University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Accreditation and accountability processes in California high schools: a case study

(USC Thesis Other)

Accreditation and accountability processes in California high schools: a case study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
ACCREDITATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESSES
IN CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOLS: A CASE STUDY
by
Shelley Danielle Fryer
__________________________________________________________________
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 Shelley Danielle Fryer

ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my husband and the love of my life, Jeffrey M.
Fryer, CPA, my best friend, and the person who never wavered in his support or his
belief that I would complete this journey.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
If I learned one thing from my mother, Dr. Estelle Parness, it is that no one
succeeds alone in graduate school. I was a partner in my mother’s success when she
earned a Ph.D. in 1976.
There are several others whom I acknowledge for being partners in my
success in their own special ways.
I acknowledge Dr. Alan Yarnell for helping me to develop and frame my
core beliefs when I was a student at UCLA. His guidance helped me to understand
my past and prepare me for the future I am living.
I acknowledge my brother Joe (“Joey”), who does not always agree with me
(and continues to argue about it) but cheered me on as only a brother could.
I acknowledge Ron Blanc for being a friend who never failed to give great
advice, supported my efforts, and always told me that I would succeed.
I acknowledge my friends, Jeanne Blanc and Linda Greene Bennett. I miss
their love and their friendship. It is impossible to accept the void in my life without
Jeanne and Linda at my side. Even though these two beloved friends did not live to
finish this journey with me, their faith in my ability guided me throughout this
process.
I acknowledge several members of the USC family for their special contri-
butions to my success. I was fortunate to have a great dissertation committee: Larry
Picus, Dominic Brewer, and Felicia Hunt. Collectively, their sense of scholarship
and their sense of humor helped me to complete this process and to write the dis-
sertation I wanted to write.

iv
From the bottom of my heart, I thank Larry Picus for agreeing to supervise
me and for keeping me on track. I could not have completed my dissertation
without his encouragement and support.
I thank Felicia Hunt for being such a supportive and caring colleague and
friend. When Jack is a little older, he will understand why his mom is so special.
I also thank Carol Wilson for her honesty in class, in seminars, and in her
office. Carol has played a major role in helping me to realize my potential.
Writing can be a solitary experience, but several people helped me through
the times that were challenging. Thanks to Bruce S. for the music. By revisiting our
heritage through song, Bruce guided my core beliefs through the world of lyrics
and music. Howard S. and the crew were great company and never let me lose
sense of my community, my heritage, and what is important to me.
Finally, I could not have succeeded if it had not been for Jan Britz. I thank
Jan for supporting me and for helping me to complete the program when I needed
help the most. I would not have succeeded without her.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ..........................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. x
ACRONYMS AND TERMS ................................................................................... xi
ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................xiii
Chapter 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY............................................................1
Statement of the Problem................................................................................2
Research Questions.........................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study.......................................................................................3
Conceptual Framework...................................................................................3
Accreditation, Generally...........................................................................4
California Student Achievement Reporting Processes, Generally...........6
Williams Reporting, Generally.................................................................6
Importance of the Study..................................................................................7
Summary of the Methodology ........................................................................8
Limitations......................................................................................................9
Delimitations...................................................................................................9
Assumptions .................................................................................................10
Definition of Terms ......................................................................................10
Organization of the Dissertation...................................................................11
Conclusion: Why Study High School Accountability Reporting?...............12
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................13
Accountability and School Improvement.....................................................14
Accountability Defined...........................................................................14
Internal Versus External Accountability ................................................16
Evolution of Accountability as a School Improvement Tool.................16
Profile of the High School Administration and Leadership Team...............18
Leaders at the High School Level...........................................................19
Leadership as a Function of School Improvement.................................21
Conclusion ..............................................................................................21
Profile of Accreditation Across the United States........................................22
College Accreditation.............................................................................22
History and Evolution of the Modern Accreditation Structure ..............22
New England Association of Schools and Colleges...............................25
Middle Sates Association of Schools and Colleges................................25

vi
North Central Association of Schools and Colleges and Southern
Association of Schools and Colleges................................................26
Northwest Association of Accredited Schools.......................................27
Western Association of Schools and Colleges .......................................28
Conclusion ..............................................................................................30
Accountability and the WASC Accreditation Process .................................31
WASC in Its Present Form.....................................................................31
Demographic Data ............................................................................33
Outcome Data...................................................................................33
Process Data......................................................................................34
The Survey Process.................................................................................34
School Leaders and the WASC Reporting Process: The Role
of School Leaders .............................................................................35
Writing the WASC Report......................................................................36
The WASC Visit.....................................................................................37
Conclusion ..............................................................................................39
Accountability and the CDE Reporting Process...........................................39
The Content Standards and the API........................................................39
The CBEDS and the SARC....................................................................40
The California High School Exit Exam..................................................40
School Leaders and the API Reporting Process: The Role of
School Leaders..................................................................................43
Conclusion ..............................................................................................43
Accountability and the Williams Litigation..................................................44
Williams and Accountability...................................................................45
Williams Legislation ...............................................................................47
School Leaders and Williams Reporting: The Role of
School Leaders..................................................................................48
Conclusion ....................................................................................................48
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................50
Units of Analysis ..........................................................................................51
Data Collection Methodology, Analysis, and Summary ..............................52
Phase 1 ....................................................................................................52
Phase 2 ....................................................................................................54
Phase 3 ....................................................................................................55
Phase 4 ....................................................................................................55
Venn Diagram Mapping ...................................................................56
Use of Accountability Data ..............................................................57
Use of Accountability Documents....................................................59
Phase 5 ....................................................................................................59
Reliability and Validity.................................................................................61
Conclusion ....................................................................................................63
Chapter 4: RESULTS ...........................................................................................64
Overview of the Study Findings Process......................................................67
Phase 1: Determine the Appropriate Study Schools...............................67
Phases 2 and 3: Interview Principals to Determine Composition of
School Leaders and Validate Principal’s Leadership Team
Designations .....................................................................................67

vii
Phase 4: School Leader Interviews.........................................................69
Venn Diagram Mapping .........................................................................70
Phase 5: Case Study Format...................................................................71
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................72
Birch High School: 6R WASC and High API........................................72
Birch High School, Generally...........................................................72
Birch High School Principal Interview.............................................72
Birch High School Leadership..........................................................75
Birch High School WASC Process...................................................75
Birch High School WASC Data .......................................................77
Birch High School API Reporting Process.......................................78
Birch High School Williams Settlement Reporting Process.............78
Conclusion for Birch School ............................................................80
Magnolia High School: 6R WASC Term and Low API ........................80
Magnolia High School, Generally....................................................80
Magnolia High School Principal Interview ......................................81
Magnolia High School Leadership...................................................82
Magnolia High School WASC Process............................................83
Magnolia High School WASC Data.................................................84
Magnolia High School API Reporting Process ................................84
Magnolia High School Williams Settlement Reporting Process ......85
Conclusion for Magnolia School ......................................................85
Pine High School: 3-Year WASC Term and High API .........................88
Pine High School, Generally ............................................................88
Pine High School Principal Interview ..............................................89
Pine High School Leadership ...........................................................90
Pine High School WASC Process ....................................................91
Pine High School WASC Data.........................................................92
Pine High School API Reporting Process ........................................92
Pine High School Williams Settlement Reporting Process...............94
Conclusion for Pine School ..............................................................94
Aspen High School: 3-Year WASC Term and Low API .......................94
Aspen High School, Generally .........................................................94
Aspen High School Principal Interview...........................................95
Aspen High School Leadership ........................................................97
Aspen High School WASC Process.................................................97
Aspen High School WASC Data......................................................98
Aspen High School API Reporting Process .....................................99
Aspen High School Williams Settlement Reporting Process .........101
Conclusion for Aspen High School ................................................102
Answer to Research Questions ...................................................................103
Conclusions.................................................................................................104
Chapter 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
OF THE FINDINGS...............................................................................106
Summary of the Study ................................................................................106
The Problem..........................................................................................106
Purpose of the Study.............................................................................107
Methodology.........................................................................................107
Sample and Population.........................................................................108

viii
Data Collection.....................................................................................108
Framework for Research Question 1 ....................................................109
Findings for Research Question 1.........................................................109
Framework for Research Question 2 ....................................................111
Findings for Research Question 2.........................................................111
School Leadership ................................................................................113
Application of the Study to the High School Reform Process ...................113
Conclusion ..................................................................................................115
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................117
APPENDICES
A. RECAP OF ACCREDITATION DISTRICTS ......................................122
B. FEE SCHEDULE, 2004-2005, CALIFORNIA AND HAWAII ...........123
C. WASC SELF-STUDY QUESTIONS ....................................................124
D. ACCREDITATION TERM DETERMINATION WORKSHEET........126
E. INITIAL REQUEST LETTER ..............................................................127
F. PRINCIPAL SITE LEADERSHIP MAPPING FORM.........................128
G. SITE LEADERSHIP MAPPING LETTER AND FORM.....................129
H. ACCOUNTABILITY VENN DIAGRAM ............................................131

ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Study Schools ........................................................................................8
Table 2: Accreditation Districts.........................................................................24
Table 3: Accreditation District Standards..........................................................30
Table 4: California High School Assessment Program .....................................41
Table 5: WASC Accreditation Status of Study Schools....................................66
Table 6: Achievement Statistics for the Study Schools .....................................66
Table 7: Composition of School Leadership Teams..........................................69
Table 8: Frequency of Leadership Team Meetings ...........................................70
Table 9: Results of Venn Diagram Map............................................................71
Table 10: School Accountability Report Card (SARC) Data for
Birch High School, 2004-2006............................................................73
Table 11: Birch High School WASC Recommendations and Results ................79
Table 12: School Accountability Report Card (SARC) Data for
Magnolia High School, 2004-2006......................................................82
Table 13: Magnolia High School WASC Recommendations and Results..........86
Table 14: School Accountability Report Card (SARC) Data for
Pine High School, 2004-2006..............................................................89
Table 15: Pine High School WASC Recommendations and Results ..................93
Table 16: School Accountability Report Card (SARC) Data for
Aspen High School, 2004-2006...........................................................96
Table 17: Aspen High School WASC Recommendations and Results .............100
Table 18: Aspen High School Academic Performance Index (API)
Reporting Differences........................................................................101

x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Study conceptual framework.................................................................4
Figure 2: Accountability reporting goals sources ...............................................18
Figure 3: Self-study report format, Western Association of Schools and
Colleges accreditation process.............................................................37
Figure 4: California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS) reporting
requirements ........................................................................................42
Figure 5: Specific mandated Williams settlement reporting requirements .........46
Figure 6: Williams settlement reporting compliance plan...................................47
Figure 7: Summary of the five research phases of the study ..............................52
Figure 8: California accountability reporting......................................................56
Figure 9: Accountability reporting terms ............................................................58
Figure 10: Interview guide....................................................................................60
Figure 11: Case study outline................................................................................62

xi
ACRONYMS AND TERMS
ACLU American Civil Liberties Union
ACSA Association of California School Administrators
AP Advanced Placement (classes offered for college credit in high school)
API Academic Performance Index
ASVAB Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery
AVID Advancement Via Independent Determination
AYP Adequate Yearly Progress
BCLAD Bilingual, Crosscultural, Language and Academic Development
(certification)
CAHSEE California High School Exit Exam
CAPA California Alternative Performance Assessment, for students with
disabilities
CBEDS California Basic Educational Data System
CDE California Department of Education
CHEA Council for Higher Education Accreditation
CLAD Crosscultural, Language, and Academic Development (certification)
CPEC California Postsecondary Education Commission
CRAC Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions
CST California Standards Test
ELL English Language Learner
ESLR Expected School-Wide Learning Result
GATE Gifted and Talented Education
ICASI International Council on Accreditation and School Improvement
MALDEF Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund

xii
MSA Middle Sates Association of Schools and Colleges
NAAS Northwest Association of Accredited Schools
NASC Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges
NASSP National Association of Secondary School Principals
NCASC North Central Association of Schools and Colleges
NCLB No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
NEASC New England Association of Schools and Colleges
NSSE National Study of School Evaluation
PD Professional development
PSAA Public Schools Accountability Act
PTSA Parents Teachers Students Association
SABE Spanish Assessment of Basic Education (norm-referenced testing for
Spanish-speaking students)
SACS Southern Association of Schools and Colleges
SARC School Accountability Report Card
SAT Scholastic Aptitude Test
SSC Self-Study Coordinator
STAR California Standardized Testing and Reporting Program
USD Unified school district
VC Visiting Committee
WASC Western Association of Schools and Colleges

xiii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to examine accountability reporting practices
of public high schools in California in light of recent measures mandated by Cali-
fornia and implemented by the California Department of Education (CDE), West-
ern Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) and the Williams v. California
(Williams) litigation settlement. Two research questions were developed to guide
the study:
1. Do high school leaders value the accreditation process?
2. Do high school leaders believe that the reporting requirements of the
CDE, WASC, and Williams provide the data needed to facilitate school
improvement?
A qualitative, information-rich case study of urban schools and the school
leaders responsible for reporting these measures was developed. The focus was on
four high schools located in two school districts, selected on the basis of differing
achievement levels and accreditation terms at each school.
Analysis of the data revealed that, when schools and their leaders followed
the ongoing improvement strategy mandated by the WASC commission, the
schools created a benchmark to create and implement reform. When a school did
not adopt the benchmarks set forth by the WASC commission, no benchmarks for
internal improvement were evident. Also, when school leaders understood how to
report and digest the CDE, WASC or Williams litigation settlement reporting pro-
cedures and outcomes, the schools had a benchmark in place for improvement.
Conversely, when school leaders did not utilize these reporting procedures and

xiv
results, they lacked basic information upon which to reform and improve their
schools.
Several findings emerged from the study. First, when high schools adhered
to specific reporting processes, benchmarks for reform were set with success, espe-
cially concerning the internal accreditation process. Second, school leaders reported
that strong leadership on the part of the principal was essential for school reporting
success. Third, school leaders reported that there are too many reporting require-
ments and agreed that those requirements should be consolidated.
Suggestions for future research include a longitudinal study that measures
the actual time spent by high school leaders in preparing reports, as well as the cost
of these reporting processes and whether there is an actual benefit to their prepara-
tion.

1

CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
American public schools have been challenged to raise achievement levels
for all students. According to a study published in 1997 by the National
Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), “The nation has had enough
of shoddy academic standards and of high school programs that prepare students
inadequately” (p. 8). Of the principals surveyed, 47% agreed with the statement
that “a high school diploma was not a guarantee that students learned the basics.”
Also, 85% of the principals surveyed favored higher standards in mathematics,
English, history, and science for students to obtain a high school diploma.
Studies such as this are an element of the new era of accountability educa-
tion. School leaders are accountable for ensuring that teachers are highly qualified,
students achieve at specific equivalents, school facilities are maintained at pre-
scribed levels, and students have access to adequate educational materials.
There are many examples of accountability measures that have been
mandated in California. By the late 1990s the California Department of Education
(CDE) had adopted specific content standards for public school student achieve-
ment in all grades and subjects (EdSource, 2006). There are specific content
standards in the areas of mathematics, history/social studies, science, and English
language arts.
In 1997 the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), the
commission responsible for the accreditation of schools in California, Hawaii, and
the U.S. protectorates in the South Pacific, redirected the school accreditation

2
process to emphasize “Focus on Learning.” The evolution of Focus on Learning
and the WASC reporting process are detailed in chapter 2.
In 1999, after the California legislature had passed the Public Schools
Accountability Act, the CDE implemented precise annual student achievement
reporting by all public schools in California (EdSource, 2005). Public schools are
required to submit data to the CDE that becomes the annual School Accountability
Report Card (SARC). The SARC is a means to report compliance with specific
teaching and learning accountability requirements for staff qualifications as well as
for student achievement. How the SARC process evolved and the SARC reporting
process are detailed in chapter 2.
In 2004 the California Supreme Court, in Williams v. California, created
specific criteria for school facilities management reporting. Subsequently, the
California legislature enacted several laws that require specific reporting for public
schools in California. All districts are required to implement procedures to ensure
that facilities meet precise safety and maintenance standards, as well as instruc-
tional materials and credentialed teacher requirements (Orange County Department
of Education, 2004). The progress toward maintaining those standards is detailed in
chapter 2.
Why are these issues important to California public education? According
to Powers (2003), California is a “bellwether state for demographic and public
policy trends that spread to other states or the nation as a whole” (p. 561).
Statement of the Problem
California public high schools are subject to many accountability reporting
processes. High schools must comply with the WASC review process (which is a

3
site-wide undertaking), as well as a variety of state-mandated school achievement
and competency requirements. As a result, there are so many reporting require-
ments and procedures that high school leaders face a challenge. School leaders are
not only responsible for the day-to-day operations of the urban public school; they
must also comply with school improvement measures.
Research Questions
1. Do high school leaders value the accreditation process?
2. Do high school leaders believe that WASC, CDE, and Williams settle-
ment reporting requirements provide the data needed to facilitate school
improvement?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine accountability reporting practices
of public high schools in California in light of recent measures mandated by
California and implemented by the CDE, WASC, and the Williams litigation. A
case study of urban schools and the school leaders responsible for reporting these
measures was developed. Leaders were interviewed to determine which
accountability reporting processes (if any) they believed accurately reflected
improvement of the school and enhanced learning outcomes.
Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework that details specific predictive instruments of
school improvement (WASC accreditation term and Academic Performance Index
[API] scores) and the phenomenon of a mismatch between those instruments was

4
developed. Four schools were identified whose achievement data matched the
conceptual framework described in Figure 1.

Data High API Low API

6R WASC

3 Year WASC

Figure 1. Study conceptual framework. API =
Academic Performance Index; WASC = Western
Association of Schools and Colleges.

Another issue was whether California schools were in compliance with—or
making progress toward—mandated policies and practices requiring the current
level of accountability reporting. Compliance was another element of the concep-
tual framework.
Accreditation, Generally
The accreditation process encompasses high schools as well as colleges.
According to Jasinski (1999), “Accreditation serves as an external validation
process for educational institutions” (p. 90).
With respect to college accreditation, this process has been defined by the
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) as “a process of external
quality review used by higher education to scrutinize colleges, universities and
educational programs for quality assurance and quality improvement” (2002, p. 2).
The college accreditation process is detailed in chapter 2.

5
Is the accreditation procedure beneficial to public education? According to a
report conducted by the National Study of School Evaluation (NSSE, 2004),
accreditation has specific benefits for the school community: (a) It is an objective
standard and process for educational excellence, (b) it assists schools with meeting
external accountability requirements, and (c) it is a provision for school quality that
is accepted worldwide.
Accreditation is divided into several districts across the United States. Each
district encompasses high schools as well as colleges and is detailed in chapter 2.
The six districts and the states they serve are as follows:
1. Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), serving Hawaii
and California.
2. Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges (MSA), serving
Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland.
3. New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), serving
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
4. North Central Association of Schools and Colleges (NCASC), serving
North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana, Missouri,
Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arizona, and New Mexico.
5. Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges (NASC), serving Alaska,
Washington, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Oregon, and Nevada.
6. Southern Association of Schools and Colleges (SASC), serving Texas,
Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

6
In the region covered by WASC, the accreditation process utilizes the Focus
on Learning methodology adopted in 1997 (George & Haught, 1996). All five
sections of Focus on Learning are elements of accountability in an educational
system that has evolved into one with finite standards and expectations. This
process includes five separate criteria upon which public schools are rated in the
WASC process: (a) Organization: Vision and Purpose, Governance, Leadership and
Staff, and Resources; (b) Standards-Based Student Learning: Curriculum; (c)
Standards-Based Student Learning: Instruction; (d) Standards-Based Student
Learning: Assessment and Accountability; and (e) School Culture and Support for
Student Personal and Academic Growth (Focus on Learning, 2006).
California Student Achievement
Reporting Processes, Generally
Every October, high schools conduct an internal audit of the site and report
the results to the CDE. In turn, the CDE disaggregates the data into the annual
SARC. The audit recaps staff and student characteristics as well as student achieve-
ment levels.
There are other reporting processes as well. There is the API, a reporting
process that summarizes achievement, demographics, and staffing in all California
schools. There is the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), which all
students must pass in order to obtain a high school diploma. These reporting
methods, their background, and the publication processes are detailed in chapter 2.
Williams Reporting, Generally
The Williams litigation was a class action suit that commenced in California
in 2000, as a result of problems that arose concerning school schedules, facilities,

7
instructional materials, and teacher credentialing. It was settled 4 years later. As a
result, California high schools face yet another set of reporting standards. This
criterion is based on facilities, instructional materials, and teacher credentialing.
There are specific criteria that all schools in California must meet concerning facili-
ties, school conditions, teacher qualifications, and materials available for student
learning. The laws related to the Williams settlement, the current reporting process,
and the results of implementation of that process are detailed in chapter 2.
Importance of the Study
This study is important to secondary education on several levels. First, the
processes for reporting student achievement and the relationship of this process to
precise and specific student achievement standards on the secondary level require
further study. Such a study will assist future high school leadership teams in their
efforts to organize and maintain reporting procedures in an accurate and meaning-
ful manner.
Second, outcomes of reporting processes (WASC term, Williams reporting,
and CDE reporting criteria) require further scrutiny. Once a school has completed a
specific WASC term report, is that report helpful to school leaders in terms of
school improvement? Once a school has completed regular reporting processes, are
the individuals responsible at the school level using those reports to plan and imple-
ment goals for future student achievement outcomes?
Also, the study addressed why accreditation terms and standardized
achievement test results were so varied in California high schools. Which site
achievement standards required the highest level of involvement by school leaders?
Did school leaders believe that reporting tasks were duplicative?

8
Summary of the Methodology
It is not known whether high school leaders value the process of reporting
California’s mandated accountability measures. Nor is it known whether high
school leaders consider these reporting processes an important element of school
improvement outcomes. This study addressed these issues and the research
questions posed above.
This study required qualitative methodology. A case study was developed
for four high schools located in an urban setting in California. Each school’s
achievement statistics reflected an element of the study conceptual framework
(Figure 1). The study schools had either a 3 or 6R term (accreditation of 6 years
with a 3-year review) and varying degrees of academic performance outcomes.
Those schools are detailed in Table 1.

Table 1

Study Schools

WASC Current 2005 2006 Met growth
School term CDE rank Base API Growth API target?

Birch 6R 8 758 761 Yes
Magnolia 6R 4 666 655 No
Pine 3 7 737 741 Yes
Aspen 3 2 666 655 No

Note. WASC = Western Association of Schools and Colleges; CDE = California
Department of Education; API = Academic Performance Index.

9
School leaders at the study schools were interviewed. An interview protocol
was designed to address the data that reflect what specific accountability measures
school leaders utilized to verify achievement outcomes. The study methodology
relied on a case study approach that determined what reporting process (if any) was
a factor in public high school learning, accountability, and improvement measures.
There were five phases for the study, which are detailed in chapter 3: (a) determine
the appropriate study schools; (b) determine the school leadership team; (c) validate
study school principals’ conclusions concerning composition of school leadership
team; (d) interview study school leaders concerning what reporting process (if any)
is a factor in public high school learning, accountability, and improvement
measures; and (e) summarize the findings via the case study format.
Limitations
The data for the study were collected from selected high schools in
California. There were unknown factors and issues affecting the study schools that
were not part of this study and that could limit the generalizability of the study.
Delimitations
The study dissected qualitative data in California high schools whose
improvement measures were classified as internal (quality of school leadership) or
external (WASC evaluation team, CDE, and Williams settlement reporting require-
ments). The study was delimited to California high schools, since they were sub-
ordinate to an accountability process unique to California.
The study sample consisted of school leaders at four California high schools
in an urban setting. Although the individuals and school sites sampled did not
represent all high school accountability levels and terms, it was the unique

10
experience of each site and its leadership in the site accountability process that was
the focus of the study.
Assumptions
A protocol was generated that analyzed the relationship between required
elements of high school site accountability measures and school leaders; the
protocol is detailed in chapter 3. It was assumed that the standards and practices
mandated by the CDE and the U.S. Department of Education (2000) were reliable
and representative of foremost practices in the field of secondary education.
Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index (API): A measure of school growth. In
California, schools must set and meet a minimum growth target of 5% per school
year, and each significant student subgroup at the school must achieve at least 80%
of the school-wide annual growth target.
Accreditation: The process whereby an institution meets specific educa-
tional requirements as mandated by an official review board.
Achievement Standards: The means to determine what high schools students
are able to do when they graduate.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): The way California reports whether
students have made adequate yearly progress under the guidelines in the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001. The index is based primarily on student performance and
participation on state tests.
Content Standards: The means to determine what high school students
should know when they graduate.

11
Distinguished School Program: A program mandated by California
whereby schools may complete a long process to be come a distinguished school.
Focus on Learning: The theme adopted by WASC in 1997 to reflect the
current WASC accreditation process.
School Accountability Report Card (SARC): A title for the annual reporting
process for all California public schools, consisting of a series of documents that
reflect the district and site achievement levels.
Self-Study Coordinator: The person at a high school who is responsible for
leading the accreditation self-study and review prior to the accreditation visit by the
Visiting Committee.
Standards: The written criteria designed to form the basis for the highest
level of achievement by students, teachers, and administrators in California public
schools.
Uniform Compliance Plan (UCP): A series of laws passed by the California
legislature to fulfill the requirements of the California State Supreme Court
decision in Williams v. California.
Visiting Committee (VC): A committee of educators who volunteer to
conduct a site visit for the school accreditation process undertaken by schools.
Their purpose is to conduct a site visit in support of high school accreditation.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 details the importance of the study of high school accreditation
and its relationship to other mandated accountability measures. Chapter 2 reviews
the literature concerning current accreditation and accountability standards and
their respective evaluation processes on the state and local levels. This chapter also

12
discusses the role of high school leaders concerning implementation of the various
accountability standards currently in place. Chapter 3 describes the study metho-
dology, including the study design, instruments, data collection, and data analysis.
Chapter 4 analyzes the data collected and presents findings relevant to the research
questions. Chapter 5 recapitulates the study and presents implications for practi-
tioners and policy makers in education.
Conclusion: Why Study High School
Accountability Reporting?
As shown in the literature review (chapter 2), the process for reporting
school accountability has many requirements. Studying how this process exists in
its present form presents the issue of whether there should be a higher level of
alignment between achievement and competency reporting standards in California
high schools.
Another issue was whether the accreditation process was appropriate in
light of reporting processes and standards currently in place in California secondary
education. What reporting is enough and what is the process that school leaders
undertake that determines the priority of reporting requirements?
A means to answer these questions and address these issues was to pose
questions of practitioners and leaders who make those decisions in public high
schools with different achievement outcomes. These individuals determine the
priority of action on the high school level. Studying their decision-making process
focused on accreditation as it relates to other measures of student learning and
achievement.

13
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
As public education accountability and reporting measures continue to
evolve, so do their reporting processes. In order to understand those processes,
several elements of high school accountability reporting require deeper study and
definition. These elements, introduced in chapter 1, are (a) how accountability
became part of the WASC high school accreditation process; (b) how accounta-
bility became part of the CDE high school reporting process, including the API,
SARC, CAHSEE, and content standards; and (c) how accountability became part of
the high school reporting process as a result of the Williams litigation settlement.
In order to address these issues, chapter 2 is divided into the following
sections: (a) accountability and school improvement, (b) profile of high school
administration and the leadership team, (c) profile of accreditation across the
United States, (d) accountability and the WASC accreditation process, (e) account-
ability and the CDE reporting process, and (f) accountability and the Williams
litigation settlement reporting process
A central element of the study was whether the WASC reporting process,
the CDE reporting process, and the Williams reporting process contain duplicative
criteria. This is important because each reporting process is time consuming and
detailed. Identifying these factors was fundamental for the study, the purpose of
which was to investigate which criteria public high school leaders value that will
facilitate improvement.

14
Accountability and School Improvement
Accountability Defined
Several trends have become the lenses for educators to view the issue of
accountability in public schools. As O’Day (2002) observed, “The current empha-
sis on and efforts toward educational accountability represent a departure, or
evolution, from previous practice” (p. 294). What are some of these trends?
Darling-Hammond and Ascher (1991) argued that accountability is a
“system of commitments, policies and practices” (p. 1). They contended that
accountability includes the following elements:
1. How a school or school system hires, evaluates and supports its staff;
2. How [a school] relates to students and parents;
3. How [a school] manages its daily affairs;
4. How[a school] makes decisions;
5. How[a school] ensures that the best available knowledge will be acquired
and used;
6. How[a school] evaluates its own functioning as well as students’
progress;
7. How [a school] tackles problems;
8. How [a school] provides incentives for continued improvement (p. 2)
Sweeney (2000) characterized accountability as “the mindset that drives
performance and performance drives results” (p. 1). Sweeney detailed the evolution
of an accountability system in Sacramento. His approach is detailed as follows:
Principle I: Address individual accountability and collective accountability.
Individual accountability recognizes the unique contribution of each person
in the attainment of common goals. It serves as a basis for coaching/mentor-
ing, goal setting, and evaluation of individual performance. Collective
accountability promotes collaboration, collegiality, and group responsi-
bility, and assures that each school or central office unit pulls together to
reach a common goal.

15
Principle II: Address the accountability of all stakeholders. The responsi-
bility for student learning rests with educators. However, all who support
schools, as well as parents and students, are accountable.
Principle III: Measure and track outcomes and processes. Measurement
must be tied to results or outcomes important to staff, parents and the
community. But we must also measure and track the processes that get
those results.
Principle IV: Use a two-pronged approach: meeting standards and value-
added/continuous progress. To raise expectations, set the bar high; students
and staff must meet rigorous standards. But educators, schools and central
services have different starting points and face different challenges. Measur-
ing progress toward performance expectations provides a fair and salient
approach to accountability. Value-added/continuous progress recognizes
gains of most challenged students and schools, even though they have not
yet achieved the ultimate standards of performance.
Principle V: Approach accountability from an organizational, personal and
public perspective. Accountability is organizational; effective organizations
make provisions for it and build it into their operational plan. Making
accountability public, when done appropriately, takes it to another level.
When it is effectively approached as a personal matter, the personal
commitment takes it to the highest level. (Sweeney, 2000, ¶¶ 18-22)
Goldberg and Morrison (2003) stated that accountability is “the willingness
to accept the consequences of one’s actions according to agreed-upon commitments
(p. 63). They developed specific recommendations for a higher level of accounta-
bility on the part of schools, based on their 10-year project as one of the first New
American School Design Teams:
1. Create a shared sense of purpose;
2. Make good use of academic standards;
3. Make good use of data and standardized tests;
4. Work with teachers to improve on the reliability and validity of local
assessments;
5. Leverage and promote social capital in the school and its community as a
fundamental currency of accountability; and
6. Create a strong professional community. (p. 63-81)

16
Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) stated that specific aspects of education
(teacher qualifications, student improvement on standardized testing, and perform-
ance rankings) have become “code words” for accountability. They characterized
accountability as a “contractual relationship” between two parties: the provider of a
service and the director with the power to “reward, punish or replace the provider”
(p. 17).
No matter to which view of accountability one adheres, the fact remains that
accountability in public education encompasses reporting mechanisms for what is
happening inside a school (internal) and outside the school (external). The next
section relates these two items as they pertain to school reporting mechanisms.
Internal Versus External Accountability
There are two means to determine reporting in schools that relate to the
issue of accountability. Schools are required to report on specific aspects of student
outcomes as they relates to the internal achievement of the schools. These items are
part of the WASC and Williams processes and are detailed later in this chapter.
Schools are also required to report student achievement outcomes to various
agencies. This is known as external accountability. The API is an example of an
external accountability requirement, and it is detailed later in this chapter.
Evolution of Accountability as
a School Improvement Tool
The notion of accountability as a basic element of school improvement is
fairly recent. According to Fuhrman (2004), the evolution of accountability as an
issue evolved in the 1980s as a result of the business community involvement in
public education. The business community was not satisfied with the fact that

17
people educated in nations other than the United States achieved at a higher aca-
demic level than did American students. As a result, and by the end of the 1980s,
standards and content-based reform spread rapidly across the country. The
accountability component of content reform became the standard of educating
students, rather than compliance with regulations. Thus, the shift to school-level
accountability measures (as opposed to the state level) evolved as a vehicle to drive
school improvement (Fuhrman).
According to Zumeta (2001), the latter portion of the 1990s was the initial
phase of a “historically significant ramp-up in the degree of government involve-
ment in academic matters” (p. 155). Zumeta contended that this was a result of the
post-World War II era of technological and global changes and that, as a result,
“Private sector ideas have permeated the public sector” (p. 157).
Since accountability for school improvement has become an issue, how
does one know what framework of measurement help a school to improve? Are
there enough accountability measures to reflect improvement in California high
schools, or are there too many?
As this chapter and the study reflect, there are several accountability
measures for California high schools. Each measure has its own reporting goals and
expected outcomes. Figure 2 depicts those goals and outcomes.
Creating a recap of the goals does not tell the story of accountability as it
relates to California high school reporting processes or the job of high school
leaders in performing these tasks. How are these accountability measures com-
pleted and which school leaders are responsible for completing them? Identifying
who school leaders are and how they view these accountability practices is an
essential element of the study and is detailed in the next section.

18

WASC CDE Reporting Williams
Involvement and collaboration of entire
staff and shareholders to support student
achievement.
Clarification and measurement of what all
students should know, understand and be
able to do through expected schoolwide
learning results and academic standards.
Gathering and analyzing data about
student achievement.
Assessment of entire school program and
its impact on student learning in relation
to expected schoolwide learning results,
academic standards and WASC/API
criteria.
Alignment of a long-range action plan to
the schools’ areas of need, development
and implementation of an accountability
system for monitoring accomplishment of
the plan.
Information affecting
the following areas:
Funding
Research
Program plans
Policy Decisions
NCLB Reporting
Public Information
Reporting
Standards
mandated by SB
550:

Clean, safe, and
functional
facilities
Proper job
placement of
certificated
personnel
Proper assignment
of instructional
materials and
textbooks.

Figure 2. Accountability reporting goals sources. WASC = Western Association of
Schools and Colleges; CDE = California Department of Education; Williams =
Williams v. California, Case No. 312236, California; SB = Senate Bill; API =
Academic Performance Index; NCLB = No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Source:
California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS): Administrative Manual for
CBEDS Coordinators and School Principals, by California Department of Educa-
tion, 2005a, retrieved March 10, 2006, from http://data1.ced.ca.gov/dataquest/
whatsindq.asp

Profile of the High School Administration
and Leadership Team
Who are leaders and what individuals comprise leadership teams at
schools? According to Neuman, Fisher, and Simmons (2000), it is “teachers, staff
members, parents and members of the entire education community” (p. 8).
When considering the actual leadership structure of a high school, the
principal is considered the “single most important person in the school” (Lashway,

19
2002, p. 3). The principal’s function is to “create an effective school environment
where student achievement can be maximized but the principal must have the
authority to lead” (Association of California School Administrators [ACSA], 1998,
¶ 5).
Lashway (2002) contended that the actual leadership role that the principal
assumes should be “distributed throughout the school rather than vested in one
position” (p. 3). What does this mean in terms of actual organizational structure of
the California high school? High school leadership teams can be very different and,
as ACSA (1998) observed, “Those areas are likely to vary from school to school
and district to district” (¶ 4).
Leaders at the High School Level
To improve school outcomes, the principal must have a cadre of individuals
who manage as well as lead the school. According to ACSA (1996), 36% of school
leadership teams are comprised of administrators who have specific tasks that
function to supplement the job of the principal. Those individuals and the jobs they
do are as follows:
1. Assistant Principals are administrative personnel who assist the principal
in the day-to-day operations of the school. Kaplan and Owings (1999) identified
several elements in the way in which assistant principals share leadership of the
school. To paraphrase, these elements are to co-design the vision of the school,
coach and evaluate teachers, design the master schedule, and develop programs that
enhance student achievement. According to ACSA (1996), specific tasks fall into
the administrator category: (a) developing and implementing the curriculum;
(b) selecting textbooks and instructional materials; (c) recruiting, training, and

20
evaluating classified and certificated staff members; (d) implementing strategic
planning and evaluation; (e) managing the budget and monitoring cost controls;
(f) maintaining community relations, including parent and business relations; and
(g) implementing school board policies and complying with federal, state, and local
regulations and laws.
2. There are also teacher leaders who take on leadership roles besides the
job of teaching (York-Barr & Duke 2004). Some of these individuals are (a) the
Honors Coordinator, who coordinates scheduling advanced placement (AP) classes
and testing, honors classes and testing, and working with the community to pro-
mote the honors program; and (b) subject department chairs, who are responsible
for the day-to-day operations of each department, such as budgeting, standards
teaching, and any other items unique to the school.
3. Guidance counselors coordinate many elements of the non-classroom
experience of students, following the “three-component model for providing
services to students: education, career and personal services such as post-high
school planning, school-wide discipline issues and the master schedule” (Niebuhr,
Niebuhr, & Cleveland, 1999, pp. 675-676). The authors observed that “balancing
these services depends on the grade level, demographics and overall goals of the
school schedule” (p. 675).
4. The site council is a leadership body the purpose of which is to act as an
advisory board in areas that are unique to that school. According to Odden and
Wohlstetter (1995), “Most site councils are composed of administrators, teachers,
parents and classified employees” (p. 33). For example, in communities with a high
crime rate, the site council may act as a liaison between the school and local
merchants to restrict the open campus lunch policy and reduce petty crime.

21
Leadership as a Function of
School Improvement
While it is important to identify school leaders and the leadership team, how
does this concept function as an element of school improvement? Elmore (2000)
created a specific set of leadership criteria for school improvement. With respect to
principals and “support personnel,” there were six main improvement functions:
1. Design improvement strategies.
2. Implement incentive structures for teachers, support personnel.
3. Recruit, evaluate teachers.
4. Broker professional development consistent with improvement strategy.
5. Allocate school resources toward instruction
6. Buffer non-instructional issues from teachers. (p. 23)
Marzano (2003) developed a specific model of “phases” for leadership
designed to effect school improvement. He recommended that leaders take the
pulse of the school, identify and implement a specific intervention, examine the
effect on achievement, and move to the next issue.
Conclusion
Composition of leadership teams varies from school to school, and no
two public high schools have identical leadership team structures. Schools have
different methods for allocating the number of Assistant Principals per school.
Also, Assistant Principal responsibilities are different from school to school.
Each leadership team is different based on the culture and needs of the
school. This information has been incorporated into the following sections
concerning accreditation, the API, and Williams in terms of how leaders participate
in the reporting requirements of each.

22
Profile of Accreditation Across the United States
The six accreditation commissions in the United States have different
standards and terms. All six districts accredit schools (public, private, and charter)
and colleges (public and private) in their respective districts. Also, each district is
responsible for accrediting learning institutions in Native American tribes, terri-
tories of the United States, and other countries around the world.
College Accreditation
According to the CHEA (2003), “Accreditation is a process of external
quality review used by higher education to scrutinize colleges, universities and
educational programs for quality assurance and quality improvement” (¶ 1).
According to the CHEA (2002), college accreditation has five main features:
(a) self-study, (b) peer review, (c) site visit, (d) action, and (e) monitoring and
oversight.,
In the WASC district, 4-year colleges are accredited separately from junior
and community colleges (WASC, 2004). The main difference between college and
high school accreditation is the term. High schools can earn up to a 6-year term but
colleges in the WASC district can earn a 10-year term (WASC, 2001, p. 46).
History and Evolution of the Modern
Accreditation Structure
The roots of accreditation are in the medieval academic communities of
Europe in Italy and France. The original determination of the meaning of the word
accreditation in these communities was “trustworthiness” (MSA, 2003, p. 3).
In the United States, accreditation evolved into a policy issue during the
latter part of the 19th century. Public education evolved from an entity funded by
private money to one that was funded by public funds (Merta, 1992). As Merta

23
noted, 70% of students entering college were from private schools but, by 1920,
90% of students entering college were from publicly funded high schools.
The first accreditation district founded was the NEASC, founded in 1885.
This district is the oldest accreditation district in the United States (NEASC,
2006a). The driving force for this movement was the need to determine what a
college was and what the standards were for determining a student was ready for
college. At the same time, the NEASC developed the tradition of accreditation as a
voluntary association (Merta, 1992). The volunteerism of the NEASC began a
tradition of peer review in the accreditation process which exists to this day.
Subsequent to the formation of the NEASC, accreditation districts
developed in the United States based how the nation had expanded geographically.
During the latter part of the 19th century and well into the first two decades of the
20th century, geography determined basic elements of American life, such as
transportation and communication. Accreditation districts evolved as a result in
four geographic regions in the United States: New England, the South, the Middle
States, and the North Central States. WASC was subsequently chartered early in
the 20th century (Merta, 1992).
Appendix A delineates each district by population, number of states, and
percentage of the entire population of the United States. Table 2 contains the name
of each accreditation district, the states the district serves, and the theme or mission
of each district.
Even though each state is ultimately responsible for education within that
state, accrediting districts have evolved into “holders of the public trust” (Merta
1992, p. 24). As Merta noted, “Accreditation meant that a school had been certified

24
Table 2

Accreditation Districts

District Member states Mission

Middle Sates
Association of Schools
and Colleges
http://www.css-msa.org/
Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey,
Maryland, Delaware
Standards for
Schools
New England
Association of Schools
and Colleges
http://www.neasc.org
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Vermont
Improving
Education
Through
Accreditation
North Central
Association Commission
of Accreditation and
School Improvement
http://www.ncacasi.org
North Dakota, South Dakota,
Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa,
Ohio, Illinois, West Virginia, Indiana,
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma,
Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona
Fulfilling Our
Promise
Northwest Association
of Accredited Schools
http://www.boisestate.e
du/naas/
Alaska, Washington, Montana, Idaho,
Utah, Oregon, Nevada
Advancing the
quality of
education
worldwide
Southern Association of
Schools and Colleges
http://www.sacs.org
Texas, Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Florida, Virginia, North Carolina,
Georgia, South Carolina
To help schools
improve student
learning through
accreditation
Western Association of
Schools and Colleges
http://www.wascweb.or
g
California, Hawaii Focus on
Learning

as good” (p. 26). Following is a description of each district, its accreditation
procedures, and the standards by which the district evaluates schools.

25
New England Association of
Schools and Colleges
This association is divided into several separate commissions: college,
private schools, public and elementary schools, public high schools, vocational
schools, and international schools. The current procedure for high school accredita-
tion in this district is a “voluntary, peer review process” (NEASC, 2006a).
Accreditation for high schools in this district is based on finite standards. Each
standard has a detailed and precise means for evaluation.
1. The school mission statement and expectations for student learning
2. Curriculum
3. Instruction
4. Assessment of Student Learning
5. Leadership and Organization
6. School Resources for Learning: Support, Guidance and Health, Library
and Special Education Community Resources for Learning (NEASC, 2006b).
Middle Sates Association of Schools and Colleges
The MSA was founded in 1887 and is the second oldest accrediting district
(MSA, 2003, p. 1). The MSA has three separate accrediting commissions: college,
high school, and vocational school. The high school section was founded in 1920.
Its duties at the time were to “promote the welfare and improvement of education,
to recommend standards for accreditation and to promote articulation among
elementary schools, secondary schools and post-secondary institutions” (MSA,
2003, p. 2).
The most current accreditation standards for this district were revised in
2002 and published in 2003. As a result, the MSA monitors the following

26
outcomes: (a) distinguish policy statements from procedural descriptions,
(b) reflect changes in accreditation protocols, (c) diversity of membership, and
(d) recognition by the U.S. Department of Education (MSA, 2003, pp. i-ii). MSA
has developed the following accreditation standards (MSA, 2001):
1. Philosophy, Mission, Beliefs and Objectives
2. Governance and Leadership
3. Organizational Design and Staff
4. Educational Programs
5. Learning: Media Services and Technology
6. Student Services
7. Student Life and Student Activities
8. Facilities
9. Health and Safety
10. Finances
11. Assessment
12. Planning
North Central Association of Schools and Colleges and
Southern Association of Schools and Colleges
According to the draft entitled Accreditation Standards for Quality Schools
(2006), these two entities are currently attempting to merge into the International
Council on Accreditation and School Improvement (ICASI). They are working
with the NSSE, and their joint mission is to provide accreditation and school
improvement services that:

27
1. Help schools maximize student success
2. Build the capacity of schools and school systems to achieve excellence
through high standards, quality assurance, and continuous improvement.
3. Bring together research and resources for student, school and system
improvement. (Accreditation Standards for Quality Schools, 2006, p. 2)
This joint entity has adopted the following accreditation standards:
1. Vision and Purpose
2. Governance and Leadership
3. Teaching and Learning
4. Documenting and Using Results
5. Resources and Support Systems
6. Stakeholder Communications and Relationships
7. Commitment to Continuous Improvement (Accreditation Standards for
Quality Schools, 2006, p. 1)
Northwest Association of Accredited Schools
The Northwest Association of Accredited Schools (NAAS) recently
published a revised accreditation manual, with the mission of “ensuring an
effective focus on teaching and learning, improving student performance and
support for teaching and learning” (Northwest Association of Schools and
Colleges, 2006, p. 2). The NAAS also adopted specific accreditation standards:
1. Teaching and Learning Standards
2. Mission, Beliefs and Expectations for Student Learning
3. Curriculum
4. Instruction
5. Assessment
6. Support Standards
7. Leadership and Organization

28
8. School Services
9. Facilities and Finances
10. School Improvement Standards
11. Culture of Continual Improvement
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
According to the California Post Secondary Education Commission
(CPEC), there are two basic types of accreditation relevant to the WASC process.
One is institutional accreditation, in which the entire institution is evaluated. The
other is programmatic accreditation, wherein a specific program is evaluated. As
the CPEC observed, “The WASC process revolves around accreditation of the site
as an institution, rather than a specific site program” (CPEC, 2004).
WASC does not have a finite mandate by the California legislature to
accredit schools and colleges. Rather, WASC is a commission. It is “recognized”
by two entities: the U.S. Department of Education (a publicly funded entity) and
the CHEA (a privately funded entity; CHEA, 2002).
As a commission, WASC has a unique purpose, which is to foster
excellence in elementary, secondary, adult, and postsecondary institutions, and
supplementary education programs. The Commission encourages school improve-
ment through a process of continuing evaluation and recognizes institutions
through granting accreditation to the schools that meet an acceptable level of
quality in accordance with the established criteria (WASC, 2006a).
The Commission enumerates specific responsibilities for itself: (a) establish
bylaws for the governance of the Commission, (b) establish criteria for accredita-
tion, (c) grant terms of accreditation, (d) maintain adequate financial resources,

29
(e) maintain complete and accurate of accreditation reviews and actions, (f) per-
form other functions consistent with the Bylaws and Operational Guidelines, and
(g) participate in accreditation visits (WASC, 2006a).
In order to sustain itself, WASC has a fee schedule for all member schools.
Each member school is assessed an annual membership fee of $575. There are also
fees for the self-study, initial visit fees, and subsequent visit fees. Appendix B is the
current fee schedule for 2004-2005 as of July 1, 2001. It was obtained in a meeting
with the WASC Southern California Regional Director on January 6, 2006.
The WASC Commission meets three times per year. All accreditation terms
that have been submitted are considered. For the 2004-2005 school calendar year,
WASC considered 488 accreditation applications that resulted in 3- or 6-year
accreditation terms. However, the Commission also took action regarding over 800
total applications for the year. This includes terms that were denied, terms that were
revisits, or terms that were extended (WASC, 2006a).
The Commission has offices in two locations in California: Burlingame and
Temecula. There are 26 executive committee members who represent many areas
of education, such as the California and Hawaii Departments of Education, private
school organizations, unions, the ACSA, and the California School Boards
Association. There are also slots allocated for three members from the public at
large (WASC, 2006a).
The WASC accreditation process has been divided into the following
categories:
1. Organization: Vision and Purpose, Governance, Leadership and Staff,
and Resources
2. Standards-Based Student Learning: Curriculum

30
3. Standards-Based Student Learning: Instruction
4. Standards-Based Student Learning: Assessment and Accountability
5. School Culture and Support for Student Personal and Academic Growth
(Focus on Learning, 2006, p. 5)
Conclusion
As has been shown, each accreditation district maintains its own accredita-
tion format, standards, and terms. Are these districts moving toward a uniform
alignment of standards? Table 3 summarizes each separate accreditation district
standard as it compares to the WASC process.

Table 3

Accreditation District Standards

SACS/
Standard WASC NEASC MSA NCASC NAAS

Vision and purpose X X X
Governance X X X
Leadership X X X X X
Curriculum X X X X
Instruction X X X X
Assessment and accountability X X X X X
Culture X X
Teaching and learning X

Note. WASC = Western Association of Schools and Colleges; NEASC = New
England Association of Schools and Colleges; MSA = Middle States Association of
Schools and Colleges; NCASC = North Central Association of Schools and
Colleges; NAAS = Northwest Association of Accredited Schools.

31
Accountability and the WASC Accreditation Process
According to Merta (1992), the original purpose of accreditation was to
“certify to colleges that students had graduated from high schools which had
adequate curricula and employed trained teachers” (p. 25). With the evolution of
higher accountability expectations for public high schools, accreditation has
become increasingly more important. Simply stated, “Accreditation is an endorse-
ment of quality education and an indication of the system’s integrity” (Merta,
p. 28).
WASC in Its Present Form
The current theme of WASC is Focus on Learning. This theme was adopted
in 1997 to reflect the position of WASC that “the business of schools is learning”
(Focus on Learning, 2006, p. 1) rather than teaching, which was the emphasis of
WASC prior to the adoption of Focus on Learning. Why did the WASC criteria
change? According to George and Haught, WASC wanted to be in concert with
current research and teaching, learning, and organizational development. The
change was adopted to align with “Breaking Ranks,” a report published by the
NASSP (George & Haught, 1996).
This emphasis changed in light of evolution of standards that demanded a
specific and higher level of learning in the classroom (George & Haught, 1996).
The emphasis was revised so that the accreditation review would “assess the
school’s effectiveness in generating meaningful learning on the part of students”
(p. 7). This is in accordance with Fuhrman’s (1999) observation that “outcome
measures are now being used as criteria for accreditation” (p. 1). The framework
for this change evolved into two main issues:

32
1. How are students doing with respect to schoolwide learning expectations,
and
2. Is the school doing everything possible to support high achievement of
these expectations for all its students? (George & Haught, p. 12)
According to the most recent version of Focus on Learning (Focus on
Learning, 2006), the accreditation process is a “perpetual process of assessment,
planning, implementing, monitoring and reassessment” (p. 4). The actual accredita-
tion process should be continuous, even if a school has a 6-year accreditation cycle.
That is, there should be ongoing activity on the part of the school on an annual
basis.
The primary goal of the WASC accreditation process is that schools are
expected to summarize the degree to which all students (including desegregated
subgroups) are meeting the expected schoolwide learning results (Focus on
Learning, 2006). Examples of such groups are students who have been classified as
English language learners (ELL) or gifted and talented (GATE).
The WASC Commission holds that accountability is an important element
of the WASC process as accreditation
Certification to the public that the school is a trustworthy institution of
learning.
Validates the integrity of a school’s program and student transcripts.
Fosters improvement of the school’s programs and operations to support
student learning.
Assures a school community that the school’s purposes are appropriate and
being accomplished through a viable educational program.
A way to manage change through regular assessment, planning,
implementing, monitoring and reassessment.
Assists a school/district in establishing its priority areas for improvement as
a result of the perpetual accreditation cycle that includes
School self-assessment of the current educational program for students

33
Insight and perspective from the visiting committee
Regular school staff assessment of progress through the intervening years
between full self-studies and perspective from the visiting committee
(WASC, 2006b)
In order to support these accountability measures, the WASC process itself
has been divided into gathering three types of data on the part of the school: demo-
graphic data, outcome data, and process data. These items were adapted by WASC
with permission from the Southern California Comprehensive Assistance Center
(Focus on Learning, 2006). Each category has specific purposes and collection
processes as follows:
Demographic Data
The purpose of including demographic data is to reinforce the school’s
position that it is meeting accreditation requirements. The items comprising this
section are enrollment, attendance, language proficiency, socioeconomic status,
family trends, community trends, and staff. These items are collected for three
reasons:
Helps staff and other shareholders to understand the students and their
unique needs
Provides vital statistics regarding students, their families, the staff and the
community
Identifies factors that must be considered in the staff’s decision-making
process (Focus on Learning, 2006, p. 198)
Outcome Data
The outcome section of a WASC Report is required to summarize data that
are concerned with student achievement, completion rates, comparative data, post-
enrollment data, and supplemental data. WASC expects this to be partially reported

34
in the Student/Community Profile and the home group summaries (Focus on
Learning, 2006). These data are collected for the following reasons:
Describes how students are doing at a specific time
Communicates how a student or group of students has acquired specific
knowledge, skills or attitudes
Is measurable and quantifiable (Focus on Learning, 2006, p. 198)
Process Data
This type of data has a specific set of questions that the self-study group is
required to answer and is a part of the student-community profile and focus group
summaries (Focus on Learning, 2006). This section also contains specific self-
study questions that apply to each category and are mapped out in appendix C.
WASC holds that this information is important because it does the following:
Includes information related to the school’s efforts to promote a high level
of student achievement
Refers to variables over which the school has control
Helps the staff make decisions about site organization, curriculum,
instruction and assessment (Focus on Learning, 2006, p. 190)
The Survey Process
The school has an option in the reporting process to survey stakeholders to
determine how each member of the community views the school and what concerns
they may have (Focus on Learning, 2006). Often, this includes students, parents,
and the community at large. If a survey is conducted, the results are incorporated
into the self-study as evidence of community affirmation of how the school is
performing.

35
School Leaders and the WASC Reporting Process:
The Role of School Leaders
Involvement in the WASC process occurs at the behest of the self-study
coordinator (SSC), who is a school employee. This person is responsible for pro-
ducing the school’s WASC report and coordinating the actual WASC visit. The
SSC utilizes the entire population of the school to assemble a leadership team that
assists in this process. Typically, the leadership team consists of participants from
every section of the school: students, teachers, classified staff, administrators,
central office personnel, parents, and, on occasion, a member of the community at
large (Focus on Learning, 2006).
WASC has designated the people who should be on this leadership team.
They are the self-study coordinator, principal, focus group chairs, administrators,
support staff chairs, student committee chair, parent committee chair, a district
representative and “important others” (Focus on Learning, 2006, p. 24).
Another resource to determine the leadership team is drawn from two other
ways in which the school is required to organize itself to complete the self-study
process. First, the school must organize into specific home groups made up of all
departments. The department chairs automatically become members of the leader-
ship team. Second, all staff members also join various focus groups that are
organized around the five categories that frame the WASC self-study process
(Vision and Purpose, Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Culture). Focus
group chairs automatically become members of the leadership team as well (Focus
on Learning, 2006, p. 48).
Once this organization is formed, the self-study process commences. Each
contingent organized by leadership (home groups and focus groups) meets to pre-
pare specific items for the visit. Home groups meet to prepare specific information

36
about their department that analyzes student work and student engagement. Focus
groups meet and discuss specific “criteria guide” questions that eventually form a
written document. These meetings and discussions are based on the home group
category, such as Social Studies, English, Science, or Math (Focus on Learning,
2006). The criteria guide questions have been reproduced in appendix C and are
based on the five process data self-study categories: (a) Organization: Vision and
Purpose, Governance, Leadership and Staff and Resources; (b) Standards-Based
Student Learning: Curriculum; (c) Standards-Based Student Learning: Instruction;
(d) Standards-Based Student Learning: Assessment and Accountability; and (e)
School Culture and Support for Student Personal and Academic Growth (Focus on
Learning, 2006, p. 57).
Writing the WASC Report
All focus groups should collaborate to write the WASC report. The format
of the report is depicted in Figure 3. The report is submitted to the VC approxi-
mately 2 months prior to the visitation date. The report should also contain an
appendix with the following items:
Results of student questionnaires/interviews
Results of parent/community questionnaire/interviews
Master schedule
School accountability report card
CBEDS school information form
Graduation requirements
Any pertinent additional data or have on exhibit during the visit
Budgetary information . . . .
A list of standards-based textbooks . . . . (Focus on Learning, 2006, p. 20)

37

Chapter Task Contents
Chapter 1 Prepare Student/
Community Profile
Demographic data, student outcome data and
surveys, if relevant.
Chapter 2 Prepare summary of
data analysis
Summary of analysis of profile data that includes
implications concerning student performance, 2-3
critical academic needs based on data and issues
raised by data.
Chapter 3 Progress Report Summarize progress of previous action plan areas
that incorporated all critical areas of follow-up
from previous self-study.
Chapter 4 Self-Study Findings Summarize process data that includes (1) findings
and supporting evidence, (2) strengths and
supporting evidence and (3) list of prioritized
growth areas and supporting evidence, and provide
evidence for the VC.
Chapter 5 School-Wide Action
Plan
Revise the single schoolwide action plan, state
strategies to support the plan and describe the
school follow-up process.

Figure 3. Self-study report format, Western Association of Schools and Colleges
accreditation process. Source: Focus on Learning: Joint WASC/CDE Process
Guide, by Western Association of Schools and Colleges and California Department
of Education, 2006 (pp. 19-20), retrieved February 28, 2006, from http://www.
acswasc.org/pdf_cde/complete_CDE_Charter_JointProcess.pdf

The WASC Visit
The visit begins on Sunday afternoon. The VC meets and has a tour of the
school. Next, the VC meets with a parent group. This happens at this time to
accommodate parent schedules for weekday work, child care, and family obliga-
tions that occur during the week (Focus on Learning, 2006,)
The visit continues on Monday and Tuesday of the school week. The VC
meets with focus groups and home groups to review the criteria guide questions.
Also, the VC visits every class at least once and observes any activities unique to
the school. Student council meetings, after-school sports, and activities and
assemblies are examples of suggested areas to visit (Focus on Learning, 2006).

38
The VC consists of one member per 500 students. For example, if a school
has 2,500 students, the VC has five members. These members are volunteers. They
are teachers, administrators, and district personnel (sometimes parents and school
board members) from other schools in the WASC district. The VC has a predeter-
mined chair who interfaces with school leaders. Mileage, food, and lodging
expenses of the VC are reimbursed by WASC, as depicted in appendix B.
During break times, the VC walks about the campus. The VC interviews
every single school employee, such as teachers, administrators, and classified
personnel (from the crossing guard to the principal’s secretary to the school nurse).
The purpose of these interviews is for the VC to understand how the school
operates and to help the school to continue its self-study process (Focus on
Learning, 2006).
After interviews on Monday and Tuesday, the VC is required to complete a
written report for the self-study team to review in its continuing self-improvement
process. The VC reads the report in an open forum to the community on Wednes-
day afternoon. Once that task is completed, the VC departs after giving the princi-
pal a copy of its written report for future self-study use. The written report is
forwarded to WASC headquarters, along with the VC term recommendation (Focus
on Learning, 2006).
The VC has a specific set of guidelines on which it relies to recommend the
length of an accreditation term. Usually, the VC meets on Tuesday night to discuss
its recommendation for accreditation (Focus on Learning, 2006). The team has an
Accreditation Term Worksheet on which it relies. The worksheet is digested in
appendix D.

39
As the Accreditation Term Worksheet shows, there are four ratings that
determine an accreditation term: highly effective, effective, somewhat effective, and
ineffective. The VC is required to apply these ratings to several criteria listed on the
Accreditation Term Worksheet. Once that has been accomplished, the VC recom-
mends a term (6 years [no review], 6 years with a 3-year review, 3 years, 1 year, or
no accreditation) to the WASC Board for its review.
The WASC Commission subsequently reviews the VC report at regular
commission meetings and decides whether the recommendation matches the report.
The school is notified and, depending on the length of the term, the accreditation
process begins all over again.
Conclusion
WASC accreditation reporting is detailed and requires participation by
virtually the entire school and elements of the community at large. This process
requires extensive school and community cooperation.
Accountability and the CDE Reporting Process
This section discusses the evolution of accountability on a statewide basis in
California in terms of school reporting. In recent years, California has mandated
extensive reporting that requires far-reaching participation by school leaders. Those
processes and the leaders responsible for reporting are specified in this section.
The Content Standards and the API
The primary accountability element in California public education is the
content standards and frameworks that form the basis of teaching and learning
requirements in the classroom. There are content and performance standards

40
published for every subject in every grade. The standards provide a delineation of
what is expected for students to learn by grade, and how students are expected to
learn it.
In turn, the content standards form the basis for California’s standardized
testing program. Every spring, California public school students take the California
Standards Tests (CSTs), which are a series of achievement tests. The results of this
testing program form much of the basis for the API, which is a summary of
achievement in all schools and published on an annual basis.
The API was mandated as a result of passage of the Public Schools
Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999 (EdSource, 2005). The API assessment
program for public high schools as of this writing is detailed in Table 4.
The CBEDS and the SARC
Schools are also required annually to disclose specific demographic data
through the CBEDS program. Figure 4 details the specific information that schools
must disclose to the CDE on an annual basis and how schools must report it. There
are three forms that require compilation of separate data: (a) County/District
Information Form, which collects information on staff and enrollment; (b) School
Information Form, which collects information on staff and enrollment unique to the
school; and (c) Professional Assignment Information Form, which gathers
information on certificated staff (CDE, 2005a).
The California High School Exit Exam
Another element of the API is the CAHSEE. As of 2006, all students must
pass the CAHSEE to graduate from high school. The purpose of the CAHSEE is to
ensure that students who graduate from California public high schools “can

41
Table 4

California High School Assessment Program

Program/test 9 10 11 12

California Standards Tests (CST)
English/Language Arts X X X
Mathematics (General) X
Mathematics (Completion of Algebra I, Geometry,
Algebra II or Integrated Mathematics 1, 2, or 3 X X
Mathematics (Completion of Algebra II or Integrated
Mathematics 3 in the prior school year) X X X X
History/Social Science X X
Science (Earth Science, Biology/Life Science,
Chemistry, Physics, Integrated Science) X X X
California Alternative Performance Assessment (CAPA)
designed for students with disabilities
Level V applies to grades 9-11 X X X
Spanish Assessment of Basic Education (SABE)
Achievement tests in Spanish and given at
the discretion of the district X X X
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) Testing
begins in 9th grade but students must pass this
test to graduate from high school X X X X

Source: 2005 Academic Performance Index Base Report, by California Department
of Education, 2005b, retrieved March 10, 2006, from http://www.cde.ca.gov

demonstrate competency in reading, writing, and mathematics” (California
Department of Education, 2005b, p. 72).
This test is given statewide on specific days of the school year that are
designated by the California Superintendent’s office. The tests cover the content

42

County District
Information Form
(CDIF)

School Information Form (SIF)
Professional Assignment
Information Form (PIF)
(Certificated Staff only)
Classified Staff:
Number of staff by
type, gender, race and
ethnicity.
Gifted and Talented
Education: Number of
students by type,
gender, race and
ethnicity.
Teacher hires:
Estimated number of
teachers hired by
subject for the school
year.
Graduation
Requirements:
Minimum units by
subject required for a
high school diploma.
Student
Interdistrict transfers:
Number of students
who have transferred
within the district
Classified Staff: Staff by type, gender,
race and ethnicity.
School Enrollment: Count of students
enrolled on Information Day by grade,
gender, race, and ethnicity.
High School Graduates: Students
graduated previous year by gender,
race and ethnicity.
High School Graduates that complete
UC/CSU entrance requirements:
Students completing required CSU/UC
courses previous year gender, race and
ethnicity.
Enrollment in selected high school
courses: Students enrolled in selected
math and science courses by grade,
gender, race and ethnicity.
Career-technical education enrollment:
Students enrolled in career or technical
courses by grade, gender, race and
ethnicity.
Dropouts: Dropouts by grade, gender,
race and ethnicity.
Alternative Education: Students in
independent study by grade, gender,
race and ethnicity.
Technology: Number of computers and
classrooms with internet access.
Educational Calendar: Type of school
operations calendar.
NCLB Reporting Requirements: For
the previous school year: dropouts, and
graduates in migrant education,
English learners, special education
socioeconomically disadvantaged.

County, district school name
Highest educational level:
Statistical description of
education of the professional
staff.
Racial/Ethnic designation:
Statistical description of race
and ethnicity of the
professional staff.
Gender and birth year:
Statistical description of gender
and birth years of the
professional staff.
Educational service: Statistical
description of educational
experience of the professional
staff.
Assignment or course:
Data that describes classes and
non-teaching assignments
Position: Current employment
status.
Teaching credentials: Used for
training purposes.

Figure 4. California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS) reporting require-
ments. Source: California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS): Administrat-
ive Manual for CBEDS Coordinators and School Principals, by California Depart-
ment of Education, 2005a, retrieved March 10, 2006, from http://data1.ced.ga.gov/
dataquest/whatsindq.asp

43
standards through 10th grade in the areas of English Language Arts and Mathe-
matics. However, if a student fails a portion of the test, the student has the oppor-
tunity to retake that portion (CDE, 2006a).
School Leaders and the API Reporting Process:
The Role of School Leaders
The reporting process begins in September of the school year, when school
leaders receive reporting data forms and requirements. The entire school must
devote a specific school day early in October to collect these data. The data must be
sent to the CDE by October 31. Superintendents are notified within 2 weeks if a
school does not timely submit its CBEDS material (CDE, 2005a). Figure 4 denotes
the specific reporting requirements and the entity responsible.
Once the reporting has been completed, the CDE subsequently publishes the
SARC. This occurs in March of the school year. The SARC is a summary of all the
material submitted by the school to the CDE. The information is published in a
series of profiles the reader may access through the CDE Web site, either statewide,
countywide, districtwide, or schoolwide (CDE, 2006b).
Another means to access the data is the school or school district Web site.
Schools and districts have discretion about organizing and reporting data but the
data must be accessible to the general public (CDE, 2006b).
Conclusion
Accountability reporting on the high school level is a detailed and continu-
ous process. California high schools report information to district, county, and state
officials.

44
Accountability and the Williams Litigation
On May 17, 2000 (the 46th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education
decision), a consortium of public advocacy entities (the American Civil Liberties
Union [ACLU], Public Advocates, and Mexican American Legal Defense and
Education Fund [MALDEF]), along with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster,
LLP, filed a class action lawsuit in California entitled Williams v. California. The
named plaintiff was a middle student in San Francisco named Eliezer Williams.
The Williams litigation alleged that California deprived thousands of
students the right to an adequate public school education by “failing to give them
the basic tools necessary for that education (Public Advocates, 2006). The First
Amended Complaint, filed with the court on August 14, 2000, listed the following
deficiencies in schools that the plaintiffs attended:
Lack of current instructional materials for students to use in school and at
home
Classes lacking permanent teachers
Schools where more than 20% of the teaching staff lacked credentials
Classrooms with improper heating and cooling facilities
Classrooms that lacked chairs for students to sit in
Schools that lacked access to libraries, the Internet or research materials
Schools that lacked proper bathrooms
Neglected facilities
Courses that required special fees for students to participate
Overcrowded schools
Multi-tracking for the school year, or bussing to relieve overcrowded
schools that took students away from home and community. (Williams v.
California, 2000, pp. 21-22)
From a legal perspective, Williams alleged that California had abandoned its
mandate to “provide students with the bare essentials necessary for education:

45
sufficient instructional materials, adequate learning facilities, qualified teachers,
etc.” (ACLU, 2004, ¶ 5). According to Walters, Foley, Villasenor, and Jeffries
(2004), “The lawsuit claimed that the State failed to provide the poor and under-
privileged students with equal educational opportunities” (p. 1). The remedies
plaintiffs sought were “current and undamaged books, clean and safe classrooms,
and permanent and appropriately trained teachers” (Public Advocates, 2006, p. 1).
The Williams litigation took 4 years to resolve. During that time, the No
Child Left Behind Act was implemented by the Federal government in 2001,
mandating remedies for most of the allegations made in the lawsuit (Sanders,
2004). By the time California voters recalled Gray Davis as Governor and elected
Arnold Schwarzenegger, almost $20 million had been spent by California to defend
the lawsuit. Shortly after being elected Governor in 2004, Schwarzenegger settled
the case. Its resolution was announced on August 13, 2004 (Public Advocates,
2006). As Schwarzenegger stated when he announced that the Williams matter had
been settled, “Why would you fight the lawsuit when the ACLU was right in the
first place?” (as cited in Sterngold, 2004, p. 1).
The Williams settlement marked the implementation of yet another phase of
accountability standards for specific areas of public school reporting in California,
detailed in the next section.
Williams and Accountability
The Williams settlement agreement mandated four main accountability
requirements for California public schools: (a) All students should have proper
instructional materials, (b) California’s public schools must be clean and safe,
(c) all teachers must be qualified to teach in the subjects they are teaching (ACLU,

46
2004), and (d) year-round schools’ calendars were to be phased out by 2012
(Orange County Department of Education, 2004).
In that same year, and in order to comply with the settlement agreement, the
California legislature passed five laws to implement the Williams settlement, with
special attention to schools ranked in the 1-3 CDE decile. The legislature also
amended the California Education Code to provide public schools with the tools to
do the reporting (Orange County Department of Education, 2004). As a result,
schools are now required to report specific facilities, textbooks, and teacher
allocations, as depicted in Figure 5.

Bill/Author What the Bill Mandates
SB 6 (Alpert) Augments California’s commitment to assist schools and
districts in recruiting and hiring competent staff and funded
school repairs.
SB 550
(Vasconcellos)
Expanded textbook and facility requirements as well as new
county superintendent oversight for schools in the 1-3 CDE
decile ranking,
AB 1550
(Goldberg)
Created a phase-out program for schools operating on a year-
round calendar.
AB 2727
(Draucher)
Created a uniform complaint process (UPC) for communities
to resolve school safety and repair issues.
AB 3001
(Daucher)
Mandated strict state, county and district reporting concerning
teacher credentials and assignments.

Figure 5. Specific mandated Williams settlement reporting requirements. Source:
Summary of Legislation Implementing Williams Litigation Settlement, by Orange
County Department of Education, 2004, Costa Mesa, CA: Author.

47
Williams Legislation
The result of the settlement and subsequent legislation is that California
public school leaders are required to monitor the condition of the school itself, the
proficiency of credentialed staff, and the quality of instructional materials provided
for students. Figure 6 recaps these requirements. The first date to monitor and
report these requirements began on January 1, 2005, when the above-referenced
bills became California laws (Walters et al., 2004). Schools report how they meet
the compliance plan of the Williams legislation detailed in Figure 6.

Williams
Category

Facilities

Teachers

Textbooks
Problem
(Timar 2005,
p. 126)
Deficient Facilities Uncredentialed teachers Insufficient
instructional
materials
Solution
Reporting:
Post and provide
compliance notice in
the classroom
Post and provide com-
pliance notice in the
classroom
Post and provide
compliance notice
in the classroom
Included in
SARC?
X: Safety,
cleanliness and
adequacy of facility
X: Percentage of
teachers with proper
credentials
X: Sufficiency of
instructional
materials
Accountability Create school
inspection system
Plan to upgrade teachers
to CLAD or BCLAD
Must be reviewed
in the first eight
weeks of the school
year.
Reporting
Process
Provide data to
county office very
quarter
Plan to upgrade teacher
hiring and retention
Two months from
report to remediate
(i.e. order and
receive new
materials)

Figure 6. Williams settlement reporting compliance plan. Source: Implementing the
Williams Lawsuit, by K. S. Walters, R. Foley, S. Villasenor, & L. W. Jeffries,
2004, paper presented at the Association of California School Administrators
(ACSA), San Francisco, February, Sacramento: ACSA.

48
School Leaders and Williams Reporting:
The Role of School Leaders
The implementation of these reporting mechanisms presented the California
Legislature with the issue of who is responsible for what reporting process on the
school level. There are three levels of reporting. First, with the advent of compli-
ance notification and publication in the classroom, teachers (who post these notices
in the classroom) are involved in Williams reporting. Second, Williams reporting
is duplicated in school SARC reporting, which means that school leaders are
responsible for gathering and reporting Williams reporting materials. Third, county
leaders are involved in the reporting process, as schools are now required to pro-
vide the county education office with current facilities compliance data every
calendar quarter.
Conclusion
As shown in chapter 2, accountability reporting in California has evolved
into three themes: WASC reporting, CDE reporting, and Williams reporting. Public
high school leaders are responsible for reporting school progress in all of these
areas.
The means to decipher whether reporting criteria are duplicative is to
compare them. As shown in this chapter, the WASC, CDE, and Williams reporting
processes demonstrate a fundamental issue for school leaders and accountability
and reporting. Do all of these reporting processes take time and effort away from
other school leadership responsibilities? Is this reporting necessary or is there a
means to consolidate and streamline this process? To investigate these issues, this
study was conducted to examine how school leaders viewed accountability report-
ing practices based on the original study questions: (a) Do high school leaders

49
value the accreditation process? and (b) Do high school leaders believe that WASC
reporting requirements, CDE reporting requirements, and Williams settlement
reporting requirements provide the data needed to facilitate school improvement?
Chapter 3 is focused on critical elements of the study, such as design,
sample, case study description, and data collection process. The purpose of the
study was to examine the accreditation practices of public high schools in
California in light of recent accountability measures enacted by state authorities.
The study examined California public high school accountability processes and the
leaders responsible for reporting them, as discussed in chapter 2.

50
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Chapter 3 centers on specific elements of the study, including the study
design, study sample, case study description, data collection process, and data
analysis method. The purpose of the study was to examine accountability reporting
practices of public high school leaders in California and determine whether high
school leaders believe that these practices are effective in demonstrating whether a
school is improving. The study also examined state accountability processes at the
high school level.
The two research questions guiding this study were:
1. Do high school leaders value the accreditation process?
2. Do high school leaders believe that WASC, CDE, and Williams
settlement reporting requirements provide the data needed to facilitate school
improvement?
To answer these questions, data were collected from four California high
schools. The study was qualitative and relied on the case study format to describe
the findings. The case study approach was chosen because it results in a “rich and
holistic account of a phenomenon” (Merriam, 1998, p. 41). The phenomenon
chosen for the study was the varying levels of accreditation terms and student
achievement levels as enumerated in WASC accreditation terms and CDE reporting
results. The researcher sought to understand the observed phenomenon that high
schools earned different rankings through disparate accountability lenses. Seeking
input from individual high school leaders responsible for reporting school

51
accountability measures was intended to aid in understanding variations in how
student outcomes are ranked by those measures.
As Merriam (1998) noted, case studies are interested in “process rather than
outcomes, in context rather than a specific variable, in discovery rather than con-
firmation” (p. 19). The study was designed to explore the accountability reporting
processes as they pertained to the public high school in California. The researcher
was interested in the context of high school reporting and endeavored to discover
whether leaders in California public high schools believed that accountability
reporting requirements are effective measures of school improvement.
Units of Analysis
The main units of analysis were four high schools in California. Each
school was chosen based on a conceptual framework that identified schools with
different WASC accreditation terms and different API scores (Figure 1).
Another unit of analyses was the school leaders at the four high schools.
These persons are responsible for prioritizing a plan of action for reporting student
achievement outcomes, whether it is WASC, CDE, or the Williams litigation settle-
ment reporting process. A fundamental element of the study was to understand
whether school leaders believed that these reporting processes provided the data
needed to facilitate school improvement. Leaders in all four high schools were
identified through an interactive process with school personnel. In addition, an
analysis of each school leader’s beliefs concerning the process of school reporting
was conducted through concept mapping, interviews, and analysis of reporting
documents.

52
Data Collection Methodology, Analysis, and Summary
The study was organized in five phases, as shown in Figure 7. Each phase is
described and a summary of each process presented in this section.

Phase Description Process
Phase 1 Identify sample schools for
analysis.
Create digest of study schools.
Narrow criteria of study schools.
Review study school demographics.
Select four study schools.
Phase 2 Interview principals to identify
leaders at each study school.
Complete site-mapping form with study
school principals.
Phase 3 Validate study schools’ principal
conclusions concerning school
leaders.
Complete site mapping form with leaders
identified by study school principals.
Phase 4 Interview school leaders
concerning what reporting
processes (if any) are factor in
public high school learning,
accountability and improvement
measures.
Venn diagram mapping.
School leader interviews via interview
guide.
Digest accountability documents such as
WASC reports, API Reports, and
Williams reports.
Phase 5 Summarize the findings via the
case study format.
Utilize case study outline to summarize
the findings.

Figure 7. Summary of the five research phases of the study.

Phase 1
Phase 1 was to determine the appropriate study schools. Study school
selection was based on different measured student achievement outcomes. The
study was designed to identify the mismatch between results of predictive
achievement instruments in California high schools. Specifically, the goal was to

53
understand why in some cases schools with long (6-year) WASC accreditation
terms had low achievement test scores, and in some cases schools with shorter (3-
year) WASC accreditation terms had higher achievement test scores, whereas in
other cases both measures were either high or low.
Initially, the researcher created a list of all potential study schools in a large
urban school district in California (hereinafter referred to as the Cityside Unified
School District [USD], or Cityside). Among the schools, 51% had a WASC term of
6R, 41% had a WASC term of 3 years, and 8% had a WASC term of 1 year. None
of the potential study school candidates had a clear, 6-year WASC accreditation
term.
A 4-year analysis of base API scores of the schools in Cityside was con-
ducted. The average API scores for schools in the district were 592 in the 2002-
2003 school year, 606 in the 2003-2004 school year, 631 in the 2004-2005 school
year, and 658 in the 2005-2006 school year. Four schools were identified that fit
the conceptual framework depicted in Figure 1. The base API scores indicated
improvement for the Cityside USD.
Unfortunately, the API of 658 meant an average CDE ranking of 4, indicat-
ing that, according to the CDE, 60% of schools in California achieved at a higher
level than this average. However, over half of the schools in the study pool had an
accreditation term of 6 years. If achievement outcomes were below average, why
were accreditation terms above average?
Several obstacles emerged while pursuing the original strategy of identify-
ing four schools in the Cityside USD. There was considerable resistance from the
principals of the schools initially identified for the study, making it impossible to
obtain a valid school sample solely within the Cityside USD. Consequently, two

54
high schools located in a neighboring district (hereinafter referred to as Hillside
USD or Hillside) aligned with the study’s conceptual framework. Following
approval of the Hillside superintendent, these two schools were included in the
study sample.
By including schools from two separate districts, the conceptual framework
of the study remained intact. The two study schools from Cityside USD were the
6R WASC and 655 (low) API and the 3-year WASC and 615 (low) API, while the
two schools from Hillside were schools with a 6R WASC and 761 (high) API and
3-year WASC and 741 (high) API.
As a result, the conceptual framework of the study remained stable but the
original study school candidates were altered. Two study schools within the
Cityside USD and two schools within the Hillside USD participated in the study.
Phase 2
Phase 2 was to interview study school principals to identify school leaders.
Chapter 2 described persons designated as school leaders in California high schools
and responsible for school achievement reporting. High schools have unique
leadership structures, but the formal leader of any school is the principal. There-
fore, prior to the commencement of school leader interviews, each school principal
was contacted. The study criteria were reviewed with the principal in order to
obtain cooperation for the study and to develop an understanding of the leadership
approach utilized by that principal. The initial request letter is appendix E.
Also, the principal was asked to complete the Principal Site Leadership
Mapping Form (appendix F). Scott Price designed this mapping form in 2003. The
form directed the principal to identify the site leadership team by circling a specific

55
position and writing the name of the person who occupied that position at the site.
Completing this form assisted in determining the leaders at each study school.
Phase 3
Phase 3 was to validate study school principal’s conclusions concerning
composition of school leadership team. The identical mapping form was used to
interview individuals at each study school who validated the principal’s determina-
tion of who was a school leader. These persons were also identified as responsible
for actual school reporting. This occurred when the Site Leadership Mapping Form
was disseminated to the persons responsible for coordinating WASC, CDE, and
Williams reporting. It was attached to a cover letter (appendix E). Once the form
was completed and returned, the data were desegregated by comparing whom each
reporting persons identified as a school leader.
Phase 4
Phase 4 was to interview study school leadership teams concerning what
reporting process (if any) is a factor in public high school learning, accountability,
and improvement measures. Persons identified as school leaders were interviewed.
Interviews focused on the original research questions concerning the high school
WASC and CDE reporting process, how this process fit into current accountability
high school models, whether WASC could be a school improvement tool and
whether WASC supported student achievement outcomes. Interviews and the
instruments that guide them are discussed in this subsection.

56
Venn Diagram Mapping
Chapter 2 identified three means to scrutinize California accountability
reporting outcomes: WASC, CDE, and Williams settlement reporting requirements.
These areas are summarized in Figure 8.

WASC Reporting CDE Reporting Williams Reporting
Organization: Vision and
Purpose, Governance,
Leadership and Staff and
resources
Classified staff, teacher hires,
staff education, ethnicity, gender,
birth year, experience, credentials
Teacher credentials,
instructional
materials
Standards-Based Learning:
Curriculum
Students completing USC
requirements, GATE
Teacher credentials,
instructional
materials
Standards-Based Learning:
Instruction
Teacher hires, students
completing UC requirements
Facilities, teacher
credentials,
instructional
materials
Standards-Based Learning:
Assessment and
Accountability
Graduation requirements,
enrollment in math, science,
career education, alternative
education
Facilities,
instructional
materials
School Culture and Support
for Student Personal and
Academic Growth
Dropouts, classrooms with
computers, school operations
calendar, NCLB
Facilities, teacher
credentials,
instructional
materials

Figure 8. California accountability reporting.

The data identified in Figure 8 do not tell the entire accountability story.
The related issue is the knowledge of school leaders concerning accountability
reporting items and whether they believed that reporting this information was
effective in demonstrating whether a high school was improving. Therefore, the
first component of the interview process was to address what school leaders knew

57
about reporting. The second component was to discuss specific data reporting
results with school leaders.
The main instrument to guide the first interview component was a Venn
diagram. Utilizing this diagram in the interview assisted in determining the answer
to the second research question, regarding whether high school leaders believe that
WASC, CDE, and Williams settlement reporting provide the data needed to
facilitate school improvement.
The first step was to create a list of accountability items (Figure 9). The
next step was to create a Venn diagram with intersecting circles for WASC, CDE,
and Williams reporting. Each section was numbered, whether it represented one
reporting mechanism, a combination of two, or all three methods. School leaders
were directed to place the letter from Figure 9 on the Venn diagram matching the
corresponding numbered section. This task produced data that provided school
leaders the means to determine precise reporting items for WASC, CDE, and
Williams reporting, and helped to identify whether school leaders considered that
those measures overlapped.
School leader responses were compared across tasks (WASC, CDE, and
Williams reporting) and across the four study schools. This provided understanding
of what specific accountability elements school leaders classified as WASC, CDE,
Williams, or some combination of the three reporting measures.
Use of Accountability Data
The next phase in the interview process was to determine which accounta-
bility data school leaders used to actually work on improving student performance.

58

Item Description
A Classified staff hires
B Certificated staff hires
C Staff demographics: age, ethnicity, gender, age, experience
D Level of staff education
E Student demographics: gender, free lunch eligibility, ethnic background
F Students completing University of California requirements
G Students completing graduation requirements
H Students enrolled in math, science, career education, alternative education
I Number of dropouts
J Classrooms with computers
K School calendar is 9-month (or plans being made to convert to 9-month calendar)
L Site compliance with No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
M Site organization
N Site vision
O Site purpose
P Resources available to the staff
Q Site leadership
R Standards based curriculum
S Standards based instruction
T Standards based accountability
U School culture
V Support for personal and academic growth
W Sufficiency of instructional materials
X Teachers with Crosscultural, Language, and Academic Development (CLAD) or
Bilingual, Crosscultural, Language and Academic Development (BCLAD)
credentials
Y Facilities are in compliance with California reporting requirements

Figure 9. Accountability reporting terms.

59
This was accomplished by interviewing school leaders concerning specific
processes that were used (or not used) to implement accountability measures.
The interview process got to the heart of the research project and addressed
the second research question, regarding whether school leaders believed that
WASC, CDE, and Williams settlement reporting and WASC reporting provided the
data needed to facilitate improvement. Figure 10 depicts the interview guide used
to promote dialogue with school leaders concerning specific information pertaining
to each study school, as well as how each reporting process affected school
improvement.
Use of Accountability Documents
Also, documents generated and updated by schools reflected the ability to
monitor student improvement. These documents were divided into three categories:
(a) WASC reports and reporting materials: recent self-study report, visitation
committee report, and accreditation term recommendation; (b) CDE reporting and
school accountability report card data: CAHSEE, Armed Forced Vocational Apti-
tude Battery (ASVAB) and AP test scores, teacher credentialing data, graduation
report, and master schedule; and (c) Williams reporting materials: safe schools
report, textbook report, teacher credentialing data, and Williams reporting forms at
the site level.
Phase 5
Phase 5 was to summarize the findings via the case study format. After
interviews were completed and data were collected, a case study summary was
utilized. A case study is evaluative because it contains “description, explanation
and judgment” (Merriam, 1998, p. 39). The case study in this research describes

60

1. Study School Generally
A. History and description of study school
B. What accountability documents did the individual review when they first
arrived at the school? (API, WASC, or Williams?)
2. Study School WASC Process
A. What is the school WASC process?
B. Does this process help you determine whether your school has improved?
C. Why or why not?
D. Do you value the process?
3. Study School CDE Reporting Process
A. What is the school CDE Reporting process?
B. Does this process help you determine whether your school has improved?
C. Why or why not?
D. Do you value the process?
4. Study School Williams monitor and reporting process
A. What is the school Williams reporting process?
B. Does this process help you determine whether your school has improved?
C. Why or why not?
D. Do you value the process?
5. Value of all reporting processes
A. Is WASC a helpful accountability reporting process? Yes? No? Why or why
not?
B. Do you review the school SARC? Yes? No? Why or why not?
C. Do you review the school Williams report? Yes? No? Why or why not?
D. Generally, how do accountability measures drive improvement?
E. Do they work together or they conflict?
F. How could WASC/CDE/Williams reporting support each other?

Figure 10. Interview guide.

61
school leaders, explains how high school leaders deal with the WASC and other
accountability outcomes, and judges whether each leadership team believed that
these processes enhanced (or did not enhance) student achievement outcomes.
The format was an outline form and was completed as a result of the
interviews at each study school as well as written reporting data. Those results are
detailed in chapter 4. The case study outline and the data collection instruments
(Figure 11) were replicated for all four of the study schools.
Reliability and Validity
As Patton (2002) asserted, “There are no rules for sample size in qualitative
inquiry” (p. 244). Patton recommended that a sample size be based on “expected
reasonable coverage of the phenomenon given the purpose of the study and
stakeholder interests” (p. 244).
The study schools cover a phenomenon that has arisen from an analysis of
school data. Study schools were selected on the basis of a mismatch between
WASC terms and different levels of student achievement outcomes.
Is the study design reliable? According to Merriam (1998), reliability occurs
when there is a “single reality and studying it repeatedly will yield the same
results” (p. 205). Reliability occurs in the qualitative arena when “given the data
collected, the results make sense—they are consistent and dependable” (p. 206).
Also, the study design assumed enough neutrality so the design could be
replicated for all of the study schools. Results were not predictable but application
of the data instruments was applied in a neutral manner.

62

Case Study Outline Data Collection Instrument(s)
1. Study School, generally
A. History and description of each study school
B. Composition of each study school
leadership team
• WASC Report, API Report,
Williams Report
• Principal Interviews
• School Leader Interviews
• Site Mapping Form
2. Study School’s WASC process
A. What is the school reporting process?
B. How do school leaders view their role in
this process?
C. Do school leaders value this process?
• WASC Report
• Site Leadership Interviews
• Venn Diagram
• Accountability Reporting Term
3. Study School’s API Reporting process
A. What is the school reporting process?
B. How do leaders view their role in this
process?
C. Do school leaders value this process?
• API Report
• Interviews
• Venn Diagram
• Accountability Reporting Term
4. Study School’s Williams settlement monitor and
reporting process
A. What is the school reporting process?
B. How do school leaders view its role in this
process?
C. Do school leaders value this process?
• Williams Report
• Site leadership interviews
• Venn Diagram
• Accountability Reporting Term
5. School leadership ranked value of all reporting
processes–do school leaders believe the above
processes provide the data needed to facilitate
school improvement?
• Venn Diagram
• Rank of Using data to Improve
Student Learning and
Performance
• School leader interviews

Figure 11. Case study outline.

63
Conclusion
Is the accreditation process adequate in light of the academic achievement
standards and reporting processes currently in place in California secondary educa-
tion? What reporting is enough and how do school leaders determine which report-
ing provides the data to facilitate school improvement? A means to find out was to
learn how high school leaders prioritized and utilized student achievement to
improve outcome levels. Documenting their decision-making process focused on
the legitimacy of accreditation in light of a variety of other measures of student
learning and achievement.
The case study summary was utilized to provide explanations of why four
study schools had mismatched academic outcomes and accreditation status. It was
crucial to design the study to allow for multiple perspectives that enhanced the
study process. Otherwise, the results would be blurred and there would not be the
ability to draw well- grounded conclusions.
Chapter 3 detailed the research methodology of the study as well as the
research design, conceptual frameworks, specific phases of development of the
study, and data collection methods. Chapter 4 presents the findings and analysis of
data that were collected.

64
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter describes the findings of the study. The purpose of the study
was to examine California high school leadership accountability reporting prac-
tices. The study also examined California accountability reporting processes at the
high school level. Case study methodology was utilized to collect data from four
high schools in California involved in state accountability processes.
The chapter is organized as follows. First, the findings through the five case
study phases depicted in Figure 7 are presented. Second, Figure 11 (the case study
outline) is a guide to present the findings from interviews and data collection at
each study school. Third, the research questions are answered and the findings from
the entire study are recapped, leading to chapter 5.
Data were collected using the instruments described in chapter 3. Each
instrument had a specific purpose in the research process.
1. Document reviews at each study school included API reports, recent
WASC reports, Williams settlement reports, SARC data, and any data reflecting the
culture of the site. These reports and the processes by which high schools gather
data were discussed in chapter 2.
2. The Principal’s Site Leadership Mapping Form was used in Phase 2 of
the research process. This document was used with study school principals to assist
the principal to identify the school leadership team (see appendix F). The unique
nature of school leadership teams was discussed in chapter 2.

65
3. The Site Leadership Mapping Form was used in Phase 3 of the research
process. This document was used with school leaders so the principal’s concept of
school leaders could be validated (see appendix G).
4. A Venn diagram was used in Phase 4 of the research process. This docu-
ment was completed and returned by each school leader (see appendix H).
5. The interview guide (Figure 10) was also used during Phase 4 of the
research process. This guide assisted in framing questions to school leaders so that
information could be obtained in a manner enhancing the case study.
6. The case study outline (Figure 11) was used during Phase 5 of the
research process. This guide provided the framework to summarize the reporting
process of each school, as well as whether school leaders believed that reporting
assisted in making data-driven decisions concerning school improvement.
A conceptual framework was developed to depict the various combinations
of high school API and accreditation terms that were observed. Study schools were
chosen based on the conceptual framework. Two schools had high levels of
achievement (high API scores) but different accreditation terms (3 years and 6
years with a 3-year review). Two schools had low API scores but different
accreditation terms. Using this conceptual framework, case studies in the four
California high schools were conducted. Also, each study school’s accreditation
status was pinpointed, as depicted in Table 5.
To provide a “snapshot” of the study schools as a group, Table 6
summarizes achievement statistics and population demographics of each school.
All statistics were derived from the California Department of Education Web site.

66

Table 5

WASC Accreditation Status of Study Schools

Data High API Low API

6-year WASC Birch (visit spring 2008) Magnolia (visit spring 2006)

3-year WASC Pine (visit March 2007) Aspen (visit April 2007)

Note. API = Academic Performance Index; WASC = Western Association of
Schools and Colleges.

Table 6

Achievement Statistics for the Study Schools

Category and item Birch Magnolia Pine Aspen

Student achievement
Current WASC term 6R 6R 3 3
Current CDE ranking 8 4 7 2
3-year API recap 737/758/761 643/666/655 704/737/741 617/621/615
Met AYP? Yes No Yes No
Credentialed teachers (%) 88 87 100 80
CAHSEE pass rate (%) 81 60 69 67
1-year dropout rate (%) 0.3 6.8 0.5 4.1
4-year dropout rate (%) 1.2 30 2.1 20

Student demographics
Total students 2,656 3,210 2,603 2,299
Total administrators 7 17 5 14
Total full-time teachers 118 129 114 108

Note. WASC = Western Association of Schools and Colleges; CDE = California
Department of Education; API = Academic Performance Index; CAHSEE =
California High School Exit Exam.

67
Overview of the Study Findings Process
Phase 1: Determine the Appropriate Study Schools
As discussed in chapter 3, the original selection of study schools was
modified to preserve the conceptual framework of the study. Two high schools in
the Cityside USD were selected and two high schools in the Hillside USD were
selected, since gaining participation from four schools in the Cityside USD proved
to be impossible.
Phases 2 and 3: Interview Principals to Determine
Composition of School Leaders and Validate
Principal’s Leadership Team Designations
Phase 2 of the study was designed to determine who were the leaders at
each study school via interviews with principals. Phase 3 was developed to validate
this designation. As is shown in this section, both processes varied from school to
school. An element of these differences was the difference in leadership at the
district level, which is discussed further in chapter 5.
The processes of leadership determination at Birch and Pine were similar.
Each principal was contacted via use of an initial request letter (appendix E). Both
principals responded to the request for an interview within 1 week. At each inter-
view, the principal was presented the Principal’s Site Leadership Mapping Form
(appendix F). Both principals completed the form. Subsequently, the leaders
identified by each principal were asked to validate that structure via the use of the
Site Leadership Mapping Form (appendix G). The results were identical to the
results from the principal’s vision of leadership at the school.
Determination of the leaders at Aspen High School was different from the
process at Birch or Pine. First, the principal was contacted via use of the initial

68
request letter (appendix E). The principal identified an assistant principal named
Mr. Jones (Jones) as the site leader and stated that Jones “ran the school.” Jones
completed the Principal Site Leadership Mapping Form (appendix F).
The individuals identified by Jones as school leaders were interviewed.
Those individuals were parents, teachers, and quasi-administrators. Every
individual interviewed completed the Site Leadership Mapping Form (appendix G)
and expressed a different vision of who led the school. No two completed forms
were the same. As a result, rather than estimating the school’s internal leadership
process, everyone named in that process as a member of the team was contacted.
The only agreement among leaders was that the principal was not a leader and not a
member of the leadership team.
At Magnolia High School the principal was contacted via use of the initial
request letter (appendix E). The principal stated there was no formal leadership
team at Magnolia High School, and that, instead, Magnolia changed the leadership
team into a permanent “professional development” (PD) team. According to the
principal, “Professional development should drive what should be done at our
school for the next 6 years.” Also, the principal stated that she was not sure who
made up this team but believed that the current and former WASC coordinators
would know. Both WASC coordinators were contacted via the initial request letter
and completed the Site Leadership Mapping Form (appendix G). The completed
forms determining school leaders were identical.
Based on interviews with principals, designated assistant principals, and
school leaders, the conclusion was reached that each study school had a unique
leadership team. The teams and their membership varied. Understanding the unique
composition of each study school was helpful to understanding who were the

69
school leaders at each study school. Table 7 depicts school leadership team
composition at each study school, illustrating the differences in the composition of
study school leadership teams.

Table 7

Composition of School Leadership Teams

Team member Birch Pine Aspen Magnolia

Principal Yes Yes N/A Yes
Years at site 8 4 3 8
Assistant principals 4 4 1 2
Average years at site 6.5 3 2 4
Counselors 4 1 1 N/A
Other administrators 1 3
Teachers N/A N/A 8 10
WASC Coordinator 1 N/A N/A 1
Community 1
a
4
b
1
c

Total Members 10 7 15 18

Note. WASC = Western Association of Schools and Colleges.

a
President, Parents Teachers Students Association.
b
Parents and community.
c
Site
Council President.
Phase 4: School Leader Interviews
Interview protocols varied from school to school. Two schools had regular
weekly meetings. One school did not conduct regular leadership meetings. Table 8
depicts the frequency of school leadership team meetings.
At the Birch and Pine weekly meetings, the study was discussed briefly and
each member of the leadership team was interviewed after the meeting. At Aspen
there were no specific dates for leadership team meetings, so it was not possible to
attend a meeting during the course of the study. At Magnolia, the PD team met

70
Table 8

Frequency of Leadership Team Meetings

School Weekly Monthly Intermittent

Birch X
Pine X
Aspen X
Magnolia X

monthly but no meeting was scheduled during the study process. Therefore, leaders
at Aspen and Magnolia were interviewed during conference periods or when their
schedules permitted. The results of those interviews are detailed in the case study
portion of this chapter for each school.
Venn Diagram Mapping
The purpose of this instrument was to determine whether there was an
overlap concerning reporting items for WASC, CDE, and Williams. Another issue
investigated was whether school leaders were able to pinpoint whether those
measures overlapped or were duplicative.
Each individual interviewed completed the Venn diagram mapping form.
They were asked to match specific reporting terms to areas of the Venn diagram.
Allowances were made for participants to identify duplicative reporting areas.
Reporting items and their placement on the diagram by school leaders are recapped
in Table 9.

71
Table 9

Results of Venn Diagram Map

Item % of responses

1. WASC reporting 31
2. API reporting 9
3. Williams reporting 1
4. WASC and API reporting 24
5. WASC and Williams reporting 12
6. None 8
7. WASC, API, and Williams Reporting 16
8. API and Williams reporting 1

Note. WASC = Western Association of Schools and Colleges; API = Academic
Performance Index; Williams = Williams v. California, 2004.

School leaders had various impressions about this overlap. WASC was
identified in more than one category by 83% of eligible respondents, the API was
identified in more than one category by 50% of eligible respondents, and the
Williams settlement was identified in more than one category by 40% of eligible
respondents. These responses indicate that school leaders were aware that
accountability reporting was duplicated in more than one reporting requirement.
Phase 5: Case Study Format
As discussed in chapter 3, an interview guide was developed to serve as the
basis of the case study format. The case study outline, divided into five sections,
was utilized in all interviews. Each school case study is summarized according to

72
the five sections of the interview guide: (a) study school generally—background
and description of school, composition of leadership team; (b) study school’s
WASC process; (c) study school’s API reporting process; (d) study school’s
Williams settlement monitor reporting process; and (e) whether leaders reported
that these processes provided the data needed to facilitate school improvement.
Summary of Findings
Birch High School: 6R WASC and High API
Birch High School, Generally
Birch High School (Birch) is located in southern California and is a member
of the Hillside USD. It was founded in the late 1940s in response to the population
boom in the post-World War II era of migration to southern California. In 2006
Birch completed a 3-year facilities upgrade and renovation. The facilities are clean
and have modern electrical, plumbing, and technology facilities.
The Birch SARC reflects a diverse student and faculty. Table 10 is a 3-year
analysis of the Birch achievement and growth data.
Analysis of the data shows that Birch is a successful school. All teachers are
credentialed, the student enrollment is rising slowly, and the low fluctuation in
ethnicity of students reflects a stable community. Also, Birch meets or exceeds its
API scores every year.
Birch High School Principal
Interview
At the beginning of the interview Mr. Smith, the principal, confided that he
is always motivated by a challenge. Smith expressed pride in his accomplishments

73
Table 10

School Accountability Report Card (SARC) Data for Birch High School, 2004-2006

Item 2004 2005 2006

Total enrollment 2,352 2,480 2,656
Total site administrators 5 9 7
Administrator:pupil ratio 470:1 400:1 474:1
Full-time teachers 114 112 118
FTE teacher:pupil ratio 20.6:1 22.1:1 22.5:1

Student information
Average SAT verbal 509 518 507
Average SAT mathematics 510 511 502
Average SAT writing n/a n/a 505
English learners 7.7% 6.7% 6.7%
Receive free/reduced-price meals 21.2% 20% 20%

Ethnicity (%)
American Indian 0.2 0.2 0.2
Asian 4.2 4.3 3.8
Filipino 3.9 4.4 5.1
Hispanic 38.1 38.9 39.2
African American 2.4 2.7 2.6
White/Middle Eastern/Anglo 50.3 48.0 43.7
Multiple/no response 1.0 1.5 5.5

Note. FTE = full-time equivalent; SAT = Scholastic Aptitude Test.

at Birch. Smith counted his successes as the ability to promote leadership and to
motivate stakeholders to “get serious” concerning instruction, standards, and data.
Smith stated that this resulted in a shared vision of school success, manifested by
higher student attendance levels (97% average during the previous school year) and
fewer suspensions and expulsions than in previous years.
One example of this success was the way in which Smith developed
instructional leadership. Smith’s goal was to develop common assessments and
curriculum through each department at Birch. For the current school year Smith

74
made the goal of common assessments in curricular areas a priority in the mathe-
matics department. Smith developed this process by meeting with each mathe-
matics teacher individually. As a result of those meetings, Smith developed a pro-
gram to implement common grading and assessment materials for the department.
When he is finished with the mathematics department, Smith intends to replicate
this process with a different department next year.
However, Smith also stated that a challenge at his school was the skewed
mindset of district leadership and administration regarding elementary education.
Smith stated that high schools were neglected in the past but contended that the
new Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Instruction (a former high school
principal) was focusing a higher level of district attention to the high schools.
Another challenge for Smith was accountability on the part of the teachers.
Smith stated that he felt constrained in his ability to fire incompetent teachers.
However, he pointed to some success in this area: 35% of the teaching staff has
been at Birch less than 2 years. According to Smith, this change was due partially
to his ability to utilize progressive discipline to remove incompetent teachers from
the classroom. As he observed, “These veteran teachers knew they had better
perform or I would fire their a__.”
The primary issue that Smith had with school reporting was repetition.
Smith contended that WASC and California compliance reporting (API, SARC,
etc.) should “get married.” Smith also stated that other accountability measures,
such as California’s Distinguished School Program and the CAHSEE, were equally
duplicative.

75
Birch High School Leadership
The school leadership team, consisting of the principal, the four school
assistant principals, and the four guidance counselors, meets weekly. Each assistant
principal has a job category with related responsibilities: instruction, activities, or
guidance and discipline. The guidance counselors work directly with students in
areas such as academics, grades, testing, and post-high school plans. One counselor
is assigned to the ninth grade and the others divide alphabetically in grades 10, 11,
and 12. Smith maintains an agenda for meetings, which he updates as needed.
The agenda for the leadership meeting observed consisted of scheduling,
counseling issues, student government, and an upcoming random search of students
and lockers. That took less than half an hour. The next portion of the meeting was
devoted to a discussion of Good to Great, by Jim Collins. The entire team was
reading the book and each week there is a discussion of specific elements of the
book. The agenda contained the following issues and questions: (a) A great
organization is one that delivers superior performance and makes a distinctive
impact over a long period of time, and (b) how effectively do we deliver our
mission and make a distinctive impact, relative to our resources? The participants
spent half an hour discussing those two topics and how they related to the perform-
ance of the team at the school. The team members responded with specific
examples from the book that reflected their performance as leaders. Smith
concluded the meeting by asking the team, “Am I the leader you want? I want
honest answers.” Each member of the team said “yes.”
Birch High School WASC Process
The person in charge of WASC at Birch is the principal, Mr. Smith. The
upcoming WASC evaluation will be Smith’s second as principal of Birch. During

76
Smith’s first WASC at Birch, the coordinator died suddenly and Smith was forced
to assume responsibility for the entire site visit. As a result, Smith decided to
continue to be responsible for this task.
According to Smith, the main result of the last WASC evaluation was that
Birch revised the school’s master schedule so that all students had better access to
classes. As a result, the master schedule now works for all students, not just those
who are high or low achieving.
From an improvement standpoint, Smith used the school action plan as a
framework to guide improvement. Smith termed the action plan a “living docu-
ment.” Smith updates the action plan on a yearly basis. Smith produced a WASC
preparation folder that he maintains at his desk so that, when evidence that belongs
in the site report crosses his path, he has a place for it.
In preparation for the next site WASC, Smith confided that he was con-
sidering a block or “four by four” class schedule for Birch. He predicted that
believes revising the schedule would achieve two goals: improve instruction and
attendance and build planning time into the school day without spending extra
money for after-school meetings.
Smith’s goal is to obtain a clear, 6-year accreditation term. The next WASC
site visit is scheduled for spring 2008. At the time that the present study occurred,
Birch was organized into focus groups, reviewing data, and drafting the WASC
report. The leaders were involved in preparing for the WASC visit through depart-
ment chair and site council meetings. At the conclusion of the interview Smith
remarked, “We need to reflect on what we are doing and let the data determine
what our questions and issues will be.”

77
The Birch leadership team had mixed views concerning WASC reporting
processes. One assistant principal said, “WASC is not very pleasant but necessary.
It is like going to the doctor for a check-up.” A counselor stated, “WASC keeps
you on your toes.” Another assistant principal reflected that “WASC helps us to see
where we need to change stuff. We need common assessments.”
The assistant principal for guidance related that he was “ambivalent” about
WASC because “our school is such a good place and even though WASC is a
formality, the data shows we still need to improve with our English language
learners and special day students.” The assistant principal for discipline stated that
in the WASC process “teachers review where you are and decide where you need
to be.”
Birch High School WASC Data
Since the WASC revisit in 2005 as part of the 6-year term with a 3-year
review, and noted above, Birch has already begun to prepare for the its upcoming
WASC visit in 2008. Everyone on the team was aware that the goal of the team
with respect to accreditation was to obtain a clear 6-year term at the next visit.
Therefore, the site utilized the VC recommendations in response to the schoolwide
action plan as an element of school improvement.
Table 11 summarizes the revisit recommendations in 2005 and what Birch
has done in its action plan with respect to compliance with those recommendations.
There is also a brief recap of successes that Birch pinpointed as a direct result of
implementing the VC’s recommendations.

78
Birch High School API Reporting
Process
The Birch staff participates in the reporting process. One counselor termed
the API “an important process in accountability.” The individual responsible for
data is the assistant principal in charge of curriculum and instruction. Her full-time
job is to coordinate testing and process data. She handles all reporting to all
agencies for the school. When student achievement data are gathered for reporting
purposes, they are immediately disseminated to the faculty for discussion and
action. Those data include the CAHSEE, SAT, AP testing, ASVAB, attendance,
and grades (10-week and semester grades).
In the interview this assistant principal stated that her main goal with
respect to this reporting was to create and implement a faster system of data
dissemination. She confided,
The data collection process is too slow and the site needs to work on
implementing a system-wide policy of accountability when it comes to
reporting, so that the faculty can respond faster if students are not achieving
up to the standards. We want to produce documents that are vital and
important.
Birch High School Williams
Settlement Reporting Process
School leaders were aware of the three areas that the site reports concerning
the Williams settlement process: facilities, instructional materials, and teacher
credentials. However, they were not aware that there were finite elements to this
process, other than a form that was in the front office for the public to use. This
may be due to the extensive remodeling of the entire school and updating of all
instructional materials Birch recently completed. The leaders were unanimous in
their opinion that the site was well maintained, teachers were competent, and
instructional materials were adequate.

79

80
Conclusion for Birch School
Does site leadership at Birch believe that these processes (WASC, API
reporting, and Williams settlement reporting) provide data-driven decisions
concerning school improvement? As shown through analysis and interviews, the
Birch leaders contended that WASC and API reporting went hand in hand to
improve schools. The group also concluded that the site had improved on a con-
tinuous basis since the previous WASC visit. The team did not agree that Williams
settlement reporting was an element utilizing data to drive school improvement.
Magnolia High School: 6R WASC Term and Low API
Magnolia High School, Generally
Magnolia High School (Magnolia) is located on the outskirts of a large
urban region of southern California and is part of the Cityside USD. The school
was opened in the early 1900s. The front of the campus is littered with trash,
including beer bottles. Students loiter in the yard, and when the tardy bell rings,
there is no sense of urgency to get to class on time. Students and faculty alike use
cell phones at their discretion, even though a sign that says “no cell phones between
7:45 and 3:15” greets the visitor upon entering the administration building.
The site was not secured, as evident by open gates as well as the fact that no
one was at the door to the administration building to monitor entrance and exit
from the site. Students were observed hopping over fences and running off campus
during the school day.
The SARC data reflected a large high school (over 3,000 students on a 9-
month school year). Eighteen percent of the student body consists of a group of

81
students who commute from a nearby overcrowded school (its enrollment for the
same period was more than 4,000 students).
Magnolia is in the process of dividing into learning academies in the areas
of Bilingual Business, Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID),
Foreign Language, and “New Media.” There is also a foreign language magnet
already in existence. Table 12 is a 3-year analysis of Magnolia growth and
achievement data.
The WASC report stated that Magnolia was overcrowded. Eight bungalows
and a new building were added to comply with the growth in the student popula-
tion. Over half of the student population was living below the poverty line (evident
by 57% of students who qualified for the school’s supplemental meal plan).
Achievement statistics were flat in terms of the API but students were gaining with
respect to SAT scores.
Magnolia High School Principal
Interview
The principal has been at Magnolia for 8 years. Prior to that, she was an
assistant principal in the Cityside USD. The principal stated that Magnolia opted
out of a defined leadership team. According to the principal, as a result of the last
WASC visit, the group desired to implement PD as a permanent leadership tool for
the entire school. The leadership team named itself the schools’ PD team and
planned to meet monthly. The principal referred to two individuals whom she
believed would be on this team: the former and present WASC coordinators. The
principal did not know who made up the team. She stated, “The team is too large
and I cannot keep track of who is on the team.”

82
Table 12

School Accountability Report Card (SARC) Data for Magnolia High School, 2004-
2006

Item 2004 2005 2006

Total enrollment 3,101 3.209 3,210
Total site administrators 19 17 17
Administrator:pupil ratio 348:1 365:1 360:1
Full-time teachers 127 130 129
FTE teacher:pupil ratio 24.4:1 24.7:1 24.9:1

Student information
Average SAT verbal 463 490 507
Average SAT mathematics 497 510 502
Average SAT writing n/a n/a 505
English learners 24.3% 24.0% 6.7%
Receive free/reduced-price meals 57.0% 57.7% 20.0%

Ethnicity (%)
American Indian 0.0 0.8 0.6
Asian 6.9 6.8 6.7
Filipino 1.1 1.2 1.4
Hispanic 66.7 67.1 67.7
African American 9.6 9.5 10.5
White/Middle Eastern/Anglo 14.3 14.0 12.9
Pacific Islander 0.4 0.3 0.3

Note. FTE = full-time equivalent; SAT = Scholastic Aptitude Test.

Magnolia High School Leadership
Both WASC coordinators used the Site Leadership Mapping Form
(appendix G) to map professional development team and validate the principal’s
assertions. Each was contacted using the initial contact request letter and the Site
Leadership Mapping Form. Interviews were conducted on an individual basis,
either during conference periods or break times.

83
Each interviewee confirmed what the principal had stated. The school
leadership team was presently termed the school PD team. Each also confirmed that
the purpose of this change was to enhance PD at Magnolia. Each WASC Coordin-
ator designated the leadership team as the principal, two assistant principals, the
literacy coach, the magnet coordinator, the vocational counselor, the AVID
coordinator, one community member (site council president), and several teacher-
leaders (department chairs). The WASC coordinators also identified themselves as
part of the school’s PD team.
Magnolia High School WASC
Process
Magnolia had its 6-year full-term visit in spring 2006. The person in charge
of the WASC visit was Mr. Hazel (Hazel), a teacher in the foreign language depart-
ment. Hazel became WASC coordinator when the principal asked for volunteers at
a faculty meeting in 2004. Hazel stated, “I wanted to try something new.”
Hazel attended a WASC-sponsored training session and a district-sponsored
training session. He also participated in a “mock” visit at a neighboring school.
Hazel did not go out on a site visit. He confided that the Cityside district office
discouraged this practice and that the district has its own internal mock WASC visit
program for leaders to rehearse the visit as an alternative to actual site visits.
According to Hazel, Magnolia made an effort to incorporate preparation for
the accreditation visit into the daily life of the school, even though the attitude of
the faculty was “here we go again.” Hazel listed a schedule of goals for the visit:
(a) organize into a core leadership team and focus groups in fall 2004, (b) prepare a
draft of the report during the 2004-2005 school year, (c) participate in training
offered through the district and WASC, (d) align staff development practices with

84
the school’s goals, (e) have a higher level of faculty and community involvement in
the accreditation process, (f) spend the fall of the 2005-2006 school year surveying
stakeholders (students, faculty, and community), collecting data, and working on
the report, (g) bring the entire community together in the winter of 2006 to prepare
the schoolwide action plan.
PD team members’ opinions about the WASC process differed. According
to Hazel, the WASC visit “went off without a hitch” and Magnolia received a term
of 6 years with a 3-year midterm review. However, the vocational counselor
remarked, “This school was not honest about a key area: equity and accessibility. It
really bothers me.” The principal stated that WASC was something to share with
the community: “Accreditation is a national seal of approval. That is what I tell the
parents.”
Magnolia High School WASC Data
A copy of the previous WASC visit in 2000 was obtained, as well as the
school action plan and the 2006 WASC report. The report was framed as an
improvement document to recap the previous recommendations and what Magnolia
had done in response to those recommendations. Table 13 summarizes recom-
mendations made at the previous visit and what Magnolia has accomplished in its
action plan in terms of compliance with those recommendations.
Magnolia High School API
Reporting Process
The school complies with API reporting in the district-driven reporting
requirement concerning the API on the first Friday in October. All elements of API
requirements are completed and sent to the district office.

85
PD team members expressed various opinions about the API. The current
WASC coordinator stated, “I do not know what our API scores are. I know we are
improving but it is very slow.” The AVID coordinator remarked, “I have mixed
feelings about the API. I think the API scores reflect an attitude about the test and
not learning. We had a problem with buy-in last year. Our students saw no value in
doing well. ”
Magnolia High School Williams
Settlement Reporting Process
The Magnolia staff was not aware of a specific process concerning the
Williams settlement, other than textbooks. There were no Williams reporting forms
or materials in the Magnolia administration offices. There was no mention of
access to this process on the school’s Web site.
The PD team had various comments concerning Williams. One foreign
language chair asked, “Is this the textbook thing?” Another PD team member, who
asked not to be identified, expressed concern that not all students received the same
instructional materials. “We can only fudge on textbooks so much.”
Not one interviewee knew that the Williams settlement incorporated
knowledge about school improvement issues, such as teacher credentials, school
schedules, or school facilities. Everyone who was interviewed identified the
Williams settlement with textbooks only.
Conclusion for Magnolia School
Does site leadership at Magnolia High School believe that these processes
(WASC, API reporting, and Williams settlement reporting) provide data-driven
decisions concerning school improvement?

86

87
The Magnolia leadership team consisted of over 15 persons from various elements
of the site: administrators, teacher-leaders, and community members. No one
identified any counselors as a part of the team.
When interviews were conducted at Magnolia, the leadership team was
changing. This was due to the fact that an experienced assistant principal had
recently been promoted to a principal’s position. A new assistant principal had been
transferred to the site with no input from the Magnolia staff as to who that would
be. The leaders stated that they were disappointed that they had had no input in
choosing a new assistant principal. They also were disappointed that the principal
had not insisted on having them participate in the hiring process.
Leaders judged that the school was not improving. As the Literacy coach
observed, “I keep hacking away and hope that change for students will come.”
Members of the team had identified themselves as a PD team after the last
WASC evaluation but did not have a clear answer as to what that meant. According
to the Magnolia WASC report, the PD team was organized to facilitate a means to
improve CAHSEE scores at Magnolia.
With respect to the WASC process, leaders were satisfied with the new
accreditation term: 6 years with a 3-year review. However, no one (including the
principal) agreed that the WASC process would serve as a guide or map for school
improvement. The social studies chair ask, “What do teachers actually do with the
data after we have completed the WASC process?”
Also, leaders did not have an in-depth knowledge of Magnolia’s API or
what factors made up the API, other than what they needed to do on one school day
every year to count their students. An example was the observation of the Literacy
coach: “I don’t do much about the API reporting.”

88
Interviewees also were not aware of what the current Magnolia API was or
the current Magnolia CDE ranking. Nor did the team have any knowledge (other
than a general sense of textbooks) of what the school’s reporting processes were
with respect to the Williams settlement.
Pine High School: 3-Year WASC Term and High API
Pine High School, Generally
Pine High School (Pine) is located in southern California and is a member
of the Hillside USD. Pine is located in a community in transition. Several large
corporations have relocated to the community in the past 10 years. As a result,
property values have increased and local housing is at a premium.
The school completed a complete renovation and facilities upgrade in 2006.
The result is a school with modern facilities and equipment that is new and operates
efficiently. Every person interviewed expressed pride in the renovation concerning
areas such as technology, a new audio system, and even a school credit union for
students. The site was also in the process of installing an automatic teller machine
on campus for student access as part of the school credit union, which was an
example of how technology was implemented to benefit student achievement.
Table 14 is a 3-year analysis of the Pine growth and achievement data as
reported in its SARC reports.
The data show an improving school. The principal has reached his goal of a
teaching staff that is 100% credentialed. Enrollment is relatively stable, which
allows for planning, an important goal for this school as articulated by the leader-
ship staff. The site has also met its API goal for the past 3 years, which indicates
that it is on a path to continued improvement.

89
Table 14

School Accountability Report Card (SARC) Data for Pine High School, 2004-2006

Item 2004 2005 2006

Total enrollment 2,500 2,521 2,603
Total site administrators 5 5 6
Administrator:pupil ratio 500:1 504:1 520:1
Full-time teachers 113 113 114
FTE teacher:pupil ratio 22.1:1 22.3:1 22.8:1

Student information
Average SAT verbal 491 504 501
Average SAT mathematics 521 535 526
Average SAT writing n/a n/a 508
English learners 14.0% 14.0% 15.0%
Receive free/reduced-price meals 27.4% 29.0% 27.0%

Ethnicity (%)
American Indian 0.1 0.1 0.1
Asian 8.5 8.8 8.4
Filipino 3.1 3.0 3.0
Hispanic 29.9 29.6 29.1
African American 2.3 2.4 2.8
White/Middle Eastern/Anglo 56.0 55.4 55.6
Pacific Islander 0.1 0.2 0.1

Note. FTE = full-time equivalent; SAT = Scholastic Aptitude Test.

Pine High School Principal
Interview
The first person interviewed was the principal, Mr. Brown (Brown). This is
Brown’s fourth year as principal. Prior to becoming the principal at Pine, Brown
held a position as Assistant Principal of Discipline in a neighboring district.
Brown expressed pride in how Pine has improved since he became the
principal. According to Brown, the culture of Pine was chaotic upon his arrival as
principal. There was conflict between the faculty and the administration. As a

90
result, Pine had trouble keeping administrative personnel employed on a long-term
basis. Brown said that he worked hard to change that. To do so, he created a
stronger leadership team at Pine. He promoted individuals from within the district
to administrative positions at Pine. He actively mentored new administrators
(validated by administrators, teachers, and the PTSA parent who were interviewed).
Another goal of Brown was to instill was a higher level of discipline.
During his first month at Pine, 35 students were suspended or expelled. Brown
indicated that this sent a message to the faculty that discipline would be stronger at
Pine.
According to Brown, these changes resulted in a school with a strong
discipline policy, a cohesive leadership team plan, and a faculty that has bought
into the principal’s leadership. Student achievement is on the rise. According to
Brown, students and community participate in all elements of site achievement. For
example, students assist in writing grant applications. Also, the community partici-
pates in running the school because the PTSA, not the school, maintains the school
Web site.
Pine High School Leadership
The site leadership team meets weekly; it consists of the principal, the
president of the PTSA, all assistant principals, and several counselors. Each
assistant principal has a job category in one of the following specific areas: (a)
Activities and Athletics, (b) Curriculum and Instruction, (c) Guidance and Counsel-
ing and (d) Discipline. The principal does provide a formal agenda. Instead, he asks
all attendees to discuss their respective schedules, issues, and concerns.

91
The persons whom the principal designated as site leaders agreed with his
perception concerning who comprised the team. Each leader had been in that
position for less than 3 years. This validated Brown’s perspective that he needed a
new team to run the school. Also, even though the team was relatively new to this
site, the experience of its members was substantial. The average experience of
assistant principals was 7 years (including 3 at Pine).
The leaders did not have a high regard for the WASC process. When asked
whether WASC enhances student achievement, the team members stated, “The
WASC Report will not drive our school achievement program. WASC has zero
value for our school. We are what we say we are and we do not need to have
WASC. I never review the WASC Report because I am too busy.”
Pine High School WASC Process
This will be the principal’s second WASC experience at Pine. His first
experience occurred 3 years ago, just after he assumed his position as principal.
Brown termed the WASC process as a “necessary evil” because of the reporting
elements of the process. Brown stated that, in order to have a successful accredita-
tion experience, there need to be a higher level of faculty participation and
ownership of the process. Last year, Brown designated a teacher as the WASC
coordinator to begin the process. The coordinator, who is an English teacher,
organized the site for the visit during the previous school year. Focus and home
groups have been working on the site report, and recently began digesting achieve-
ment data to complete the reporting process. Everyone interviewed had expecta-
tions of a better review and a longer term. This was because the site addressed the

92
Action Plan. What the site learned and what the team did are detailed in the next
section.
Pine High School WASC Data
In its previous WASC report Pine had disclosed a chaotic culture at the
campus that needed to change if the school were to improve. Several strategies
were developed for that improvement. A new principal was hired, and that principal
replaced the entire administrative team. Pine also employed an outside consulting
firm to refocus the school on education, and the VC noted that these actions were
improving the school.
Table 15 summarizes the VC’s recommendations during the previous visit
and what the site has done in its action plan in terms of compliance. The results
also pinpoint the effect of implementation of the Action Plan on student achieve-
ment and school improvement.
Pine High School API Reporting
Process
According to Principal Brown, the Pine staff “actively participates in the
CDE reporting process and the teaching staff supports it as well.” The use of tech-
nology has enhanced this process. The staff is trained in ways that technology
enhances the use of data. However, leaders stated that standardized testing was not
strong enough, that expectations for students were too low, and that there was too
much testing. One assistant principal termed student achievement as “no child left
untested.”

93

94
Pine High School Williams
Settlement Reporting Process
This school recently underwent a complete renovation. There is a high level
of technology in classrooms. Instructional materials are replaced every 3 years. All
teachers have credentials. The leadership team held that maintaining these areas of
the school is an important element of success. However, the leaders had no knowl-
edge of specific requirements mandated by the Williams settlement reporting.
Conclusion for Pine School
Does site leadership at Pine High School believe that these processes
(WASC, API reporting, and Williams settlement reporting) provide data-driven
decisions concerning school improvement? Interviews with leaders produced
mixed results. Overall, school leaders knew that WASC and API reporting were
tasks that they were required to complete. They did not agree that Williams
settlement reporting was an element utilizing data to drive school improvement.
Leaders mirrored the attitude of the principal, that WASC was a “necessary evil.”
Aspen High School: 3-Year WASC Term and Low API
Aspen High School, Generally
Aspen High School (Aspen) is located in a large city in southern California.
The school was opened in the 1950s as a result of the population boom in the post-
World War II era of migration to southern California.
The Aspen SARC is reflective of a school with a variety of issues and
challenges. The school has not met its academic performance goals since the most
recent WASC visit, which was 3 years ago. The school has a large population of
commuter students. According to Mr. Green, a member of the community identi-

95
fied as a site leader, “The result is a chronic tardy and attendance problem on a
daily basis.”
The Aspen staff is working on several projects devoted to school improve-
ment. One project is a magnet science academy. Another improvement project at
Aspen is a new ninth-grade learning academy, opened in fall 2006. The director is
an English teacher, who stated, “Most of our kids in the ninth grade don’t even
know they are in an academy.”
Aspen obtained a grant to transform the entire school into small learning
communities. The grant mandates complete reorganization of the school curriculum
and teaching staff. Aspen must file its plan with the granting agency by the end of
January 2007.
Table 16 is a 3-year analysis of the Aspen growth and achievement data.
The data reflect a school with several challenges. According to the assistant
principal in charge of the school, “Due to open enrollment, it is difficult for the
administrative staff to anticipate hiring and class size needs. One result is the ethnic
composition of the school fluctuates. Another result is teaching staff allocations are
difficult to project.” Also, Aspen is not meeting its API goals. As a result of
continued failure to meet its improvement goals, Aspen will soon come under a
higher level of regulatory supervision.
Aspen High School Principal
Interview
This is the 3rd year of the principal’s term. The principal referred inquiries
to an assistant principal (Mr. Jones), who explained that he was in charge of the
day-to-day operations of Aspen. This is Jones’s second year as an assistant

96
Table 16

School Accountability Report Card (SARC) Data for Aspen High School, 2004-
2006

Item 2004 2005 2006

Total enrollment 2,545 2,726 2,299
Total site administrators 10 9 14
Administrator:pupil ratio 214:1 207:1 207:1
Full-time teachers 109 131 108
FTE teacher:pupil ratio 123.3:1 20.8:1 21.3:1

Student information
Average SAT verbal 447 443 442
Average SAT mathematics 447 458 440
Average SAT writing n/a n/a 443
English learners 9.7% 15.0% 10.0%
Receive free/reduced-price meals 30.4% 28.7% 30.0%

Ethnicity (%)
American Indian 0.5 0.3 0.4
Asian 1.7 1.7 2.1
Filipino 0.5 0.5 0.4
Hispanic 27.0 35.0 22.4
African American 62.8 55.9 65.8
White/Middle Eastern/Anglo 7.2 6.3 8.1

Note. FTE = full-time equivalent; SAT = Scholastic Aptitude Test.

principal at this site and his first WASC process as an administrator. Prior to this
position, Jones held an administrative position on the district level.
Jones has never been on a school WASC site visit or participated in a
WASC visit as a site leader. This lack of experience became apparent during the
interview. Jones was not aware of several elements of the WASC process. He did
not know when the VC would arrive at the site, he did not know that the VC first
meets with a community/parents group, he did not know what the VC was going to

97
do while visiting the site, and he did not know that a VC requires a place to work at
the school site.
Aspen High School Leadership
Jones identified the site leadership team as consisting of department chairs,
several parents, and coordinators in the areas of WASC, Title I, and ELL. These
persons were responsible for specific areas of school operations. Notably omitted
from this list were the principal, the other two assistant principals, the school
counselors, and the WASC coordinator.
Jones also stated that there were no regular leadership team meetings.
Instead, the principal meets every Friday with the administrative staff (herself and
the three assistant principals). Jones related that one assistant principal was new
and the other had been transferred to Aspen from a neighboring high school.
Schools leaders were interviewed individually. As a result, how the school
leadership team viewed its accountability reporting processes was clarified. It was
clear that there was no common thread concerning the leadership team composition
at this school. In fact, the Spanish department chair observed, “We do not have
leadership at our school; we have buildings.”
Aspen High School WASC Process
The current accreditation term for Aspen is 3 years and the WASC visit is
scheduled for April 2007. The staff person in charge of coordinating the WASC
visit is a social studies teacher, Ms. Beige (Beige), who was also recently elected to
the position of school site council president. This is the third time that Beige has
been the WASC coordinator at her site. Beige related that she was tired of this

98
project and confided that she undertook the job because “the principal is my friend
and she asked me to do it.”
Beige stated that AP Mr. Jones constantly undercut her responsibilities as
WASC coordinator, restructured the process, and excluded the faculty and com-
munity from participating in WASC preparation. Focus groups were beginning to
be formed but the group had written nothing at the time of the interview, which was
conducted in November 2006. The report was due at district level in December
2006.
Beige expressed that opinion that the WASC process was “not a helpful
improvement process because nothing has happened. It only helps us as the site
writes the report. All this reporting conflicts with each other.” The Spanish
department chair stated,
A lot of people are going through the motions. They write things down and
say things to appease the team. The faculty is not allowed to view the
master schedule. What is the principal hiding? I have no faith in the WASC
process.
These beliefs were supported by the Title I Coordinator, who stated that WASC
was like “putting lipstick on a pig.”
Aspen High School WASC Data
At the previous visit the WASC evaluation team had made specific recom-
mendations to Aspen for improvement. However, there was confusion among the
school leaders as to what those recommendations were. Issues mentioned during
interviews were (a) unavailability of the previous WASC report, (b) which report
should be the report to reference concerning criteria—the visitation report as a
result of the visit 3 years ago or the visitation report as a result of the visit 6 years
ago, (c) what data were needed (apparently, Jones keeps changing department

99
reporting requirements and deadlines, and (d) the exact nature of the previous VC
recommendations.
Table 17 summarizes the recommendations made at the previous visit (since
they were the most current) and what the site has done in terms of compliance with
those recommendations.
Aspen High School API Reporting
Process
The site’s internal API reporting process occurs on 1 day per school year.
Students and staff are counted and disaggregated into the groups required for
compliance with API reporting requirements. According to persons who were
interviewed, responsibility for reporting these accurately and fairly rests with the
district office and not with the school.
The chair of the English Department stated, “I value the API reporting
process even though I do not understand why we are a 2.” On the other hand, the
Title I Coordinator stated, “The API reporting process is a waste of time because it
is not aligned with the curriculum. It does not measure English, Math, or Science
knowledge.”
The head of the Spanish department was aware of the annual reporting day
in October for the API. He described the process as “very secretive.” He also
stated, “We know the scores don’t actually reflect achievement of the kids. It is so
unfair to test ELL and special education students. This testing does not reflect the
whole school.”
An example concerning API data was a draft of the school data summary.
There was a variance in several areas between what the site was using and what
was reported by the CDE. When Jones was asked about it, he replied, “I have no

100

101
idea why there is a difference.” However, when this issue was mentioned to several
school leaders (Booster Club President, Foreign Language Chair, and WASC
Coordinator) during interviews, they noted that the API data omitted the entire
magnet school population so the school’s achievement statistics would be lower
and qualify it for more funding. Table 18 presents some of the reporting
differences.

Table 18

Aspen High School Academic Performance Index (API) Reporting Differences

Item School reporting CDE reporting Variance

Total students 2004 2,198 2,545 347 students
Total students 2005 2,413 2,726 313 students
Total students 2006 1,913 2,299 386 students
Total teachers 2005 114 131 17 teachers
Total teachers 2004 106 130 24 teachers

Aspen High School Williams
Settlement Reporting Process
The staff apparently did not understand the Williams settlement reporting
process, other than showing a general awareness that Williams meant “textbooks.”
No one who was interviewed was aware that the Williams settlement also covered
credentials, school schedules, and facilities.
The leaders did not appear to understand what remedies were available to
resolve these types of problems. This was evidenced by the condition of Aspen

102
reflected in the outline of the current WASC report that Jones produced at his
interview. The report noted Williams-related deficiencies in several facilities-
related areas of the school: (a) interior and exterior windows, doors, and gates;
(b) hazardous materials inside and outside the school grounds; (c) electrical
problems; (d) unacceptable restrooms for students; (e) unacceptable condition of
the school grounds in general.
Another example of school leaders’ knowledge concerning Williams
settlement reporting requirements occurred during the interview with the Spanish
department chair. He stated that the site had been in “disarray” at the beginning of
the school year. “The department chairs borrowed textbooks from a neighboring
high school and spent 2 days organizing and distributing textbooks. Students did
not have books for the first 5 weeks of the school year.”
Conclusion for Aspen High School
Does site leadership at Aspen agree that these processes (WASC, API
reporting, and Williams settlement reporting) provide data-driven decisions
concerning school improvement?
At the time interviews were conducted at Aspen, several school leaders had
read the previous WASC report. Some leaders were aware of the current API and
CDE rankings of Aspen. Leaders did not agree that Williams settlement reporting
was an element utilizing data to drive school improvement. This was due to their
perception that the sole purpose of the Williams settlement litigation was to
improve textbooks.

103
The leadership team of the school was undefined and lacked understanding
of school data. No one identified the principal as the leader of the school. Two
assistant principals were not identified as school leaders.
Several designated members of the leadership team would not consent to be
interviewed. The magnet coordinator declined to be interviewed, citing health
issues. The college counselor made an appointment but subsequently changed her
mind. The chair of the English department stated, “We are in the middle of grading
and it will take too much of my free time.” Overall, interviews with the leadership
staff painted a picture of people with little knowledge about the achievement data
reporting process for their school.
Answer to Research Questions
Research question 1 asked, Do high school leaders value the accreditation
process? The focus of this research question was the extent to which high school
leaders compared WASC to other accountability processes mandated by California.
Data were collected through interviews with four school leadership teams. The
leaders completed a comparative Venn diagram of those processes. Also, docu-
ments reflecting school reporting were accessed. Through the study design it was
learned that few school leaders valued the accreditation process. Conversely, school
leaders viewed the accreditation process as a chore to be completed rather than as a
tool for improvement.
Research question 2 asked, Do high school site leaders believe California
Department of Education reporting requirements, Williams settlement reporting,
and WASC reporting provide the data needed to facilitate school improvement?
The purpose of this research question was to determine whether school leadership

104
teams utilized WASC, CDE, and Williams reporting to assist with school improve-
ment planning. Data were collected via interviews with four school leadership
teams, completion of a comparative Venn diagram of those processes, and access to
school reporting documents.
Most school leaders interviewed did not understand the API, WASC, or
Williams reporting procedures and goals, as described in the case studies of Aspen
and Magnolia high schools. Therefore, these measures to gather data did not lead to
school improvement. The only positive instance was that the school had strong
leadership on the part of the principal, as was evident in the Birch high school case
study.
The interviews revealed that data-driven decisions occurred in schools when
the principal exerted strong leadership in driving school data improvement choices,
as shown in interviews with leaders at Pine and Birch high schools. The school
leadership teams’ focus on CDE reporting requirements broke down at the school
when the principal did not lead the team, as shown in interviews at Aspen High
School.
Conclusions
Chapter 4 presents the data and analyzes the findings to answer the research
questions. Based on the results and analysis, the following conclusions were drawn.
1. Leadership (or the lack of it) was an essential element regarding whether
schools had competent accountability reporting processes. School leaders agreed
that achievement and accountability reporting success was a result of strong
leadership on the part of the principal.

105
2. School leaders agreed that there were too many reporting requirements
for high schools and that the process should be consolidated.
3. When schools adopted achievement and accountability reporting
practices set forth by California (WASC, Williams, and CDE reporting), they
created a successful benchmark for reform.

106
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
OF THE FINDINGS
Chapter 5 presents conclusions based on the findings and data presented in
chapter 4. The chapter also outlines the implications of these findings for future
education policy and practice, with specific focus on the role of reporting processes
embedded in accreditation procedures.
Summary of the Study
The findings described in chapter 4 are as follows:
1. When high schools adhere to specific reporting processes such as
accreditation efforts, benchmarks for reform can be set successfully.
2. High school leaders confirmed that strong principal leadership is an
important, possibly essential component of school reporting success.
3. There are too many reporting requirements facing California high
schools. Consolidation of those requirements would facilitate school reform.
The Problem
California high school leaders are faced with myriad reporting require-
ments, including WASC, API, and Williams litigation settlement reporting
measures. The problem is whether these reporting processes result in varied data, as
well as benchmarks that school leaders will continue to utilize in their efforts to
reform and improve schools, and what to do when reporting requirements or the
results of different programs conflict or work at cross purposes.

107
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine the accountability reporting
practices of public high schools in California in light of recent measures mandated
by California and implemented by the CDE, WASC, and the Williams litigation
settlement. Two research questions were developed to guide the study. The
research questions formed the basis for the conceptual framework of the study,
collecting and analyzing data and the basis for the prior conclusions.
1. Do high school leaders value the accreditation process?
2. Do high school leaders believe that CDE reporting requirements,
Williams litigation settlement reporting, and WASC reporting provide the data
needed to facilitate school improvement?
Methodology
To answer the questions posed above, a case study methodology focused on
urban high schools and their leaders. High school leaders were interviewed to
determine which accountability reporting processes they valued as a means to
establish school improvement benchmarks and to create reform that would enhance
student learning. In addition to interview guides to focus discussions with high
school leaders, the research relied on analysis of accountability benchmarks,
WASC reporting documents, and a set of open-ended instruments. These instru-
ments consisted of site leadership mapping forms and a Venn diagram, utilized to
gather evidence of respondent views concerning the interrelationships among
WASC accreditation, API, and Williams litigation settlement reporting.

108
Sample and Population
The four schools in the study were chosen on the basis of API scores and
WASC accreditation terms, with the sample including one school meeting each of
the following criteria: (a) high API/6-year WASC, (b) high API/3-year WASC, (c)
low API/6-year WASC, and (d) low API/3-WASC. The schools were selected from
two unified school districts (kindergarten through 12th grade) in Los Angeles
County, California. Hillside District (identity of districts is masked for confidenti-
ality purposes) had an overall 2006 growth API of 779; Cityside District had an
overall 2006 growth in API 658. Average score on the revised SAT (writing com-
ponent added and a new total possible of 2,400) for Hillside was 1,538, while the
average score for Cityside was 1,333. Almost 75% of Cityside students were
Latino, while Hillside students were primarily Anglo Europeans/Middle Easterners
(47%) and Latinos (36%).
Data Collection
The conceptual framework and data collection instruments were conceived
in 2006 and based on current literature in education. Collection of data commenced
in the spring of 2006, when high school WASC reports and API statistics were
reviewed. Determining high school WASC terms and their poor correlation with
API-based achievement statistics led to producing the conceptual framework for the
study. Through this framework four schools were identified whose improvement
benchmarks (WASC term and API scores) met the four criteria listed above.
Study school interviews commenced in the fall of 2006, after Cityside and
Hillside approved the research request through their internal review processes.
Interviews were conducted at study schools during October and November 2006.

109
Principals were interviewed first so they could map the leadership team of
the site and direct the course of leadership team interviews. Next, the principal’s
vision of the school leadership team was validated through school leader inter-
views. Caveats regarding interviewing were incorporated into interview request
letters submitted to every individual who was interviewed. Throughout the inter-
view process, data were collected and summarized on an ongoing basis.
Framework for Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked, “Do high school leaders value the accreditation
process?” The focus of this research question was the extent to which high school
leaders valued the WASC process as a tool to set benchmarks for school improve-
ment. Data were collected via interviews with four school leadership teams, com-
pletion by those teams of a comparative Venn diagram of those processes, and
access to school reporting documents.
Findings for Research Question 1
The goal of this research question was to determine whether school leaders
valued accreditation and utilized the WASC process on a continual basis to map
school improvement benchmarks. Through interviews, use of the Venn diagram,
and review of the unique achievement data generated for each study school, it was
learned that, when schools and their leaders followed the ongoing improvement
strategy mandated by the WASC Commission, the schools created benchmarks to
create and implement reform. When a school did not adopt the benchmarks set
forth by the WASC Commission, no benchmarks for internal improvement were
evident.

110
Three of the schools in the study (Birch, Magnolia, and Pine) adopted the
accreditation mission and viewed accreditation as a process that reflects on “impact
on student learning and in refinement of the action plan” (WASC, 2005, p. 6).
Birch and Pine had focus groups and achievement data analysis processes in place
from their previous accreditation team visits (as well as in preparation for the next
team visits). Also, Magnolia was in the early stages of creating a continuous
“professional development” program to benchmark internal goals and improvement
measures.
In the case of Aspen (the school with a low API and a 3-year accreditation
term), there was no evidence of follow-up or implementation of a benchmark
program to measure student achievement since the previous accreditation visit and
assignment of a 3- year accreditation term. No school leader at that school indicated
that he or she valued the accreditation process. Moreover, the administration did
not have the longevity at the site or appear to have the leadership skills to imple-
ment and maintain a continuous cycle of reform and improvement at Aspen.
Interviews and analysis of documents also revealed a stark difference in
WASC training programs between the Cityside and Hillside school districts.
Cityside had its own internal WASC training and visitation process, consisting of
mock WASC visits and internal staff development training. School leaders had
little or no experience in actual WASC visits and reporting processes, other than
the largely ineffective internal tools provided by their district or through participat-
ing in WASC visits at their site. On the other hand, Hillside embraced the WASC
training process. School leaders in Hillside high schools were expected to attend
WASC-sponsored training and participate in WASC visits at schools outside the
district. As a result, Hillside high school leaders knew what to expect from a

111
WASC visit and were able to implement visiting committee recommendations from
previous visits. Both Hillside high schools had their ongoing WACS process in
place and operating as a consistent tool to benchmark improvement.
Framework for Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, “Do high school leaders believe that California
Department of Education reporting requirements, Williams litigation settlement
reporting, and WASC reporting provide the data needed to facilitate school
improvement?” The focus of this research question was to determine whether
school leaders utilized WASC, CDE, and Williams litigation settlement reporting as
tools to assist as benchmarks for improvement. Data were collected via interviews
with four school leadership teams and completion by those teams of a comparative
Venn diagram of those processes, as well as access to school reporting documents.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research question 2 sought to determine whether school leaders utilized
specific reporting processes to determine benchmarks for school improvement.
When school leaders understood how to report and digest the API, WASC, or
Williams litigation settlement reporting procedures and outcomes, and when they
used these tools, the schools had benchmarks in place for improvement. Con-
versely, when school leaders did not utilize these reporting procedures and results,
school leaders lacked basic information upon which to reform and improve their
schools.
For example, Birch and Pine in the Hillside District each had a system of
data collection and analysis in place. API data collection and review were con-
ducted on a regular basis. Each site met California requirements that resulted from

112
the Williams litigation settlement: adequate facilities, qualified teachers, and
appropriate instructional materials. Even though interviews produced mixed views
concerning whether these reporting processes were needed or whether they
overlapped, leaders at each of these schools recognized that successful reporting
would lead to appropriate benchmarks to create and implement reform models for
their schools.
The situation at Magnolia and Aspen in the Cityside District was different.
School leaders did not know what their API reporting process was. In many cases,
school leaders did not even know the most recent API scores and CDE ranking for
their school. Also, school leaders were unaware of Williams litigation settlement
reporting mandates, other than the perception that Williams meant “textbooks.”
Overall, school leaders stated that reporting was duplicative for high
schools and that the process should be consolidated. This was evident by results of
the Venn diagram. WASC was identified as a reporting instrument in more than
one category by 83% of eligible respondents. The API was identified in more than
one category by 50% of eligible respondents. Williams litigation settlement report-
ing was identified in more than one category by 40% of eligible respondents.
No matter what the status of each school in its WASC, API, or Williams
litigation settlement reporting process, school leaders agreed that they were
spending too much time in reporting student achievement statistics as well as the
condition of the school to various agencies and commissions. Leaders in both
school districts expressed this belief.

113
School Leadership
Even though the impact of leadership on the school reporting process was
not a specific research question, an unexpected theme emerged concerning this
issue. As discussed in detail in chapter 4, all four study schools were located in
different areas of Los Angeles County. All four study schools had different student
and faculty demographics. All four study schools had different achievement and
accreditation levels. Yet, all four study school leadership teams had the same belief
concerning school success.
Every individual interviewed expressed the opinion that data-driven
decisions occurred in schools when principals exerted strong leadership in driving
school improvement processes. Conversely, these interviewees stated that, when
the principal was not a strong leader, focus on reporting requirements broke down
at the school.
Application of the Study to the
High School Reform Process
As Merriam noted, “Insights gleaned from case studies can directly
influence policy, practice and future research” (1998, p. 19). In the case study at
hand, there were several ways to apply the findings and conclusions to policy,
practice, and future research concerning secondary education in California.
With respect to policy, it is recommended that California develop a method
for school leadership training programs to educate leaders concerning accounta-
bility mechanisms, what they mean, and how to report them. This need was evident
in the Venn diagram results. As discussed in chapter 4, the diagram results showed
that few leaders were aware of the specific elements of reporting processes depicted

114
in chapter 2. For example, few leaders could identify the specific Williams
litigation settlement reporting criteria.
WASC is a commission that operates independent of the CDE. Thus,
WASC is able to set accreditation standards for schools throughout California,
Hawaii, and several international protectorates of the United States. If WASC
wants to remain a relevant element of school accountability practices, this
commission should do the following:
1. Continue to align the WASC process with accountability reporting
standards mandated by the California legislature and the federal government. This
will help school leaders to eliminate duplicative reporting requirements and
facilitate successful school reporting programs.
2. Make Accreditation Plus, a Web and fee-based reporting process, avail-
able to all schools. Using the Internet for WASC reporting is a new and exciting
way for stakeholders to participate in this process. Why should it be limited to
schools and districts for extra fees? WASC reporting should be available to all
schools on an equal basis.
With respect to practice, interviewees agreed that strong leadership on the
part of the principal drove school accountability reporting. According to Fermanich
et al. (2006), a key element of district success is the practice that aligns “district
resources with its strategic plan for improvement and holding schools accountable
for fidelity with the plan” (p. 134). As has been discussed, that alignment existed in
the Hillside district but not the Cityside district.
As a district, Hillside has developed a strategic ongoing plan for improve-
ment through continuous adherence to accreditation standards and rigorous analysis
of data through strong leadership on the part of principals at Birch and Pine High

115
Schools. Both high schools have specific and defined improvement and accounta-
bility programs in place that are aligned with what California has mandated.
Student achievement at both schools continues to improve.
Cityside has not aligned its resources with a defined plan for student
achievement. The result is weak leadership at Aspen and Magnolia High School,
lack of a coherent and defined plan for success (although Magnolia has instituted a
permanent professional development committee), and lack of basic knowledge on
the part of school leaders of student achievement benchmarks (API, CDE ranking,
and WASC term). Student achievement at both schools continues to decline.
Cityside would appear to benefit from developing a strategic plan that defines a
specific goal for improvement and holds its leaders accountable for implementing
and driving that plan.
With respect to future research and within the confines of the research
questions, analysis of data, individual interviews, findings, and conclusions, two
areas for further research emerged that would extend the research process:
1. In order to determine the actual time spent by high school leaders
preparing reports, a longitudinal study that measures reporting time should be
conducted.
2. The cost of these reporting processes and whether there is an actual
benefit are areas requiring further study.
Conclusion
According to Merriam, “Case study is a particularly appealing design for
applied fields of study such as education. Educational processes, problems and
programs can be examined to bring about understanding that in turn can affect and

116
perhaps even improve practice” (1998, p. 41). Even though several areas of the
study were limited, how schools created accountability benchmarks was an issue of
concern.
Tremendous efforts are being made to measure achievement outcomes in
California high schools. Pressure to provide useful measurement is being exerted
from external outcome reporting (the API and Williams litigation settlement
reporting) as well as internally in schools (the WASC process). These reporting
processes must continue to evolve so that high levels of student achievement
continue to be the primary goal of accountability reporting in public education.

117
REFERENCES
Accreditation standards for quality schools. (2006). Retrieved August 22, 2006,
from http://www.ncacasi.org/files/pdf/proposed_standards.pdf
American Civil Liberties Union. (2004). ACLU and California officials reach set-
tlement in historic equal education lawsuit. Retrieved October 18, 2005,
from http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=16247&c=155
Armstrong, J., & Anthes, K. (2001). How data can help. American School Board
Journal, 188(11), 38-41.
Association of California School Administrators. (1996). Straight talk about school
administrators: A special report by the Association of California School
Administrators. Retrieved May 9, 2006, from http://www.acsa.org/
publications/straight_talk.cfm
Association of California School Administrators. (1998). 1998 task force review of
shared decision making. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from http://www.acsa.org/
publications/shared_decisions.cfm
California Department of Education. (2005a). California Basic Educational Data
System (CBEDS): Administrative manual for CBEDS coordinators and
school principals. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from http://data1.cde.ca.gov/
dataquest/whatsindq.asp
California Department of Education. (2005b). 2005 Academic Performance Index
base report. Retrieved March 10, 2006 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap
/documents/infoguide05b.pdf
California Department of Education. (2006a). About STAR. Retrieved March 10,
2006, from http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2005/aboutSTAR.asp
California Department of Education. (2006b). Program overview. Retrieved No-
vember 16, 2006, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/overview.asp
California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2004). State licensure versus
accreditation of proprietary schools and colleges: A review and comparison
of roles and functions. Sacramento: Author.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2002). The fundamentals of accredi-
tation: What do you need to know? Retrieved January 25, 2006, from
http://www.chea.org
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2003). Fact sheet #1: Profile of ac-
creditation. Retrieved January 26, 2006, from http://www.chea.org/pdf/
fact_sheet_1_profile.pdf

118
Darling-Hammond, L., & Ascher, C. (1991). Creating accountability in big city
schools. Urban Diversity Series No. 102. New York: National Center for
Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching at Teachers College.
EdSource. (2003). California’s student testing program: STAR. Mountain View,
CA: Author.
EdSource. (2005). School accountability under NCLB: Ambitious goals and com-
peting systems. Palo Alto, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2006). Standards setting in California. Retrieved May 3, 2006, from
http://www.edsource.org
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. New York:
The Shanker Institute.
Fermanich, M., Mangan, M. T., Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Gross, B., & Rudo, Z.
(2006). Washington learns: Successful district study. Olympian: Washing-
ton Learns Steering Committee. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from
http://www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/SuccessfulDistReport9-11-
06Final_000.pdf
Fitzpatrick, K. (1997). Indicators of school quality: A research-based self-
assessment guide for schools committed to continuous improvement.
Schaumberg, IL: National Study of School Evaluation.
Focus on Learning: Joint WASC/CDE process guide. (2006). Retrieved February
28, 2006, from http://www.acswasc.org/pdf_cde/
Complete_CDE_Charter_JointProcess.pdf
Fuhrman, S. H. (1999, January). The new accountability. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
Washington, DC.
Fuhrman, S. H. (2004). Introduction. In S.H. Fuhrman and R.F. Elmore (Eds.),
Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 3-9). New York:
Teachers College Press.
George, M., & Haught, D. (1996). Focus on learning: A schoolwide renewal
process of analysis and action. Honolulu: Pacific Region Educational Labo-
ratory.
Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and
school leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons
from comprehensive school reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability.
Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Rossier School of Educa-
tion.

119
Jasinski, J. (1999). Connecting quality improvement practices to reaccreditation.
Quality Progress, 32(9), 90-98.
Kaplan, L. W., & Owings, W. A. (1999). Assistant principals: The case for shared
instructional leadership. NAASP Bulletin, 83, 6-10.
Lashway, L. (2002). Trends in school leadership. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 470967) Retrieved May 31, 2006, from http://www
.ericdigests.org/2003-4/school-leadership.html
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merta, S. (1992). The influence of WASC accreditation on educational programs.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertation Ab-
stracts International, 54(04A), 1180.
Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges. (2001). Standards for ac-
creditation of schools with indicators. Retrieved August 28, 2006, from
http://www.css-msa.org/pdfs/Standards_for_Schools_with_Indicators.pdf
Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Secondary
Schools. (2003). Policies and procedures handbook. Retrieved August 15,
2006, from http://www.css-msa.org/pdfs/Complete_Policy_Manual_1204.
pdf
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1997). Breaking ranks:
Changing an American institution. Reston, VA: Author.
National Study of School Evaluation. (1997). Indicators of school quality.
Schaumburg, IL: Author.
National Study of School Evaluation. (2004). Accreditation for quality school
systems: A practitioner’s guide. Schaumburg, IL: Author.
Neuman, M., Fisher, S., & Simmons, W. (2000). Leadership for student learning.
Phi Delta Kappan, 82(1), 8.
New England Association of Schools and Colleges. (2006a). About NEASC.. Re-
trieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.neasc.org/neasc/ aboutneasc.htm
New England Association of Schools and Colleges. (2006b). Standards for ac-
creditation. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.neasc.org/
cpss/standards_2005.pdf
Niebuhr, K. E., Niebuhr, R. E., & Cleveland, W. T. (1999). Principal and counselor
collaboration. Education, 119, 674-678.

120
Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges. (2006). Core standards of ac-
creditation. Retrieved August 22, 2006, from http://www.boisestate.edu/
naas/documents/pdf/CoreStandardsForAccredit.pdf
O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard
Educational Review, 72, 293-329.
Odden, E. R., & Wohlstetter, P. (1995). Making school based management work.
Educational Leadership, 53(5), 32-34.
Orange County Department of Education, School Legal Services. (2004). Summary
of legislation implementing Williams litigation settlement. Costa Mesa, CA:
Author.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Powers, J. M. (2003). An analysis of performance-based accountability: Factors
shaping school performance in two urban school districts. Educational
Policy, 17, 558-585.
Public Advocates. (2006). Executive summary--The Williams v. California settle-
ment: The first year of implementation. San Francisco: Author. Retrieved
September 8, 2006, from http://www.publicadvocates.org/press.html
Sanders, J. (2004, August 11). Deal on schools lawsuit crafted: ACLU accused
state of failing to provide an equal education to the disadvantaged. Sacra-
mento Bee, p. A1.
Sterngold, J. (2004, August 14). Governor announces school suit settlement: State
will boost spending to improve school quality. San Francisco Chronicle,
p. B1.
Sweeney, J. (2000). Accountability can drive student achievement. Educational
Leadership, 29(4). Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://www.acsa.org/
publications/pub_detail.cfm?leadershipPubID=1326
Timar, T. (2005). Exploring the limits of entitlement: Williams v. State of Califor-
nia. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 126-153.
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000).
Monitoring school quality: An indicators report (NCES 2001-030). Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
Walters, K. S., Foley, R., Villasenor, S., & Jeffries, L. W. (2004, February). Im-
plementing the Williams lawsuit. Paper presented at the Association of Cali-
fornia School Administrators, San Francisco. Sacramento: ACSA.

121
Western Association of Schools and Colleges. (2001). Handbook of college ac-
creditation Retrieved November 17, 2006, from http://www.wascsenior
.org/wasc/Doc_Lib/2001%20Handbook.pdf
Western Association of Schools and Colleges. (2004). Accrediting commission for
schools, WASC Words, 16(1). Retrieved January 26, 2006, from
http://www.acswasc.org
Western Association of Schools and Colleges. (2005). Accrediting commission for
schools, WASC Words, 17(1). Retrieved April 19, 2006, from http://www
.acswasc.org
Western Association of Schools and Colleges. (2006a). The purpose of accredita-
tion. Retrieved March 15, 2006, from http://www.acswasc.org
Western Association of Schools and Colleges. (2006b). WASC accreditation term
determination worksheet. Burlingame, CA: Author. Retrieved January 17,
2007, from http://www.acswasc.org/pdf_fol/
VC_FOLTermDeterminationwksht.pdf
Western Association of Schools and Colleges. (2006c). Why accreditation? Re-
trieved May 9, 2006, from http://www. acswasc.org/about_why.htm
Williams v. California, Case Number 312236. Notice of Proposed Settlement.
Williams v. California. (2000). First amended complaint, Case No. 312236, filed
August 14, 2000. Retrieved September 9, 2006, from http://www
.decentschools.org/court_papers.php
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership?
Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research,
74(3), 255-272.
Zumeta, W. (2001). Public policy and accountability in higher education: Lessons
from the past and present for the new millennium. In D. E. Heller (Ed.), The
states and public higher education policy (pp. 155-197). Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.

122
APPENDIX A
RECAP OF ACCREDITATION DISTRICTS

District Number
of States
Population
(Estimated 2005)
% USA Population
Middle States 5 46,845,600 16%
New England 6 13,616,600 4%
North Central 20 94,725,400 33%
Northwest 7 17,841,600 6%
Southern 10 84,779,630 29%
Western 2 37,401,340 12%
TOTAL 50 295,210,170 100%

Source: GCT-T1: 2006 Population Estimates, by U.S. Census Bureau, (2006),
Washington, DC: Author, retrieved January 17, 2006, from http://factfinder
.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-
_box_head_nbr=GCT-T1&-ds_name=PEP_2006_EST&-_lang=en&-format=US-
9&-_sse=on

123
APPENDIX B
FEE SCHEDULE, 2004-2005, CALIFORNIA
AND HAWAII
Membership (Listing) Fees:

Annual installment of accreditation costs
(Secondary Schools – accredited or candidate) ……………………….$ 575.00
Annual installment of accreditation costs
(Intermediate schools – accredited or candidate) …………………….$ 575.00
Annual installment of accreditation costs
(Elementary schools – accredited or candidate) ………………………$ 300.00
Annual installment – Postsecondary programs …………………….…………...$ 775.00

Visiting Committee Fees:

Fee payable at the beginning of the school year for full evaluation or three-year term revisit
(includes the cost of instruments and expenses of the visiting committee);
Please do not send payment until you have been invoiced

Full Self-Study Fees:
For schools with an enrollment of 149 or less,
a three-member committee @ $ 500.00 each member ….……....$1,500.00
For schools with an enrollment of 150-449,
a four-member committee @ $ 500.00 each member ….………..$2,000.00
For schools with an enrollment of 450-749,
a five-member committee @ $ 500.00 each member ….………..$2,500.00
For schools with an enrollment of 750-1499,
a six-member committee @ $ 500.00 each member ……………$3,000.00
For schools with an enrollment of 1500-2499,
a seven-member committee @ $ 500.00 each member …………$3,500.00
For schools with an enrollment of 2500 and up,
an eight-member committee @ $ 500.00 each member ………...$4,000.00
The placement of an additional member or a student on a
visiting committee at the specific request of school …………….$ 500.00
Initial Visit fee ………………………………………………………………...…..$ 600.00
Three-Year Term Revisit fee (team size 2 to 5 members) …………$ 500.00 per member
Substantive Change Visit fee (for each site) …………………………………….$ 300.00
Revisit fee, Midterm Review fee, or Special Visit fee (includes any time a
two-member committee makes an on-site visit) …………………….…..$ 500.00
Postponement fee after visiting committee has been selected and notified ..…….$ 500.00
Validation fee (appeal) ………………………………………/……………..……$ 600.00

Fee Schedule effective 07/01/01

Source: Personal communication with Warren Stephenson, January 6, 2006.

124

125

126

127
APPENDIX E
INITIAL REQUEST LETTER

Shelley D. Fryer, MA Telephone: (310) 600-0131
8044 Denrock Ave. Email: fryer@usc.edu
Los Angeles, CA 90045

Dear School Principal:

My name is Shelley Fryer. I am a doctoral student at USC, working on my
dissertation. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate reporting processes in
California high schools and whether site leadership believes these processes
enhance student learning. I have obtained permission from your district research
office to conduct this study.

There are three schools in your district that are candidates for this study and
your school is one. It has been chosen due to specific criteria. The results of this
study will help site leadership and reporting agencies in California determine which
reporting elements enhance student achievement.

There are three activities that involve the site leadership team at your site.
First, I need to meet with you, review the study and determine whom you believe
comprise your site leadership team. This should take approximately one half-hour.
Second, I need to conduct a short meeting with the entire site leadership team. This
should also take approximately one half-hour. Third, I need to conduct interviews
with leadership team members. Those interviews will be recorded and should not
take more than one half-hour per staff member.

As someone with prior experience on the secondary level, I realize your
time is precious. I want to express my thanks in advance for your help with this
study. I will be contacting you shortly to set up an appointment.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the address,
telephone or email above.

Very truly yours,

Shelley D. Fryer, MA

128

129
APPENDIX G
SITE LEADERSHIP MAPPING LETTER AND FORM
Shelley D. Fryer, MA Telephone: (310) 600-0131
8044 Denrock Ave. Email: fryer@usc.edu
Los Angeles, CA 90045

Dear School Site Leader:

My name is Shelley Fryer. I am a doctoral student at USC, working on my
dissertation. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate reporting processes in
California high schools and the whether site leadership believes these processes enhance
student learning. I have obtained permission from your district research office to conduct
this study.

The results of this study will help site leadership and reporting agencies in
California determine which reporting elements enhance student achievement.

In order to determine the specific individuals who are part of your site leadership
team, I need your help. I have enclosed I have enclosed a Site Leadership Mapping form
for you to complete and return to me in the envelope provided. Completion of this form
should take no more than 5 minutes and will help determine who at your site should
participate in the next phase of this study.

The chart asks that you circle the position listed if you believe that position is a
part of your site leadership team. Next, please add that individual’s name to the box you
have circled. There is space in each section for individuals whose position may not appear
on the map but whom you believe is a part of your site leadership team.

Your completion and return of this mapping form will mean that you consent to
participate in this study. I want to assure that any written materials, interviews or recorded
discussions that occur at your site will be confidential. The results will not be shared on an
individual basis with anyone. Furthermore, I have taken steps to mask the identity of your
site and to protect the privacy of your leadership team that participates in this study.

As someone with prior experience on the secondary level, I realize that your time
is precious. I want to express my thanks for your help with this study. When you have
completed the mapping form, please return it in the envelope provided. I hope to collect all
the mapping forms by _______________________.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the address,
telephone or email above.

Very truly yours,

Shelley D. Fryer, MA

130

131
APPENDIX H
ACCOUNTABILITY VENN DIAGRAM

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the study was to examine accountability reporting practices of public high schools in California in light of recent measures mandated by Cali-fornia and implemented by the California Department of Education (CDE), West-ern Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) and the Williams v. California (Williams) litigation settlement. Two research questions were developed to guide the study: 1. Do high school leaders value the accreditation process? 2. Do high school leaders believe that the reporting requirements of the CDE, WASC, and Williams provide the data needed to facilitate school improvement?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Understanding measures of school success: a study of a Wisconsin charter school

PDF

The goals of specialized accreditation: A study of perceived benefits and costs of membership with the National Association of Schools of Music

PDF

The middle college high school: a case study

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning in a sample of California schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The influence of counselors and high school organization on the selection of participants for a dual credit program

PDF

Toward school improvement and fiscal equity: examining educational adequacy in a Southern California school district

PDF

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

PDF

Student engagement in a high performing urban high school: a case study

PDF

Effective factors of high performing urban high schools: a case study

PDF

Assessment, accountability & accreditation: a study of MOOC provider perceptions

PDF

Innovation in meeting the needs of students with disabilities

PDF

Improving and sustaining math achievement in urban high schools: a case study of a southern California high school

PDF

Bypass for a “leaky” educational pipeline: a case study of the Bridge Program at Punahou School

PDF

Civic engagement: a case study of civic leadership in partnering with an urban public school district

PDF

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

PDF

Designing an early warning system for Hawaii: identifying indicators of positive high school outcomes

PDF

Perceptions of Hawai`i TRIO Talent Search staff and target high school administrators of college access factors and project effectiveness

Asset Metadata

Creator Fryer, Shelley Danielle (author)

Core Title Accreditation and accountability processes in California high schools: a case study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/27/2007

Defense Date 02/27/2007

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

Tag accountability,accreditation,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Brewer, Dominic J. (committee member), Hunt, Felicia (committee member)

Creator Email fryer@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m328

Unique identifier UC193060

Identifier etd-Fryer-20070327 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-325478 (legacy record id),usctheses-m328 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Fryer-20070327.pdf

Dmrecord 325478

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Fryer, Shelley Danielle

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