
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
567
100.0%
350
100.0%
440
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1,357
100.0%
Skill Area Mean Scale Scores
Listening /
Speaking
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 543.2 530.1 542.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Reading 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 511.9 509.2 519.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Writing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 533.5 526.2 530.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
***Summary data are not provided for groups of three or less.
181
182
APPENDIX K
JOINT INTERVENTION AGREEMENT
FINDING NOS. 1 TO 5
183
JOINT INTERVENTION AGREEMENT
California Department of Education – Los Angeles Unified School District – District B – Sun Valley Middle School
Progress Towards Benchmark Findings – Fifth Quarter Report, March 31, 2003
Finding No. 1: The curriculum at Sun Valley Middle School lacks consistent rigor and is not fully aligned to the California English/Language Arts and
Mathematics Standards.
Benchmark Progress: 1=achieved 2=in progress 3=need
extension Corrective Action
Benchmarks of
Progress
Sun Valley
Responsibility
Local District
Responsibility
1 2 3 Describe Evidence of Progress
A. Fully implement
curricular
recommendations from
Principal’s Exchange
Report:
1. Complete and continue
to refine the Language
Arts curriculum
binder, continue to
disseminate and
provide staff
development on
effective use of the
curriculum.
2. Complete ELD
curriculum binder,
provide staff
development on
effective
implementation of
curriculum,
disseminate and
monitor ELD
curriculum.
• Documentation of
staff development
that reflects
curriculum
recommendations
03/30/02
• Completed Language
Arts and ELD
curriculum binders
06/30/02
• Documentation of
staff development on
ELD curriculum
implementation
03/30/02
• Documentation of
monitoring ELD
curriculum 03/30/02
J. Davis*
Admin. Team
Dr. Rad
C. Serrano
F. Cottam
A. Carnes*
Y. La Marre
M. Campbell*
N. Buge
R. Clarke
M. Campbell*
M.. Campbell*
X
X
X
X
- Staff development plan reflecting Principals’ Exchange
recommendations completed. Staff development
recorded and documented. Plan shared with teachers at
training held on 5/22/02 and 05/10/02. Input from
teachers solicited, clarification/discussion attained
regarding Prof. Dev. Plan that addresses Principals
Exchange Report.
- Language Arts curriculum binder completed and
analyzed for quality by department chairs and District B
Coordinator. Training on 03/07/02 and 03/13/02.
- LAUSD/District B Secondary Literacy Program
beginning on 07/01/02 to replace SVMS ELA and ELD
binders and will address Principals Exchange
recommendations.
- Language Literature, Language!, and Highpoint State
adopted standards based texts were selected, purchased
and will be implemented as of 07/01/02.
- Literacy Cadre training on 05/12/02, 05/24/02.
- Staff Development for ESL Teachers on adequate
progress conducted on 03/27/02. Counselors trained on
placement and curriculum on 03/21/02 Prof. Dev. For
ELD/Highpoint during June-October, 2002.
- All Teachers were trained in April 2002, on ELD and
SDAIE strategies and policies. Administrators have
developed a monitoring schedule and observation tool.
ELL Textbook adoption matrix presented on 03/15/02.
Selected text will be implemented starting in 07/01/02.
*Primary Responsibility
183
184
Finding No. 2: Sun Valley Middle School does not fully engage students in grade level content and performance standards using effective,
varied, research-based practices to improve student performances in reading, language arts, mathematics, and English
Language Development. The school does not consistently use multiple assessment strategies to monitor and modify
instruction in order to develop the complex thinking and reasoning skills embedded in the standards. There is an absence of
comprehensive schoolwide interventions to meet student learning needs.
Benchmark Progress: 1=achieved 2=in progress 3=need
extension Corrective Action
Benchmarks of
Progress
Sun Valley
Responsibility
Local District
Responsibility
1 2 3 Describe Evidence of Progress
A. Leadership needs to
supervise and monitor
instruction regularly
and effectively (e.g.,
classroom
observations, lesson
plans turned in, walks,
etc.). Leadership
needs to provide
teachers constructive
feedback to assist them
in instructional
planning and
improvement.
• Portfolio of Learning
Walk feedback letters
to staff - Ongoing
• Documentation of
ongoing feedback
notes to teachers
03/30/02
• Log/schedule of
classroom visits
03/30/02
• Evidence of lesson
plans collected and
reviewed 03/30/02
J. Davis*
Admin. Team
Y. La Marre
F. Cottam*
C. Kibala
A. Carnes
*
X
X
X
X
- District B Learning Walk binder/portfolio, including
feedback letters, developed and procedures for use
reviewed with principal and total administrative team for
compliance.
- Conducted three EPQR Learning Walks in classrooms to
review clear expectations and feedback letters.
- Positive feedback letters, notes, bulletins, to teachers by
administrators on a regular basis and documented.
EPQR feedback letter distributed to staff on 03/31/02.
Feedback letters reviewed and discussed at P.D. training
held on 04/25/02..
- Principal implementing schedule and log of regular
classroom visits to all classrooms by total administrative
team initiated on 03/11/02 is ongoing..
- Ongoing visitations to supervise and monitor classroom
practices are conducted and log maintained..
- Lesson plan strategies reviewed with principal and
administrative team. Principal required all teachers to
submit a copy of their lesson plans for review. Teachers
were provided sample packet of model lesson plan
formats to consider.
.
* Primary Responsibility
184
185
Finding No. 3: The school does not function as an efficient learning community and does not provide a climate conducive to performance
excellence. Each segment of the school community fails to recognize and accept its personal and professional responsibility
in student success and failure. There are significant barriers to parent involvement.
Benchmark Progress: 1=achieved 2=in progress 3=need
extension Corrective Action
Benchmarks of
Progress
Sun Valley
Responsibility
Local District
Responsibility
1 2 3 Describe Evidence of Progress
A. Prepare written and
oral parent
communications in
primary language and
in parent friendly
terms. Hold school
functions in both
languages.
• Documentation of
parent materials in
English and Spanish
03/30/02
• Evidence of
interpreters for parent
meetings and training
03/30/02
J. Davis
J. Bisciglia
D. Horowitz
D. Carver
M. Melton
N. Evleth
A. Draghi
C. Serrano
S. Calderon
R. Rodriguez*
X
X
- Training sessions conducted with all administrators anc
coordinators to ensure that all parent correspondence and
training materials are provided in both Spanish and
English.
- Documentation in main office, parent center and in
District B documentation files.
- Parent newsletters are communicated in English and
Spanish.
- Documentation of primary language interpreters
provided at all parent functions as indicated on parent
meeting agendas.
- Documentation of compliance filed in parent center and
main office.
- Template of agenda format, including name of person
providing interpretation, provided to parent center
director.
185
186
Finding No. 4: Sun Valley Middle School does not maximize its resources to support a high quality, student centered academic program to
enhance staff performance. There is a lack of management for the organization, operations, and resources for a safe,
efficient learning environment.
Benchmark Progress: 1=achieved 2=in progress 3=need
extension Corrective Action
Benchmarks of
Progress
Sun Valley
Responsibility
Local District
Responsibility
1 2 3 Describe Evidence of Progress
A. Reconstitute site
leadership (Principal,
Assistant Principals,
Coordinators, and
teacher leaders.)
• Reassign principal,
assistant principals,
coordinators, plant
manager 03/30/02
• Establish
expectations for
Department chairs
03/30/02
• All staff to sign
affirmation of
commitment to
agreement 03/30/02
• Suspend LEARN
and SBM 03/30/02
J. Davis*
Admin. Team
Dept. Chairs
J. Burton** X
X
X
X
- Principal, four assistant principals, plant manager and
three coordinators have been reassigned and replaced as
of 03/30/02.
- New Principal, six new assistant principals, instructional
coaches for reading and mathematics, and plant manager
have been selected and assigned.
- Administrators are working and planning with
department chairs to clarify roles and expectations..
- Superintendent and administrative team convened one
day retreat on 03/23/02 to clarify expectations and plan
strategies.
- Principal provided all department chairs with their job
descriptions on 03/13/02.
- Commitment form reviewed and clarified with teachers
on 03/12/02.
- Off track teachers mailed forms by U.S. Mail. Forms to
be returned to District B Office by 03/22/02.
- Enacted on 01/15/02. Local semi-autonomous decision-
making, waiver requests, staff selection were suspended
to expedite selection and assignment of highly qualified
staff.
* Primary Responsibility
186
187
Finding No. 5: There is little evidence of coherent, long-term professional development or the use of data contributing to the continuous
improvement of curriculum and instruction.
Benchmark Progress: 1=achieved 2=in progress 3=need
extension Corrective Action
Benchmarks of
Progress
Sun Valley
Responsibility
Local District
Responsibility
1 2 3 Describe Evidence of Progress
A. Develop
collaboratively a
coherent, ongoing
professional
development plan
connected to the
school plan, which
reflects district plan
site-based priorities,
and individual teacher
needs (e.g., ELA, ELD
alignment of content
standards schoolwide,
CLAD certification,
classroom
management,
implementation of
grade level standards,
scaffolding strategies
to access core,
diversity training, etc.
• Develop coherent PD
plan as described
03/30/02
• Evidence plan
addresses priorities
03/30/02
• External support to
develop plan
30/30/02
• Provide 5 paid P.D.
days 2001-02 for all
staff 09/30/02
• Provide 15 paid P.D.
days for all cert. staff
06/30/03
J. Davis
Admin. Team
Lang. Arts
Dept. Chair
A. Carnes*
J. Mc Elroy
Specialists
Y. La Marre
F. Cottam
X
X
X
X
X
- A professional development plan has been developed
through June 2003. The plan has coherence with the
intervention agreement, District B, and LAUSD goals.
- Plan indicates key priority areas for Sun Valley Middle
Scho0l, District B professional development priorities,
and LAUSD professional development priorities.
Training is currently planned for Banked Time Days,
Buy Back Days, Common Planning Time, and
professional development days.
- Action Learning Systems will be the key external partner
for professional development. Plans for ALS partnership
are aligned with school, audit report, District B and
LAUSD priorities. Agreement on services to be
provided under discussion for 2002-03 pending AB961
funding.
- Five paid Professional Development Institute days were
provided for Tracks (“Colonies”) B and C. Colony A
received training starting on August 12, 2002.
- Fifteen days of Professional Development Institutes for
the three Colonies have been scheduled for 2002-03
school year. The training conducted by Action Learning,
Sun Valley staff, LAUSD and District B staff.
.
* Primary Responsibility
187
188
APPENDIX L
TRACK “A” TEAMS 2004-2005 / MASTER SCHEDULE MATRIX, 2005-
2006 FOR “A,” “B,” AND “C” TRACKS
Track A Teams 2004 – 2005 (Rev. 5/04/05)
Room Conf. Room Conf.
Team 1 = 6
th
gr.
Gordoa ISFJ
Almaguer ISTP
Team 2 – 6
th
gr.
Orenstein ISTP
Arguello ESTJ
Team 3 – 6
th
gr.
Marot ISTP
Cano
A. Gross (RSP) INFJ
Team 3*
Eubanks ENFP
Cohen INFP
Team 4 – 6
th
gr.
Arballo INFP
Nicolai INTP
Team – Reading
Murphy ENTP
Team – DRW
Wiesenfeld ISTJ
Winesburg INFP
Team – ESL
L. Sanchez ISTJ
Unverdi
Cox ESFJ
Team – Electives
Greer
Ryan
Arnold
11
12
5
6
10
9
210x
506
601
20
21
501
104
211
24
23
22
214
505
600
Aux
Aux
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
Aux
3
3
3
3
3
5
2
4
Team 5 – 7
th
gr.
Ferkel ISTP
Olivas ENFJ
David
Gearty (RSP
Team 6 – 7
th
gr.
Puccio INTJ
Bogan ESFJ
Merrick ISTJ
Fodor ISTJ
Team 7 – 8
th
gr.
Weiss INFJ
Counterman INTJ
Santos ESTJ
Wong (RSP)INFJ
Team 8 – 8
th
gr.
Terarakelyan ISTJ
Trieu ISTJ
Yettner INTP
Kadur ESFP
Christensen ISTP
Team – PE
Maynes
Long ESTJ
Bryan ISTJ
Team – Sp. Ed.
French (SLD) ENTJ
Flores (SLD) ISTJ
Carbon (SLD) INFJ
Deskins (MRS) ENTJ
135
137
131
210 z
130
129
125
134
106
105
504
210z
207
205
208
203
102
Gym
Gym
Gym
123
122
19
120
Aux
1
1
1
Aux
1.5
5
5
4
4
4
4
Aux
2
Aux
2
2
Aux
Aux
Aux
7
7
7
7
189
MASTER SCHEDULE MATRIX, 2005-2006
“A” TRACK
TEAM PERIOD 1 PERIOD 2 PERIOD 3 PERIOD 4 PERIOD 5 PERIOD 6 PERIOD 7 ROOM TEACHER
TEAM 1 ANC CIV EXPLOR CONF ANC CIV EXPLOR ANC CIV EXPLOR 3*11 REYES
6
th
SHLTRD SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 CONF SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 4*12 ALMAGUER
TEAM 2 ENG & SH ANC CIV SH ELECTIVE ENG & SH ANC CIV SH ELECTIVE CONF 13*15 REYES
6
th
SHLTRTD SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR CONF 14*22
TEAM 3 ENG & SH ANC CIV SH ELECTIVE ENG & SH ANC CIV SH ELECTIVE CONF 7*9 YETTNER
6
th
SHLTRD SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR CONF 8*10 COHEN
TEAM 4 ENG & SH ANC CIV SH ELECTIVE ENG & SH ANC CIV SH ELECTIVE CONF 23*16 EUBANKS
6
th
SHLTRD SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR CONF 24*17 BURRELL
TEAM 5 H ENG H ANC CIV ELECT ENG 6 ANC CIV CONF ELECT 19*21 ARGUELLO
6
TH
HON/REG SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR H SCI/HLTH 6 H MATH 6 CONF EXPLOR 18*20 ORENSTEIN
TEAM 6 H ENG H ANC CIV ELECT H ENG H ANC CIV CONF ELECT 30*5 ELLIOT
6
TH
HONORS H SCI/HLTH 6 H MATH 6 EXPLOR H SCI/HLTH 6 H MATH 6 CONF EXPLOR 31*6 MAROT
TEAM 7 CONF H ENG 7 ENG 7 SH ENG 7 SH ENG 7 SH ENG 7 SH ENG 7 SH 106*104 HARRISON
7
TH
SHLTRD CONF MED MOD H MED MOD MED MOD MED MOD MED MOD MED MOD 136*135 FERKEL
CONF MATH 7 MATH 7 H MATH 1A MATH 7 MATH 7 MATH 7 138*137 RUZ
CONF SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 H SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 132*131 DAVID
TEAM 8 ENG 7 H ENG 7 ENG 7 ENG7 CONF ENG 7 ENG 7 128*130 TRIEU
7
TH
MED MOD MED MOD H MED MOD MED MOD CONF MED MOD MED MOD 127*129 BOGAN
MATH 7 MATH 7 MATH 7 ALG 1A CONF MATH 7 MATH 7 126*125 COUNTERMAN
SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 CONF H SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 133*134 FODOR
TEAM 9 ENG 8 ENG 8 H ENG 8 CONF ENG 8 ENG 8 READ 201*205 PUCCIO
8
TH
SHLTRD US HIST USC HIST US HIST CONF H US HIST US HIST US HIST 213*215 WEISS
H ALG 1A ALG 1A ALG 1A CONF ALG 1A ALG 1A ALG 1A 203*211 KUDUR
SCI 8 SCI 8 SCI 8 CONF SCI 8 H SCI 8 SCI 8 110*504 SANTOS
189
190
“A” TRACK
TEAM PERIOD 1 PERIOD 2 PERIOD 3 PERIOD 4 PERIOD 5 PERIOD 6 PERIOD 7 ROOM TEACHER
TEAM 10 H ENG 8 CONF H ENG 8 ENG 8 ENG 8 ENG 8 READ 202*204 TERARAKELYAN
8
TH
US HIST CONF H US HIST US HIST H US HIST US HIST US HIST 206*208 NICOLAI
GEOM 1A CONF ALG 1A ALG 1A ALG 1A1 ALG 1A1 ALG 1A1 200*203 MERRICK
SCI 8 CONF SCI 8 SCI 8 SCI 8 H SCI 8 H SCI 8 100*102 CHRISTENSEN
ESL/DRW ESL ESL CONF ESL ESL ESL ESL 506*107 L SANCHEZ
6
TH
– 8
TH
ESL ESL CONF ESL ESL ESL ESL UNVERDI
ESL ESL CONF ESL ESL ESL ESL 103*105 COX
DRW 1 DRW 1 CONF DRW 1 DRW 1 DRW 1 DRW 1 124*122 WIESENFELD
DRW 2/ R 180 DRW 2/R 180 CONF DRW 2/R 180 DRW 2/R180 DRW 2/R 180 DRW 2/R180 501 P. SANCHEZ
ELECTIVE ART ART PROD ART ART CONF ART ART 212*214 GREER
WRT SEM DRAMA DRAMA CONF DRAMA DRAMA PLAY PROD 600 ARNOLD
CONF WRT SEM FILM FILM CHOIR WRT SEM FILM 505*500 RYAN
WINDS CONF GEN MUS STRINGS BAND ORCH GEN MUS 602 DORNBOS
SP ED SOC SOC SOC SOC SOC SOC SOC 210X CARBON
SOC SOC SOC SOC SOC SOC SOC 210Z FLORES
RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP 123 WONG
RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP 123 A. GROSS
MRS MRS MRS MRS MRS MRS CONF 120 DESKINS
PE PE 7 PE 8 CONF PE 8 PE 7 PE 6 PE6 GYM MAYNES
PE 7 PE 8 PE 6 PE 8 PE 7 CONF PE 6 GYM LONG
PE 7 PE 8 PE 6 PE 8 PE 7 PE 6 APE GYM BRYAN
190
191
MASTER SCHEDULE MATRIX, (2005-2006)
“B” TRACK
TEAM PERIOD 1 PERIOD 2 PERIOD 3 PERIOD 4 PERIOD 5 PERIOD 6 PERIOD 7 ROOM TEACHER
TEAM 1 ANC CIV EXPLOR CONF ANC CIV EXPLOR ANC CIV EXPLOR 3*11 CANO
6
th
SHLTRD MATH 6 SCI/HLTH 6 CONF MATH 6 SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 SCI/HLTH 6 4*12 GORBEA
TEAM 2 ENG & SH ANC CIV SH ELECTIVE ENG & SH ANC CIV SH ELECTIVE CONF 13*15 CANO
6
th
SHLTRTD SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR CONF 14*22 GORBEA
TEAM 3 ENG & SH ANC CIV SH ELECTIVE ENG & SH ANC CIV SH ELECTIVE CONF 7*9 MCKEEHAN
6
th
SHLTRD SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR CONF 8*10 CAMACHO
TEAM 4 ENG & SH ANC CIV SH ELECTIVE ENG & SH ANC CIV SH ELECTIVE CONF 23*16 YAMAHATA
6
th
SHLTRD SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR CONF 24*17 DYACHENKO
TEAM 5 H ENG H ANC CIV ELECT ANC CIV ENG 6 CONF ELECT 19*21 GORDOA
6
TH
HON/REG SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR H SCI/HLTH 6 H MATH 6 CONF EXPLOR 18*20 ADLER
TEAM 6 H ENG H ANC CIV ELECT H ENG H ANC CIV CONF ELECT 30*5 COWEN
6
TH
HONORS H SCI/HLTH 6 H MATH 6 EXPLOR H SCI/HLTH 6 H MATH 6 CONF EXPLOR 31*6 LAINFIESTA
TEAM 7 CONF H ENG 7 ENG 7 SH ENG 7 SH ENG 7 SH ENG 7 SH ENG 7 SH 106*104 BALLENTINE
7
TH
CONF MED MOD SH H MED MOD MED MOD SH MED MOD SH MED MOD SH MED MOD SH 136*135 McDANIELS
SHLTRD/REG CONF MATH 7 SH MATH 7 SH H MATH 1A MATH 7 SH MATH 7 SH MATH 7 SH 138*137 TIMMERMANS
HONORS CONF SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 H SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 132*131 FERMAN
TEAM 8 ENG 7 H ENG 7 ENG 7 ENG7 CONF ENG 7 ENG 7 128*130 MITCHELL
7
TH
H MED MOD MED MOD H MED MOD MED MOD CONF MED MOD MED MOD 127*129 SWARENS
REG MATH 7 MATH 7 MATH 7 ALG 1A CONF MATH 7 MATH 7 126*125 GIMPELMAN
HONORS SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 CONF H SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 133*134 GREENBAUM
TEAM 9 ENG 8 ENG 8 H ENG 8 CONF ENG 8 ENG 8 READ 201*205 BALTAZAR
8
TH
US HIST SH USC HIST SH US HIST CONF H US HIST US HIST US HIST 213*215 BELAYA
SHLTRD/REG H ALG 1A ALG 1A ALG 1A CONF ALG 1A ALG 1A ALG 1A 203*211 OLIVAS
HONORS SCI 8 SH SCI 8 SH SCI 8 SH CONF SCI 8 SH H SCI 8 SCI 8 SH 110*504 YASSINSKI
191
192
“B” TRACK
TEAM PERIOD 1 PERIOD 2 PERIOD 3 PERIOD 4 PERIOD 5 PERIOD 6 PERIOD 7 ROOM TEACHER
TEAM 10 H ENG 8 CONF H ENG 8 ENG 8 ENG 8 ENG 8 READ 202*204 BARRETT
8
TH
US HIST CONF H US HIST US HIST H US HIST US HIST US HIST 206*208 ZIMMERMAN
REG GEOM 1A CONF ALG 1A ALG 1A ALG 1A1 ALG 1A1 ALG 1A1 200*203 HUTTON
HONORS SCI 8 CONF SCI 8 SCI 8 SCI 8 H SCI 8 SCI 8 100*102 STEPHENSON
ESL/DRW ESL ESL CONF ESL ESL ESL ESL 506*107 CASTRO
6
TH
– 8
TH
ESL ESL CONF ESL ESL ESL ESL 600 ORTEGA
ESL ESL CONF ESL ESL ESL ESL 103*105 ORTEGA
DRW 1 DRW 1 CONF DRW 1 DRW 1 DRW 1 DRW 1 124*122 WILLIAMS
DRW 2 / R 180 DRW 2 /R 180 CONF DRW 2 / R 180 DRW 2 / R180 DRW 2 /R 180 DRW 2 / R180 501 MURPHY
ELECTIVE ART PROD ART ART ART CONF ART ART 212*214 CROW
GEN MUSIC CONF GUITAR GEN MUSIC GUITAR GEN MUSIC GUITAR 601 MIRELES
FILM WRT SEM FILM CONF FILM WRT SEM FILM 505*500 STEWART
SP ED ENG 6 DRW US HIST 8 ANC CIV 6 MED MOD 7 MATH 6 CONF 1 PEREZ
ENG 7/8 DRW SIC/HLTH 6 SCI 7 SCI 8 MATH 7/8 CONF 2 KNOX
RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP 123 LESNIAK
RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP 123 GREEN
PE PE 7 PE 8 PHY FIT PE 8 PE 7 PE 6 PE6 GYM MORENTE
PE 7 PE 8 PE 6 PE 8 PE 7 CONF PE 6 GYM SILL
PE 7 PE 8 PE 6 PE 8 PE 7 PE 6 APE GYM DUMLAO
192
193
MASTER SCHEDULE MATRIX, 2005-2006
“C” TRACK
TEAM PERIOD 1 PERIOD 2 PERIOD 3 PERIOD 4 PERIOD 5 PERIOD 6 PERIOD 7 ROOM TEACHER
TEAM 1 ANC CIV EXPLOR CONF ANC CIV EXPLOR ANC CIV EXPLOR 11*3 D. GONZALEZ
6
th
SHLTRD SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 CONF SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 12*4 BIDMESHKI
TEAM 2 ENG 6 ANC CIV ELECTIVE ENG 6 ANC CIV ELECTIVE CONF 15*13
6
th
SHLTRTD SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR CONF 22*14
TEAM 3 ENG 6 ANC CIV ELECTIVE ENG 6 ANC CIV ELECTIVE CONF 9*7 KIDDER
6
th
SHLTRD SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR CONF 10*8 ROOME
TEAM 4 ENG 6 ANC CIV ELECTIVE ENG 6 ANC CIV ELECTIVE CONF 16*23 CUSHENBERRY
6
th
SHLTRD SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR CONF 17*24 POINTER
TEAM 5 H ENG H ANC CIV ELECT ENG 6 ANC CIV CONF ELECT 21*19 ERLINSO
6
TH
HON/REG SCI/HLTH 6 MATH 6 EXPLOR H SCI/HLTH 6 H MATH 6 CONF EXPLOR 20*18 VELIE
TEAM 6 H ENG H ANC CIV ELECT H ENG H ANC CIV CONF ELECT 5*30 TRUJILLO
6
TH
HONORS H SCI/HLTH 6 H MATH 6 EXPLOR H SCI/HLTH 6 H MATH 6 CONF EXPLOR 6*31 NAEF
TEAM 7 CONF H ENG 7 GRT BKS ENG 7 ENG 7 ENG 7 ENG 7 104*106 FELDMAN
7
TH
CONF MED MOD H MED MOD MED MOD MED MOD MED MOD MED MOD 135*136 FARKAS
SHLTRD/REG CONF MATH 7 MATH 7 H MATH 1A MATH 7 MATH 7 MATH 7 137*138 GROSSMAN
CONF SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 H SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 131*132 RODRIGUEZ
TEAM 8 H ENG 7 H ENG 7 ENG 7 ENG7 CONF ENG 7 H ENG 7 130*128 LEWIS
7
TH
MED MOD H MED MOD H MED MOD MED MOD CONF H MED MOD MED MOD 129*127 ARRINGTON
REG H MATH 7 MATH 7 ALG 1A ALG 1A CONF MATH 7 MATH 7 125*126 MALONEY
SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 SCI/HLTH 7 H SCI/HLTH 7 ENVIR SCI H SCI/HLTH 7 H SCI/HLTH 7 134*133 ROFER
TEAM 9 ENG 8 READ H ENG 8 CONF ENG 8 ENG 8 READ 205*201 WINESBURG
8
TH
US HIST USC HIST US HIST CONF H US HIST US HIST US HIST 215*213 FRANKLIN
SHLTRD/REG H ALG 1A ALG 1A1 ALG 1A1 CONF ALG 1A1 ALG 1A1 ALG 1A1 211*203 DE MARIO
HONORS SCI 8 SCI 8 SCI 8 CONF SCI 8 H SCI 8 SCI 8 504&110 ARTSRUNI
193
194
“C” TRACK
TEAM PERIOD 1 PERIOD 2 PERIOD 3 PERIOD 4 PERIOD 5 PERIOD 6 PERIOD 7 ROOM TEACHER
TEAM 10 H ENG 8 CONF H ENG 8 ENG 8 READ ENG 8 READ 204*202 SRIVINAS
8
TH
US HIST CONF H US HIST US HIST H US HIST US HIST US HIST 208*206 HUSTED
REG H ALG 1A CONF ALG 1A1 H ALG 1A ALG 1A1 ALG 1A1 ALG 1A1 203*200 WINDOKUN
HONORS SCI 8 CONF SCI 8 SCI 8 SCI 8 H SCI 8 H SCI 8 102*100 TYLER
ESL/DRW ESL 2B ESL WB CONF ESL 2B ESL 2B ESL 2B ESL 2B 107*506
6
TH
– 8
TH
ESL 2A ESL 2A CONF ESL 3 ESL 3 ESL 3 ESL 3 602 MOORHUS
ESL 3 ESL 3 CONF ESL 4 ESL 4 ESL 4 ESL 4 105*103 HEIDEMANN
DRW 1 DRW 1 CONF DRW 1 DRW 1 DRW 1 DRW 1 122*124 WATSON
DRW 2 / R 180 DRW 2 /R 180 CONF DRW 2 / R 180 DRW 2 / R180 DRW 2 /R 180 DRW 2 / R180 501 MARTIN
ELECTIVE CONF ART PROD ART ART ART ART ART 214*212 S. GROSS
MEDIA TECH TECH TECH ROBOTICS ROBOTICS ROBOTICS 508 TERRY
FILM WRTSEM FILM CONF WRT SEM FILM FILM 500*505 HOVSEPIAN
SP ED ENG 6-8 DRW SOC SCI 6-8 MATH 6-8 SIC 6-8 INCLUSION CONF 121 VENTURA
ENG 7-8 DRW MATH7 ALG 1A1 MATH 6 SCI/HLTH 6 CONF 112Z WILSON
ENG 6 DRW US HIST 8 ANC CIV 6 MED MOD 7 SCI 7-8 CONF 112X GEARTY
RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP 123 SERCENA
RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP RSP 123 FRENCH
PE PE 7 PE 8 CONF PE 8 PE 7 PE 6 PE6 GYM
PE 7 PE 8 PE 6 PE 8 PE 7 PHY FIT PE 6 GYM MENCHACA
PE 7 PE 8 PE 6 PE 8 PE 7 PE 6 CONF GYM SHAW
194
195
APPENDIX M
API AND AYP KEY ELEMENTS
Side by side comparison of the state Academic Performance Index (API) and federal Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) accountability requirements for 2004-2005.
Components State Accountability
Public Schools
Accountability Act (PSSA)
Federal Accountability
No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB)
System features • Growth model
• Compensatory (by student
and content area)
• Each school has it own target
• Subgroup targets at 80% of
school’s target
• The target is at 800, between
basic and proficient
• Status model
• Every school, local educational
agency (LEA), and subgroup
have the same target
• Targets go up to 100%
proficient by 2013-14
Type of rating Academic Performance Index
(API):
• Scale of 200 to 1000
• Decile ranks (traditional
schools only)
• Statewide
• Similar schools ranks
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP:
• Meets or does not meet AYP
School/LEA
criteria
School –
Meets schoolwide and
subgroup API criteria:
• Growth target of 5% of
distance to 800
OR
• API of 800 or above
(statewide performance
target)
LEA –
LEAs do not receive APIs
under state requirements of
PSSA.
School of LEA meets all four
schoolwide (or LEA-wide) and
subgroup criteria:
• Percent proficient or above in
English Language Arts (ELA)
and math (Annual Measurable
Objectives ([AMOs])
• Participation rate in ELA and
math
• API indicator
• Graduation rate (only for high
schools and LEAs with high
school students
Note: APIs are reported for LEAs
in order to meet NCLB
requirements.
Improvement
measure
Schools and subgroups must
meet year-to-year API growth
targets or statewide
performance target
Schools, ELAs, and subgroups
must meet a set achievement goal.
No credit is given for growth if
the school falls below the goal.
196
Components State Accountability
Public Schools
Accountability Act (PSSA)
Federal Accountability
No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB)
Assessments Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) Program:
• California Standards Test
(CST)
• California Alternate
Performance Assessment
(CAPA)
• California Achievement Test,
Sixth Edition Survey (CAT/6
Survey) all subjects
California High School Exit
Examination (CAHSEE)
STAR Program:
• CST
• CAPA
CAHSEE
Grade Levels and
content areas
tested
English-language arts
(including writing) and
mathematics:
• Grades 2-11 (CST and
CAPA)
• Grades 3 and 7 (CAT/6
Survey)
• Grade 10 (CAHSEE)
History-social science:
• Grades 8, 10, and 11 (CST)
Science:
• Grades 5 and 9-11 (CST)
English-language arts (including
writing) and mathematics:
• Grades 2-8 (CST)
• Grade 19 (CAHSEE)
• Grades 2-8 and 10 (CAPA
Test weights Grades 2-8:
• CST
• ELA = 0.480
• Math = 0.320
• Science = 0.200
• History-Soc. Sci. = 0.200
• CAT/6 Survey
• Reading = 0.060
• Language = 0.030
• Spelling = 0.030
• Mathematics = 0.080
Grades 9-11:
• CST
• ELA = 0.300
• Mathematics = 0.200
• Science = 0.150
• History-Soc. Sci. = 0.225
• CAHSEE
• ELA = 0.300
• Mathematics = 0.300
Not applicable
197
Components State Accountability
Public Schools
Accountability Act (PSSA)
Federal Accountability
No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB)
Levels of student
performance
Each student’s performance
band/level on test is assigned a
weighing factor in API
calculation.
STAR Program:
• CST/CAPA
• Advanced = 1000
• Proficient = 875
• Basic = 700
• Below Basic = 500
• Far Below Basic = 200
• CAT/6 Survey
• 80-99
th
national percentile
rank (NPR) = 1000
• 60–79
th
NPR = 875
• 40-59
th
NPR = 700
• 20-39
th
NPR = 500
• 1-19
th
NPR = 200
CAHSEE
• Passed (at least 350 on ELA
or 350 on mathematics) =
1000
• Not Passed = 200
Performance levels determine
percent proficient or above.
STAR Program:
• CST/CAPA
• Advanced or proficient = met
AYP
• All else = did not meet AYP
CAHSEE
• Proficient (at least 380 on ELA
or 380 on math) = met AYP
• All else = did not meet AYP
Other indicators:
• Graduation rate
Not included Federally mandated 4-year
completion rate
• Increase in rate (at least 0.1 for
2-year or 0.2 for 4-year average
OR
• Annual status target
Other indicators:
• API
Not applicable • Growth in the API of at least 1
point
OR
• Annual status target
Student testing
policies:
Participation rate
• Invalid API if < 85% tested
in content area
• To be eligible for API
awards, elementary and
middle schools must have at
least 95% tested, and high
schools must have at least
90% tested
• Credit for parent exemptions
• Each LEA, school, and
numerically significant subgroup
must have at least 95% tested in a
content area in order to meet AYP
criteria
• No credit for parent exemptions
• Each LEA has CAPA 1%
limitation
198
Components State Accountability
Public Schools
Accountability Act (PSSA)
Federal Accountability
No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB)
Student groups • All students
• African American (not of
Hispanic origin)
• American Indian or Alaska
Native
• Asian
• Filipino
• Hispanic or Latino
• Pacific Islander
• White (not of Hispanic
origin)
• Socioeconomically
disadvantages
• All students
• African American (not of
Hispanic origin)
• American Indian or Alaska
Native
• Asian
• Filipino
• Hispanic or Latino
• Pacific Islander
• White (not of Hispanic
origin)
• Socioeconomically
disadvantages
• English learner
• Students with disabilities
Schools with no
students in grades
tested
API is not considered valid and
is not reported under state
requirements.
• Kindergarten and kindergarten
through grade 1 schools paired
with feeder campus
• If no CAHSEE data, CST
results used instead (where
appropriate); if no CST results,
LEA results used
Minimum size
criteria for
student
subgroups
Schools:
• 100 valid scores
OR
• 50 valid scores comprising at
least 15% of the valid scores
LEAs and schools:
• 100 valid scores
OR
• 50 valid scores comprising at
least 15% of the valid scores
Minimum size
criteria for all
students
Fewer than 11 valid scores at
any school is not a valid API.
Fewer than 11 valid scores at any
school of LEA is not reported on
Web site to protect privacy of
students/teachers. Results are still
used
Small schools
and LEA
• API is calculated for small
schools
• On API reports, schools with
11-99 valid scores have API
with asterisk to denote
greater statistical
uncertainty.
• Schools with fewer than 11
valid scores do not have a
valid API.
• AYP is calculated for all
schools and LEAs.
• Schools and LEAs with 1-99
valid scores have confidence
intervals applied for percent
proficient.
• Schools or LEAs with fewer
than 11 valid scores do not have
a valid AYP.
199
APPENDIX N
MAP OF CALIFORNIA ACADEMIC AUDIT PROCESS
Preparation for the Audit
Evaluation of school data and school plan; meetings
with district and school leaders.
The On-site Investigation
• Entrance orientation meeting
• Data collection via classroom observations, interviews,
focus groups and document review
• Synthesis of data using Audit Tool
• Building The Preliminary Report of Findings & Evidence
• Oral Exit Report of Findings
Report of Findings & Recommendations for
Corrective Actions
Recommendations prepared for corrective actions from the
findings of the on-site investigation
Adoption of SAIT Report of
Findings & Recommendations
for Corrective Actions
by local school board
Joint Intervention Agreement
Negotiated between CDE & LEA
for PI schools
Support
Provision of, or brokering of, support for
implementation of corrective actions
Monitoring
Oversight of the implementation of the
corrective actions
200
APPENDIX O: DISTRICT 2 API GROWTH SCORES REPORT, 1999 – 2005 (RANKED)
API GROWTH API BASE
6-Yr. Point
Increase
2004-
2005
2003-
2004
2002-
2003
2001-
2002
2000-
2001
1999-
2000
1999-2000
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
SUN VALLEY 190 616 590 556 488 467 443 426
MACLAY 180 577 551 515 442 428 414 397
MOUNT GLEASON 166 690 676 635 606 543 558 524
OLIVE VISTA 165 611 607 550 480 455 461 446
MILLIKAN 157 761 737 722 703 668 643 604
AVERAGE 150 643 620 595 549 519 517 492
BYRD 143 647 647 592 547 556 498 504
PACOMA 142 625 606 595 554 517 501 493
SAN FERNANDO 140 583 568 555 492 451 477 443
MADISON 127 645 640 602 579 505 519 518
VAN NUYS 124 638 621 599 545 532 534 514
REED 115 714 672 656 635 643 6939 599
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
VERDUGO HILLS 137 665 631 596 541 583 553 528
GRANT 132 623 604 696 652 609 552 491
FRANCIS POLYTECHNIC 131 599 574 524 498 488 473 468
SYLMAR 115 614 574 564 518 506 497 499
NORTH HOLLYWOOD 111 664 641 639 566 564 573 553
SAN FERNANDO 109 585 554 555 500 487 475 476
AVERAGE 107 625 604 596 546 540 520 503
VAN NUYS 14 639 635 622 596 613 628 625
SPAN SCHOOLS
FULTON COLLEGE PREP. 163 604 575 557 511 464 441
CONTINUATION SCHOOLS
EARHART 445 None None None None None None
EVERGREEN 502 None None None None None None
LEWIS 544 459 None None None None None
LONDON 504 531 None None None None None
MT. LUKENS 552 432 None None None None None
ROGERS 427 None None None None None None
200
201
APPENDIX P
SUMMARY OF FACTOR AVERAGES
Extent to
which we
address this
Effect of change
on achievement
Effort required
to change
Mean 2.70 2.80 2.51
Mode 3 3 3
Factor #1 Guaranteed and
Viable Curriculum
Stdev 0.93 0.89 0.95
Mean 2.89 2.78 2.48
Mode 3 3 3
Factor #2 Challenging Goals
and Effective Feedback
Stdev 0.89 0.87 0.85
Mean 2.60 2.66 2.44
Mode 3 3 3
Factor #3 Parent and
Community Involvement
Stdev 0.94 0.92 0.88
Mean 2.60 2.96 2.53
Mode 3 3 3
Factor #4 Safe and Orderly
Environment
Stdev 0.94 0.92 0.75
Mean 2.87 2.73 2.38
Mode 3 3 3
Factor #5 Collegiality and
Professionalism
Stdev 0.93 0.94 0.91
Mean 2.30 3.11 2.74
Mode 2 3 3
Factor #6 Home
Environment
Stdev 0.79 0.81 0.81
Mean 2.76 2.96 2.42
Mode 3 3 2
Factor #7 Learned
Intelligence and Background
Knowledge Stdev 0.88 0.92 0.80
Mean 2.44 2.98 2.54
Mode 2 3 3
Factor #8 Student Motivation
Stdev 0.87 0.88 0.81
Mean 2.86 2.88 2.27
Mode 3 3 3
Factor #9 Instruction
Stdev 0.83 0.94 0.87
Mean 2.98 2.95 2.33
Mode 3 3 3
Factor #10 Classroom
Management
Stdev 0.83 0.97 0.87
Mean 2.94 2.94 2.44
Mode 3 3 3
Factor #11 Classroom
Curriculum Design
Stdev 0.81 0.94 0.83
202
Factor Averages
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Factors
Responses
Q1
Q2
Q3
203
APPENDIX Q
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT SURVEY, 2004-2005
PRELIMINARY RESULTS (ACTION LEARNING SYSTEMS, INC.)
Action Learning Systems, Inc.
To: Jeffrey Davis, Principal
Sun Valley Middle School
From: Noelle Rivera, Senior Analyst
Action Learning Systems, Inc.
(626) 357-8041
Date: August 16, 2005
Please find enclosed a summary of the results from the “ALS 2004-05
Professional Development and Support Survey” that your school’s staff
completed this spring.
These results are for your school only and have not been disseminated
to any other districts, schools, or staff. Your school’s responses will be
compiled with those of several other schools for a comprehensive
summary that will be available for distribution by early Fall 2005.
We thank you for the time and effort put forth by you and your staff in
completing and returning the surveys.
204
Action Learning Systems, Inc.
Professional Development and Support Survey
2004-2005 Preliminary Results
School Name: Sun Valley Middle School
District: LAUSD
Introduction:
The following summary presents the preliminary survey results for your school
only. These results are for your school only and have not been disseminated to any
other districts, schools, or staff. Your school’s responses will be compiled with
those of several other schools for a comprehensive summary that will be available
for distribution by early Fall 2005.
Respondent Information:
Number of Teacher Respondents: 89
Grades Taught:
6-8 84 Unknown 5
Number of Administrator Respondents: 9
Response Summary:
Results are presented by professional development area.
205
APPENDIX R
SUN VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL
END OF YEAR ACCOUNTABILITY COACH REPORT
Date(s) Visited: March 10, April 21, and May 19, 2005
Report by: Debbie Stone, Accountability Coach
Sun Valley is currently in the last year of a three-year CSR partnership with Action
Learning System. This report is based on the last three visits at Sun Valley Middle
that includes data from 20 classroom visitations and focus group interviews with
teachers, literacy coaches and the administration. This report is based on those
findings and aligned to Action Learning System’s Reform Model: the Six
Components of a High Performing School.
Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment:
Summary of visitations:
Sun Valley Middle School (SVMS) faculty and administration has had a deliberate
and consistent focus on the implementation of the California Content Standards
across all grade levels and departments. In most classrooms visited, standards
currently being studied were evident either in the learning environment and/or
students were able to reference the text and state what they were learning. Also, in
some classrooms, student work has aligned to standards. The evidence suggests
that the staff at SVMS need continued opportunities to align their instruction to the
California State Standards and create consistency within and among departments
and tracks. Also, the evidence gathered suggests that the staff has varying degrees
of experience creating standards-based classrooms. All classrooms had appropriate
textbooks and materials needed for students to learn the standards. Local District 2
has provided benchmark assessments in ELA, Mathematics, and Science.
Implementation Data Observed Not Observed Types of Evidence Observed
Standards/Focus
Standards currently being
studied are posted in a
way students can easily
access and understand.
X
1. 11/20 classrooms had Standards/Objectives
written on board.
2. 4/20 classrooms had Focus Standards written
on poster with a clothespin/sticker to show the
standard that the class is currently working on
3. 5/20 classroom were taking a test
Student work samples
reflect student
engagement in grade-
level standards.
X
9/20 classrooms had student work reflecting
standards-based writing, science projects and
labs, and math performance tasks.
Students can describe
how their work reflects
grade-level standards.
X
In 10/20 classrooms, students were able to state
what they were learning and how they were
learning it. Few students were able to state how
they knew the work demonstrated mastery of
standards based on a rubric.
206
Student Achievement Data:
Data Team reviewed CST scaled scores and performance bands for students. This
information was disseminated to entire staff to provide a focus for ensuring
maintaining and increasing student performance on the CST.
Recommendations:
• Create model standards-based classrooms and allow staff the opportunity
to review these model classrooms.
• Use the “The Effective Learning Environment — Classroom Standards
Implementation” teacher reflection tool to clearly communicate what a
standards-based classroom looks like.
• Continue to explicitly state to staff that standards currently being studies
need to be posted/evident and clearly articulated to students on a daily
basis. Model ways to implement this expectation by having teachers show
how they meet this expectation in their classroom.
Research-Based Strategy Instruction:
Summary of visitations:
It is evident that many opportunities have been provided to focus on professional
development that supports the implementation of Reciprocal Teaching — a
research-based instructional strategy focusing on reading comprehension, Direct
Instruction — interactive instruction, and SDAIE — scaffolds and strategies that
ensure second language learners master content standards. In addition, three
coaches are available on site for teachers. Faculty surveys and interviews show that
this staff development was useful for teachers.
Implementation Data Observed Not
Observed
Types of Evidence Observed
During the classroom visit,
teachers/students are using
targeted strategies, consistent
with current scientifically
based research, focusing on
appropriate grade-level content
standards.
11
9
Reciprocal Teaching talk groups with
questioner, clarifier, summarizer, and
predictor
Choral response
Objectives/Standards explicitly stated by
teacher and students
Immediate corrective given to individual
students
Student to student structured interaction
Thumbs up/thumbs down as predetermined
communication
Student work samples,
displayed on the walls, on the
desks, and/or in portfolios,
clearly demonstrate student use
of targeted strategies;
consistent with current
scientifically based research.
9
11
Narrative essays with writing process posted
from prewrite to publish
Science Projects displayed with visuals and
expository writing
Math performance tasks
The classroom environment
supports implementation of the
targeted strategies and the
development of metacognition.
4
16
Student reflection on essay, project(s)
Student self scoring on rubric attached to
essay
207
Student Achievement Data
The Data Team reviewed a protocol for analyzing student work that will be
disseminated to entire staff in 2005-2006.
Recommendations:
• Provide opportunities for staff to have student work evident in portfolios
if not evident in displays in the learning environment.
• Provide opportunities for staff to observe how to engage students in self
reflection of their learning.
• Engage entire staff in a consistent protocol for analyzing student work to
ensure the instructional strategies being utilized by staff are allowing
students to master content standards.
• Provide department collaboration time for staff to develop standards-
based lessons ensuring that research-based instructional strategies are
being implemented within each lesson.
Targeted Professional Development:
Summary of visitations:
Based on focus group interviews, the coaching cycle implemented at SVMS was
effective for most teachers. Teachers who are already implementing the strategies
voiced concern regarding meeting their needs. The ELD Department recognized
the need for collaboration and coaching but voiced frustration with the rigorous
pacing of the Highpoint Program and being pulled out of the classroom for
coaching which took them off their pacing. The coaching cycle implemented at
SVMS consisted of each track receiving 2 demonstration lessons observed by the
entire department. These demonstration lessons were followed up by co-planning
sessions and co-teaching.
Implementation Data: All three tracks were included in the targeted
professional development. The four content area departments: ELA which
included 3 cohorts of teachers — McDougal, DRW, and Highpoint;
Mathematics, Social Science, and Science participated in the coaching model.
Each track of teachers was included in the planning of standards-based lessons
and the co-teaching of these lessons. Teachers who were not a part of the co-
teaching session observed the co-teach and participated in the debriefing
session.
Recommendations:
• Administration needs to clearly communicate how co-planning will
continue to occur within the SVMS school schedule
208
• Administration needs to clarify the co-teaching that occurs within the
coaching model as a type of professional development and different than
the special education inclusion model
• The coaching model needs to be sustained in order to provide
opportunities for teachers to continue to ensure implementation of
research-based instructional strategies.
• Continue to work with the ELD Department to ensure that staff receive
the support that meets both the needs of the teacher and ensures faithful
implementation of the Highpoint program.
Achievement-Driven Structure and Support:
Summary of visitations:
The administration and support staff at SVMS have focused on implementation of
standards-based classrooms and the evidence that needs to be gathered during
classroom visits to ensure that all classrooms are focusing on the standards. A
teacher self reflection tool that focused on the criteria of an “Effective Learning
Environment” was developed by staff and disseminated to entire staff. The purpose
of this tool is to have teachers formally evaluate their own practice and reflect on
areas where they need to deepen their teaching practices. A data team has been
organized to regularly meet to review both student achievement data and
implementation of the professional development.
Implementation Data
Class rosters with students clearly identified as target students based on CST
has been shared with staff and leadership.
Recommendations:
• Continue to articulate the purpose of the “The Effective Learning
Environment” tool and have all staff reflect on their practice using this
tool.
• Continue Data Tem meetings and have additional members join the team
including administrators.
Academic-Centered Family and Community Engagement:
Summary of visitations:
Sun Valley Middle School is implementing student-led conferences. As staff
experiences success with this type of conference more teachers are implementing
this practice. Professional Development will continue to be provided until the
entire staff is implementing student-led conferencing.
209
Implementation Data:
Currently, ten teachers in both Tracks “A” and “B” are implementing student-
led conferences.
Recommendations:
• Continue to support the implementation of student-led conferences by all staff.
• All teachers who are implementing student-led conferences to share how they
are implementing to entire staff or by department..
Conclusion:
Based on classroom visits and focus interviews with administration, literacy
coaches are teachers, it is clear that the focus for SVMS is to ensure that all
classrooms are standards-based classrooms. The staff understands the need to
continue to deepen their understanding of the research-based strategies that they
have participated in through the coaching model. The challenges of sustaining all
of the components of the reform model are a concern for the staff and
administration. However, the staff and administration are continually revisiting the
criteria for a standards-based classroom and, as a result, there is a clear focus for
the school. Also, a structure for ensuring that the coaching model is sustained is
being developed. As they gather data from the Benchmark and Quarterly
assessments, they will ensure that they revisit areas of instruction and give strategic
support to teachers.
Respectfully Submitted,
Debbie Stone
Accountability Coach
210
APPENDIX S
ADMINISTRATIVE SURVEY — FIFTH QUARTERLY VISIT
Please rate the level of implementation for the Findings listed below and write
comments to justify your rating or highlight important activities that have
taken place at Sun Valley Middle School to address each of the findings.
Directions: Use the four-point scale to determine the effectiveness of
implementation.
1 – No implementation
2 – Limited degree of implementation
3 – Standard degree of implementation
4 – High degree of implementation
Finding #1 – The curriculum is rigorous and it is consistently aligned with
California English/Language Arts and Mathematics standards.
1 2 3 4
Evidence:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Finding #2 – a) Sun Valley Middle School fully engages students in grade level
content and performance standards using effective, varied research based practices
to improve student performance. b) The school consistently uses multiple
assessment strategies to monitor and modify instruction. c) There are
comprehensive schoolwide interventions to meet students learning needs.
a) 1 2 3 4
b) 1 2 3 4
c) 1 2 3 4
Evidence:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
211
Finding #3 – a) The school functions as an efficient learning community. c) Each
segment of the school community recognizes and accepts its personal and
professional responsibility in student success and failure. c) There are no barriers
to parent involvement.
a) 1 2 3 4
b) 1 2 3 4
c) 1 2 3 4
Evidence:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Finding #4 – a) Sun Valley Middle School maximizes its resources to support a
high quality, student centered academic program to enhance staff performance. b)
There is appropriate and effective management for the organization, operations, and
resources for a safe, efficient learning environment.
a) 1 2 3 4
b) 1 2 3 4
Evidence:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Finding #5 – There is evidence of coherent, long-term professional development or
the use of data contributing to the continuous improvement of curriculum and
instruction.
1 2 3 4
Evidence:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
212
APPENDIX T
IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY — FIFTH QUARTERLY VISIT
The Scholastic Audit Team values your input and ahs developed a survey to
determine the level of implementation of the Joint Intervention Agreement
corrective actions. Listed below are statements that address most of the
corrective actions. Please complete the survey and return the completed survey to
the office by 4:00 p.m. this afternoon. There will be a box at the counter marked
as CDE surveys. Thank you again for your time and cooperation.
Directions: Consider each of the following categories from the Joint Intervention
Agreement. Use the three-point scale to determine the effectiveness of
implementation.
1 – No implementation
2 – Marginal degree of implementation
3 – High degree of implementation
4 – I don’t know
J.I.A.
#
Corrective Action Degree of
Implementation
1A Teachers have received state adopted materials for Language Arts for
each student.
1 2 3 4
1A Teachers have received state adopted materials for ELD for each
student that is enrolled in an ELD class.
1 2 3 4
1A Teachers have received state adopted materials in Math for each
student.
1 2 3 4
1A Teachers have been provided with effective staff development for
implementing Language Arts.
1 2 3 4
1A Teachers have been provided with effective staff development for
implementing ELD.
1 2 3 4
1A Teachers have been provided with effective staff development in Math. 1 2 3 4
1B Each child is provided with a textbook in Language Arts, Math,
Science, and History.
1 2 3 4
1C Plan for academic intervention to target below grade level students was
developed and is being implemented.
1 2 3 4
1D Supporting materials for core novels in Language Arts has been
provided and common activities and assessments have been developed.
1 2 3 4
1E All teachers in every classroom incorporate content literacy activities. 1 2 3 4
1E Benchmarks and activities have been established by the literacy cadre. 1 2 3 4
2A Lesson plans are turned in to administrators on a frequent basis. 1 2 3 4
2A Administrators are supervising and monitoring instruction regularly. 1 2 3 4
2A Administrators provide constructive feedback to teachers. 1 2 3 4
2B The ELD, Language Arts and Math program has been aligned with
state standards.
1 2 3 4
Please print subjects you
teach at this school
_______________________
213
J.I.A.
#
Corrective Action Degree of
Implementation
2C District literacy and math coaches are assisting teachers effectively. 1 2 3 4
2F School calendars are being used to reinforce study skills and to have
communication between the home and the school.
1 2 3 4
2G Elective courses support and reinforce core. 1 2 3 4
2G Elective courses are offered equitably in all three tracks for all students. 1 2 3 4
2H Planning time is provided for teachers and structures so that teachers
can collaborate with other departments to integrate curriculum,
instruction, and assessments.
1 2 3 4
2H Teachers have actively participated in calibration of student work
across departments and disciplines.
1 2 3 4
2I Staff has been trained on the placement of EL students, their instruction
and the ELD portfolio requirements.
1 2 3 4
2J Teachers with student assistants/instructional assistants have received
training on how to best utilize them.
1 2 3 4
3C There is a schoolwide discipline policy that includes anger
management, conflict resolution, and includes positive reinforcement.
1 2 3 4
3C The discipline policy is visible in all classrooms. 1 2 3 4
3C The discipline policy included the input of parents, students, and
teachers.
1 2 3 4
3D There is a clear homework policy that reinforces learning. 1 2 3 4
3E The school promotes family and community involvement. 1 2 3 4
4B The staff has participated in team building and interpersonal
communication training.
1 2 3 4
4C The school provides a safe learning environment. 1 2 3 4
4C The school provides a hygienic learning environment. 1 2 3 4
4D The class size is equitably distributed based on established criteria. 1 2 3 4
4F Teachers are provided with the needed materials and supplies (e.g.,
paper, pencils, classroom library, etc.).
1 2 3 4
4F A list of the additional direct services provided to students was given to
each teacher.
1 2 3 4
4I There is an increase of intersession and extended day opportunities for
at-risk students.
1 2 3 4
4J There is a plan for students to use the library. 1 2 3 4
4M Teachers have been provided with clear guidelines on eligibility for
interventions and how to access services.
1 2 3 4
4L A technology plan has been implemented which includes at a minimum
a telephone in every classroom and a computer with internet access in
every classroom.
1 2 3 4
5A There is a coherent, long-term professional development plan in place. 1 2 3 4
5E Teachers engage in professional dialogue/study groups to raise student
achievement based on research on high performing schools.
1 2 3 4
5F New teachers receive the necessary support and professional
development.
1 2 3 4
5G Bi-monthly department meetings focusing on standards implementation
and student work are held. Meetings focus on high expectations and
rigorous curriculum.
1 2 3 4
214
J.I.A.
#
Corrective Action Degree of
Implementation
5H Meetings are regularly schedules to discuss pre/post assessments after
unit completions.
1 2 3 4
5H Teachers are trained on assessment results and how to use the
information to teach.
1 2 3 4
Comments:
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
215
APPENDIX U
SELECTED SCHOOL LEVEL DATA, 2004-2005
SUN VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL – LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
[1964733-6061600]
School Enrollment English Learners Fluent-English-
Proficient Students
Students
Redesignated FEP
SUN VALLEY MIDDLE 2,901 1,323 (45.6%) 1,230 (42.4%) 235 (16.1%)
District Total: 741,367 315,467 (42.6%) 186,194 (25.1%) 25,222 (7.7%)
County Total: 1,734,124 561,571 (32.4%) 413,385 (23.8%) 53,352 (9.1%)
State Total 6,322,167 1,591,525 (25.2%) 1,064,578 (16.8%) 143,136 (9.0%)
School % Fully
Credentialed
Teachers
Pupil
Teacher
Ratio
Avg.
Class
Size
Free &
Reduced
Price Meals
Unofficial
Enrollment
Used for Meals
# of
Computers
# of
Students per
Computer
# of
Classrooms
with Internet
SUN VALLEY MIDDLE 87.2 23.2 28.4 2,457
(88.2%)
2,785 826 3.5 78
District Total: 88.1 21.1 26.9 555,980
(76%)
724,151 170,450 4.3 29,409
County Total: 88.7 21.7 27.7 1,049,887
(61.9%)
1,694,791 358,234 4.8 74,403
Sate Total: 93.3 21.2 27.3 3,106,818
(49.7%)
6,256,702 1,320,360 4.8 310,593
215
216
APPENDIX V
TEAM 10 – TRACK “C”
INTERDISCIPLINARY PROJECT ANALYSIS
United States National Parks
Tyler, Watson, Srinivas, Windokun, and Husted
Preparation, Development and Collaboration
The Outline Stages
1. Team Collaboration the Core Engine of the Project.
2. Brainstorming for the idea based on State Standards.
3. Initial steps developed for implementing the Project Idea.
4. Total Development of project was over a 4-month period.
5. The students begin working on project the first week of school.
6. All team members announced the project in every period in every discipline
over a two-week period at the beginning of the year, therefore, all students
were strongly made aware and motivated early at the onset.
7. During the interim period students were still motivated because they were
expecting their project reply information from the National Park Offices.
8. In the third month students were sent home letters requiring parents
signatures acknowledging that their student had a project due in the fourth
month. Also, included with the letter was the criteria outline for each
academic discipline which also induced motivation.
9. Students were given 30 days to complete project after parent notification.
10. Students were formed into groups of four from all their History classes and
given specific choices as to what National Park they would choose to do for
their research and presentation.
11. The students were introduced to the Technology aspect of their presentation
during their 30-day project research and development period.
12. Students take training instruction in computer lab their science classes for
the PowerPoint presentation.
13. Upon completion of the 30-day period the students then presented their
projects in the auditorium with poster display and PowerPoint presentation
demonstration and reporting, (another good motivator).
14. All students were required to assess and evaluate each presentation of their
fellow classmates with specific forms created by the interdisciplinary
project team.
217
APPENDIX W
SUN VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL — BELL SCHEDULE
Regular Schedule
(M,,T,W,F)
Period 1 7:30 - 8:34 (64)
Period 2 8:40 - 9:33 (53)
Period 3 9:39 - 10:32 (53)
Nutrition 10:32 - 10:50 (18)
Period 4 10:56 - 11:49 (53)
Period 5 11:55 - 12:48 (53)
Lunch 12:48 - 1:18 (30)
Period 6 1:24 - 2:17 (53)
Period 7 2:23 - 3:16 (53)
Staff Development
(Tuesdays – 1 or 2 per month)
Period 1 7:30 - 8:16 (46)
Period 2 8:22 - 9:03 (41)
Period 3 9:09 - 9:50 (41)
Nutrition 9:50 - 10:08 (18)
Period 4 10:14 - 10:55 (41)
Period 5 11:01 - 11:42 (41)
Lunch 11:42 - 12:12 (30)
Period 6 12:18 - 12:59 (41)
Period 7 1:05 - 1:46 (41)
Common Planning
(Thursdays)
Period 1 7:30 - 8:22 (52)
Period 2 8:28 - 9:13 (45)
Period 3 9:19 - 10:04 (45)
Nutrition 10:04 - 10:22 (18)
Period 4 10:28 - 11:13 (45)
Period 5 11:19 - 12:04 (45)
Lunch 12:04 - 12:34 (30)
Period 6 12:40 - 1:25 (45)
Period 7 1:31 - 2:16 (45)
218
Regular Minimum Day
Period 1 7:30 - 8:10 (40)
Period 2 8:16 - 8:49 (33)
Period 3 8:55 - 9:28 (33)
Period 4 9:34 - 10:07 (33)
Nutrition 10:07 - 10:25 (18)
Period 5 10:31 - 11:04 (33)
Period 6 11:10 - 11:43 (33)
Period 7 11:49 - 12:22 (33)
Reverse Minimum Day
Nutrition 9:48 - 10:06 (18)
Period 1 10:12 - 10:52 (40)
Period 2 10:58 - 11:31 (33)
Period 3 11:37 - 12:10 (33)
Period 4 12:16 - 12:49 (33)
Lunch 12:49 - 1:19 (30)
Period 5 1:25 - 1:58 (33)
Period 6 2:04 - 2:37 (33)
Period 7 2:43 - 3:16 (33)
219
APPENDIX X
SUN VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL
STUDENT ATTENDANCE POLICY
TO PARTICIPATE IN CULMINATION CEREMONIES, ALL STUDENTS
(GRADES 608) MUST HAVE A RECORD OF GOOD ATTENDANCE
DURING EACH SCHOOL YEAR. STUDENTS WHO FAIL TO MEET THE
ATTENDANCE CRITERIA OUTLINES BELOW, WILL NOT BE
ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CULMINATION CEREMONY.
STUDENT ATTENDANCE POLICY GRADES 6 - 8
Any student (Grades 608) who accumulates a total of more than 10 DAYS OF
ABSENCE during any school year, regardless of the reason, WILL NOT
PARTICIPATE IN HIS/HER CULMINATION CEREMONY. If any 6
th
or 7
th
grade student becomes ineligible for Culmination, due to more than 10 days of
absence, he/she will be placed on Culmination Ceremony Probation. A student
will be given ONE opportunity to be removed from Culmination Probation by
having one future (payback) school year with no more than 5 days of absence.
EXAMPLE OF ATTENDANCE POLICY
6
th
or 7
th
grade student:
One school year, more than 10 days of absence ---- Culmination Ceremony
Probation
One future (payback) school year, no more than 5 days of absence -- Off
Culmination Ceremony Probation
*One future school year, more than 10 days of absence -- Will Not Participate
in Culmination Ceremony
*Any student who has TWO years with more than 10 days of absence per
year, WILL NOT participate in his/her Culmination Ceremony.
8
th
grade student:
8
th
Grade Year, more than 10 days of absence -- Will Not Participate in
Culmination Ceremony!
220
SCENARIOS
Student GR. ABS. Reason Result
6 11 More than 10 absences On Culmination Ceremony Probation
#1 7 4 5 or less absences (payback year) Off Culmination Ceremony Probation
8 12 Second year more than 10 NO Culmination Ceremony!
absences
6 12 More than 10 absences On Culmination Ceremony Probation
#2 7 6 Needs 5 or less absences (no On Culmination Ceremony Probation
payback year)
8 6 No payback year of 5 or less No Culmination Ceremony!
absences
6 11 More than 10 absences On Culmination Ceremony Probation
# 3 7 12 Had two years of 10 or more No Culmination Ceremony!
absences
8 1 Had two years of 10 or more No Culmination Ceremony!
absences
6 10 10 or less absences O.K. for Culmination Ceremony
#4 7 7 10 or less absences O.K. for Culmination Ceremony
8 11 More than 10 absences No Culmination Ceremony!
221
APPENDIX Y
EIGHTH GRADERS — IMPORTANT ACTIVITIES INFORMATION
Sun Valley Middle School LEADERSHIP
March 24, 2004
Dear “A” Track Eighth Graders and Parents/Guardians,
Culmination is getting closer and Leadership has planned many events for the
eighth grade Class of 2004. Each even may be attended by all tracks, so B and C
track students are welcome to attend (you may arrive on campus at the time of the
event). Student IDs will be required to attend the events, and students must meet
culmination eligibility criteria as well (the Counseling Office will soon have this
information). Tickets for events with an entrance fee are on sale at the Student
Store. The even dates are as follows:
• Eighth Grade Dance – (Thursday, June 10
th
in the gym, 2:30 – 4:00) Tickets
are $2.00 and include refreshments. School uniform required.
• Picnic – (Friday, April 9
th
, 12:30 – 2:30) After school on a minimum day,
includes lunch, music on the quad and special autograph books for all
students.
• Eighth Grade Lip Sync – (Thursday, April 15
th
, 2:30 – 3:30) Tickets are
$2.00. This is a one hour show! B-track students: to be in the show, you must
come to the try-out on April 6
th
from 3:30 – 5:30. You must also attend the
rehearsals. Pick up an application in room 134 beginning next week.
• Awards Night – (Thursday, May 20
th
in the auditorium, 5:00 P.M. – 7:00
P.M.) This even is for invited students and their parents/guardians.
Participants will be notified by mail.
• Culmination – (Monday, June 28
th
at Poly High School, 4:00 P.M.) Rehearsal
dates and other information will be mailed to off-track students.
TEAR-OFF — Please return to your homeroom teacher tomorrow.
I have received and read the 2004 8
th
Grade Activities information letter.
______________________________ ____________________________
Student name (print) Student signature
______________________________ ____________________________
Parent / Guardian signature Date
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the issue of low-performing or "failing" schools that need to be turned around, the various federal and state accountability frameworks utilized and the development of a clear conceptual framework to double student performance at these schools. This is explored through my perspective as a first-year principal who had the mandate of "turning around" a California state audit school in just 18 months. The school selected had gradually improved their Academic Performance Index (API) for the previous three years, yet was an audit and Program Improvement school when I became principal in February 2002.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
New principals in a turnaround middle school: analysis of the transition period (first 90 days)
PDF
Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: Case studies of school level resource use in California middle schools
PDF
A comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter schools in Southern California
PDF
School-to-work programs in urban districts in the state of California: a leadership perspective
PDF
Reallocating resources to reform schools: a case study of successful school turnarounds in five Los Angeles charter schools
PDF
Case study: underrepresentation of women in high school principalships and challenges they face in the workplace
PDF
A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement
PDF
A cyclical approach to professional development: a case study of the San Bernardino School District
PDF
A case study: school-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high poverty urban schools
PDF
School level resource allocation to improve student performance: A case study of Orange County and Los Angeles County Title I elementary schools
PDF
The effective implementation of reform strategies, instructional conditions, and best practices to improve student achievement in math: a case study of practices at Land High School
PDF
Underrepresented minorities in medicine in the United States: an innovation study to develop an effective holistic admissions process for the New School of Medicine
PDF
Minding the gap: an evaluation of faculty, staff and administrator readiness to close equity gaps at the California State University
Asset Metadata
Creator
Davis, Jeffrey Alan
(author)
Core Title
Sun Valley Middle School: a case study analysis of a California state scholastic audit school and the development of a clear conceptual framework to turning around a failing school, doubling stud...
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
02/01/2007
Defense Date
12/13/2006
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,Sun Valley Middle School
Language
English
Advisor
Picus, Lawrence O. (
committee chair
), Gothold, Stuart E. (
committee member
), Marsh, David D. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jdavis16@lausd.k12.ca.us
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m239
Unique identifier
UC197995
Identifier
etd-Davis-20070201 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-167208 (legacy record id),usctheses-m239 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Davis-20070201.pdf
Dmrecord
167208
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Davis, Jeffrey Alan
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
Sun Valley Middle School