Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective
(USC Thesis Other)
Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EXAMINING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DISTRICT REFORMS
THROUGH GAP ANALYSIS:
MAKING TWO HIGH SCHOOLS HIGHLY EFFECTIVE
by
Mary Laihee
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2011
Copyright 2011 Mary Laihee
ii
Dedication
This is dedicated to my family – to those who walk with me and to those who
watch over me.
iii
Acknowledgements
It is a pleasure to thank those who have made this alternative capstone project
possible. To my husband Pablo, to my parents Antonio and Milagros, and to my
brother Joseph Benedict, thank you for keeping me on a sunward path. The
brilliance of your love and the warmth of your smiles have seen me through.
To my dissertation chair Dr. Robert Rueda, thank you for being steadfast – it
has made all the difference. To my dissertation co-chair Dr. David Marsh, thank you
for believing in this little capstone that could. To my committee member Dr.
Michael Escalante, thank you for helping us to see the big picture. To Dr. Maria Ott,
Dr. Robert Arias, Dr. Chris Ericson, and the Rowland Unified School District, thank
you for welcoming our endeavor so openly. To my project teammates Cuauhtemoc
Avila, Dale Folkens, and our entire dissertation group, thank you for fighting on. To
my mentor Dr. Gary Studebaker, thank you for the infinite support through the years.
To my school director Robin Harris, thank you for being a most extraordinary leader.
To my loving relatives and friends, thank you for the hearty laughs over good food.
Lastly, I offer my regards and blessings to all those who supported me in any
respect during the completion of this project.
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables v
Abstract vi
Chapter 1: Overview 1
Background of the Problem 1
Importance of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Project 12
Chapter 2: Analyzing the Roots of the Problem 14
Literature Review 14
Methodology 32
Findings 50
Chapter 3: Proposed Recommendations Based on Best Practices 71
Literature Review 72
Summary of Recommendations 93
Implications to Professional Practice 102
References 104
Appendices
Appendix A: Alternative Capstone Project Timeline 112
Appendix B: The Seven Steps of Gap Analysis 113
Appendix C: Information Sheet 114
Appendix D: Interview Protocols 115
Appendix E: Innovation Configuration Map 118
Appendix F: Root Causes Executive Summary 119
Appendix G: Recommendations Table 132
Appendix H: Recommendations PowerPoint 134
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Stages of Concern Coding 44
Table 2: Innovation Configuration Map Coding 46
vi
Abstract
One of the greatest challenges facing school districts today is the ability to sustain
implementation of comprehensive school reform efforts at the high school level. In
this inquiry project guided by the gap analysis framework, the project team examines
how knowledge, motivation, and organizational variables impact reform
implementation. The team finds that a lack of district goal clarity, inadequate
systems of accountability, and a need for teacher training and support suitable to the
cultural setting are major factors in the level of reform implementation. The team
concludes by proposing recommendations based on best practices that can contribute
to a desired level of reform implementation, including creating classroom goals that
feed into school reform goals, maintaining a narrow and consistent organizational
focus, and connecting cultural proficiency to pedagogy. Such actions can assist high
schools in meeting the student achievement targets outlined by federal and state
mandates for district and school effectiveness.
1
Chapter 1: Overview
Background of the Problem
This inquiry project focused on using the gap analysis framework to examine
the implementation of school reforms in making two high schools highly effective.
This chapter provides an overview of school reform policies—in particular, the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The response to such policies are also explored, as
well the challenges school districts face. The chapter concludes with the importance
and purpose of this project, providing context for where the project was carried out.
Educational access, academic performance, and educational attainment
remain the centerpieces of educational reform policies at the federal, state, and local
levels. Following the landmark 1954 court decision, Brown vs. Topeka Board of
Education (which declared racial segregation in Southern school systems
unconstitutional), federal policies have aggressively sought to remedy the practice of
providing unequal educational opportunities to particular groups of students—a
practice that, in many cases, has been tolerated by state and local policymakers
(Kirst, 2004). During the past five decades, the Elementary and Secondary
Educational Act of 1965 (ESEA), the Coleman Report, A Nation at Risk, Goals
2000, and the Improving America‘s Schools Act have radically shaped the culture of
American education, creating a culture that currently seeks educational excellence
for all students through academic standards, funding equity, and systemic
accountability.
2
No Child Left Behind Act
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 is the latest and most
comprehensive of all educational policies that have followed the Brown decision.
NCLB addresses access, performance, and attainment with provisions driven by
standards and accountability, to hold schools and districts accountable for teacher
quality, instructional practices, and student performance (Stecher, Hamilton, &
Gonzalez, 2003). Specifically, NCLB intends to improve student outcomes by
establishing and measuring against academic performance standards, with the
expectation that 100% of all students perform at the proficient or advanced level in
reading and math on state adopted standardized tests by the end of the 2014 school
year. The ultimate goal of this federal mandate is to afford all students a quality
education and access to post-secondary careers.
In response to the standards-based accountability context set by NCLB,
school districts across the country continue their aggressive efforts to successfully
implement comprehensive reform strategies to meet this federal policy‘s noble but
daunting expectations, especially those expectations that pertain to student
performance. Popular school reform strategies aimed at engendering academic
parity among all student groups typically include some combination of curricular
alignment, building teacher capacity, reading and math interventions, common
formative assessments, and targeted resources (Carter, 2001). An important part of
these efforts is the need to use a data-based approach, as it is central to improvement
(Datnow, Park, & Wohlstetter, 2007). In education, the use of data assure that the
3
right problems or barriers to student performance are being targeted, that resources
are used most effectively, that solutions are implemented, and that solutions are
monitored and adjusted on a continuous basis.
Problematic Situation
Despite the accountability measures of the No Child Left Behind Act and the
many accountability provisions found in state and district policies, establishing parity
in educational access, academic performance, and educational attainment among all
student groups continues to remain elusive. At the national level, minority and
economically disadvantaged students continue to trail their White and Asian
counterparts on various achievement tests, including the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2007). For
example, in 2007 44% of White students and 46% of Asian students in Grade 8 were
proficient or above in reading, compared to only 13% of Black students and 16% of
Latino students. In math, 51% of White students and 67% of Asian students in
Grade 8 were proficient or above, while only 12% of Black students and 17% of
Latino students scored at this performance level. This disparity in academic
performance between ethnic groups corresponds to a veritable disparity in
educational attainment. In 2006, for instance, White students registered a dropout
rate of 5.8%, Black students 10.7%, and Latino students—although a decrease from
previous years—a rate of 22.1% (NCES, 2007).
In California, trends in student performance and educational attainment in
recent years have striking similarities to those observed at the national level. Data
4
from the 2007 California Standards Test (CST) reveal that 62% of White students
and 64% of Asian students were proficient in English-language arts, compared to
only 36% of Black students and 26% of Latino students. In math, 36% of White
students and 45% of Asian students performed at the proficient or above level,
compared to only 23% of Black students and 16% of Latino students. As for
educational attainment, in 2007 White students posted a dropout rate of 8%, Asian
students 5.5%, Black students 23.9%, and Latino students 18.3% (California
Department of Education [CDE], n.d.).
Importance of the Problem
It is imperative that policymakers and educational leaders find solutions to
bring parity in educational access, academic performance, and educational
attainment among all student groups to keep America vibrant and competitive in
global economic markets. Addressing and meeting the educational shortcomings of
ethnic minorities must be the national priority, given that current labor patterns show
a growing demand for well-educated, technology savvy workers with strong
cognitive skills—skills that include abstract reasoning, problem-solving, and
effective communication (Karoly & Panis, 2004). This demand for a better-prepared
workforce intensifies at a time when the percentage of ethnic minorities in U.S.
population exceeds 33%. With Latinos being the fastest growing of all ethnic
groups, the PEW Institute projects that by the year 2050, Latinos alone will represent
30% of the population (Pew Institute, 2008). In other words, 30% of America‘s
5
population alone will be comprised of an ethnic group with a history of low-
academic performance and a high dropout rate.
These market and demographic trends are especially critical to school
districts that serve ethnic minorities—especially the districts that oversee one or
more of the nearly 2,000 high schools nationwide that are deemed ―dropout
factories‖ for having dropout rates that exceed 40% (Tucci, 2009)—as these school
districts have a moral obligation to successfully address current educational practices
to improve the academic performance and educational attainment of ethnic
minorities, particularly among Latinos. If ignored, these trends will likely produce
an educational and economic breakdown of catastrophic proportions, as the number
of students who fail to meet proficiency standards or dropout of school altogether
will skyrocket, producing a workforce that is cognitively anemic and incapable of
sustaining the nation‘s economic vitality. This ill-prepared workforce will, in fact,
adversely impact the American economy by exacerbating the ongoing financial
losses exclusively attributed to low academic performance, which reached a
staggering $2.5 trillion between 1990 and 2002 (Hanushek, 2007).
The State Context
School reform policy conventionally includes two components, funding and
regulation. In 2001, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized
as the No Child Left Behind Act. The ultimate goal of NCLB is to afford all
students a quality education and access to post-secondary education and careers.
Specifically, NCLB intends to improve student outcomes and to hold schools and
6
school districts accountable by establishing, measuring against, and reporting
academic performance standards. In California, the annual academic accountability
requirements consist of the state accountability measure known as Academic
Performance Index Report (API) and the federal accountability measure known as
Adequate Yearly Progress Report (AYP) (CDE, n.d.).
The Academic Performance Index Report (API) is the state academic
performance accountability system, mandated by the state‘s Public Schools
Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999. The API indicates a school‘s progress year to
year based on statewide test results. The API is a number that ranges from 200 to
1000, and the state target for all schools to meet is 800. If a school falls below 800,
it must meet annual growth targets until that goal is attained. If a school meets or
exceeds 800, it is expected to maintain an academically rigorous environment for all
students. In addition to meeting API growth targets for the whole school, a school
must also meet API growth targets for all numerically significant subgroups (at least
100 students or at least 50 students who make up 15% or more of the student
population). The subgroups include African American, American Indian or Alaska
Native, Asian, Filipino, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, White,
Two or More Races, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, English Learners, and
Students with Disabilities (CDE, n.d.).
The Adequate Yearly Progress Report (AYP) is the federal academic
performance accountability system, mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) of 2001. The AYP indicates how successful schools and school
7
districts are in attaining common standards of academic performance. Each year
AYP targets increase until 2013-14, when all schools must have 100% of their
students proficient or advanced on statewide tests. For high schools to make AYP,
four requirements must be met: (1) student participation rate (95%) on statewide
tests, (2) percentage of students scoring at the proficient level or above in English-
language arts (55.6%) and mathematics (54.8%) on statewide tests, (3) API Growth
(680 or 1-point growth), and (4) graduation rate (83.2% or +0.1% one-year change or
+0.2% two-year change). Furthermore, a school or school district that receives Title
I funds will be identified for Program Improvement (PI) if it does not make AYP for
two years in a row. A PI school must notify its parents and guardians about its status
and offer supplemental services to students. To exit PI, a school must make AYP for
two years in a row (CDE, n.d.).
Although API and AYP provide information about school performance, one
shortcoming is that these accountability systems can oversimplify the intricate
components of student achievement at each school. For example, a school can meet
API with a score of 850 but fail to make AYP if a subgroup missed the mathematics
target on the statewide test. On the other hand, a school can be below the API target
with 625 but make AYP if all subgroups meet the statewide proficiency targets.
Furthermore, fixed targets can obscure school progress data and thereby
penalize schools unfairly (Linn, 2005). To illustrate, a low-performing school can
increase ten percentage points toward a proficiency target but since the target was
not met, the school‘s improvement is not captured in making AYP. On the contrary,
8
a high-performing school can drop ten percentage points, but if the proficiency
targets have been exceeded, the school remains off any watch list. In other words, a
low-performing school can show gains similar to a high-performing school, but
NCLB treats the low-performing school as failing because of its use of mean
proficiency measures (Kim & Sunderman, 2005).
Additionally, although the mission of NCLB is to highlight student groups
that traditionally have been underserved, the subgroup reporting method means that a
school serving a diverse student population has more ways to fail making AYP
(Linn, 2005). For instance, most urban high schools in California have a range of
numerically significant subgroups (i.e., various racial/ethnic groups,
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, English Learners, and Students with
Disabilities), whereas a school in an affluent neighborhood may only be responsible
for one subgroup meeting proficiency targets. Kim and Sunderman (2005) report
that in schools with only one subgroup target, 22% failed to make AYP, whereas
75% of schools with six subgroup targets failed to make AYP. Likewise, Elmore
(2002b) testifies that such external accountability measures intensify the inequalities
between low-performing and high-performing schools because they merely echo the
social capital of the students instead of a school‘s organizational capacity. In sum,
although NCLB has produced initial gains amongst students with low achievement in
our nation‘s public schools, there remain many challenges within the accountability
system that warrant attention in order for NCLB to justly close the achievement gap
in the long run.
9
The District Context
The Rowland Unified School District is located in the San Gabriel Valley and
serves students in grades K-12 from several local communities, including the cities
of Rowland Heights, City of Industry, and parts of the cities of La Puente, Hacienda
Heights, and West Covina. The school district serves a linguistically and ethnically
diverse population of approximately 16,500 students. For example, Latino students
account for 60% of the student population, followed by Asians students at 20.8%,
Filipino students at 8.3%, White students at 3.7%, and African American students at
2.4%. Of the district‘s total population, 34.1% were classified as English language
learners (ELL) (R-30 Report, 2009).
The RUSD is currently recognized as a good school district as measured by
numerous awards, including 4 National Blue Ribbon Schools, 1 mention in
Newsweek Magazine‘s America‘s Top High Schools, and16 California
Distinguished Schools. However, the district's API score of 777 remains below the
state standard of 800, the minimum score required to be considered a high-
performing district. Additionally, during the 2009-2010 school year, the district
entered year one as a Program Improvement district under NCLB accountability
guidelines for not meeting district-wide AYP benchmarks among its
Hispanic/Latino, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English language learner
subgroups for a second consecutive year.
The district‘s two high schools, Nogales and Rowland, serve relatively
different populations of students. For example, of the total student body at Nogales
10
High School, Latino students account for 77% of the population, followed by
Filipino students at 10.7%, Asian students at 3.46%, African American students at
3.29%, and White students at 2.5%. Additionally, 67% of the student body is
represented by students considered to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, and 27%
of students are classified as English language learners (NHS SARC, 2009).
Meanwhile, of the total student body at Rowland High School, Asian students
account for 44.5%, while Latino students account for 35.6%. The remainder of the
population is represented by Filipino students at 8.6%, Whites students at 7.3%, and
African American students at 3.0%. In addition, 37% of the student body is
considered be socioeconomically disadvantaged, and 18% of the students are
classified English language learners (RHS SARC, 2009).
RHS is currently a California Distinguished School, a National Blue Ribbon
School, and an International Baccalaureate World School. Yet, based on data from
2009, it remains below the state‘s API standard of 800—albeit, by only three points,
with a score of 797. Also, the school failed to meet the AYP benchmark in English-
language arts among its English language learner subgroup.
NHS is also an International Baccalaureate World School, but based on data
from 2009, remains below the state‘s API standard of 800, with a score of 695.
Moreover, the school failed to meet the AYP benchmark in English-language arts
among its Hispanic/Latino, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English language
learner subgroups. Additionally, the school failed to meet its AYP in math among its
English language leaner subgroup.
11
District Request for Assistance
The overall challenge communicated this year by the administration at the
RUSD is to exit from its Program Improvement (PI) status. The RUSD was
identified as a PI Year 1 school under the federal No Child Left Behind Act. NCLB
requires that federally funded Title 1 schools be reviewed annually to determine
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) (Stecher et al., 2003).
According to Goldberg and Morrison (2003), there are several accountability
issues underlying the problem of the RUSD‘s PI Year 1 status. First, it is a
bureaucratic accountability problem because educators at NHS and RHS are
accountable to federal and state rules and regulations regarding student achievement
and may face sanctions for not meeting them. This represents an external locus of
control, where educators are held accountable under NCLB for student outcomes as
measured by the California Standards Test (CST). Additionally, a professional
accountability problem exists at the RUSD for the administration and teachers, who
should possess sophisticated knowledge that facilitates critical decision-making in
favor of their clients, the students. All staff should communicate and embody high
expectations for the students and offer a rigorous curriculum for every learner.
Furthermore, the RUSD has a responsibility under community accountability to meet
a public demand, which includes parents, to provide the best education possible for
their students. When community accountability is executed properly, schools and
communities can cultivate trust and support, gaining allies and resources to help each
other achieve their intertwined missions. Lastly, the students are accountable to
12
themselves and are responsible for their performance on the CST and graduating
from high school.
Purpose of the Project
The Rowland Unified School District, which serves a predominantly ethnic
minority student population, has responded to external pressures with a
comprehensive school reform effort to support good instruction, enhance learning at
the elementary and middle school levels for Latino students, and make its two high
schools highly effective in both perception and reality. This project was undertaken
by a three-person team and focused exclusively on the implementation of the
district‘s reform efforts at the district‘s two high schools, Nogales and Rowland. The
team used a consulting model based on the gap analysis framework, with the purpose
of analyzing the reform efforts to identify potential causes of student performance
gaps. The major goal of this project was to provide the district with a set of
recommendations to maximize the impact of its reform efforts at the two high
schools. The team was guided by the following questions:
What were the school district‘s goals?
What were the perceived root causes/gaps?
What solutions were proposed?
A Note on Common Text
Due to the thematic dissertation format, the project team wrote the following
sections jointly. In Chapter 2, the Methodology and the Findings were collaborative
13
efforts. In Chapter 3, the entire chapter was co-authored, including the
Recommendations Literature Review and the Recommendations Summary.
14
Chapter 2: Analyzing the Roots of the Problem
Literature Review
Although the mission is challenging, providing equitable and meaningful
learning opportunities for all students is fundamental. Yet, many schools have not
been successful in increasing the academic performance and educational attainment
of low-income and minority students, despite earnest attempts to improve the quality
of education offered. Therefore, this review examines the causal factors that may
prevent school districts from sustaining implementation of comprehensive school
reform efforts.
To begin, a brief history is presented on school reform policy at the
secondary level and its purpose in serving student populations with high percentages
of low-income and minority students. Then, Clark and Estes‘ (2002) gap analysis
model will govern the exploration of performance gaps in relation to fragmented
reform implementation. The model identifies three types of gaps that can lead to
underperformance: knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture.
School Reform Policy at the Secondary Level
At the turn of the twentieth century, the Committee of Ten produced a high
school curriculum that rigidly held that students‘ academic needs were uniform (Lee
& Ready, 2009). This led to the notion that schooling could be mass produced,
creating high schools that resemble a factory assembly line. Additionally, unlike
elementary education, which emphasizes a multiple-subject pedagogy, secondary
education emphasizes a teacher‘s subject specialty. Thus, high school students move
15
from one classroom to the next, as if on an assembly line, in order to learn about
language arts, mathematics, history, and science.
Because of this impersonal structure, fragmented curricula, and how the role
of secondary educators has been defined, most high school teachers have identified
their work as the instruction they provide within their classroom walls (Astor,
Meyer, & Behre, 1999). This may contribute to teachers not perceiving their
professional duties as incorporating the rest of the time when students are outside of
their workspace. The implications for school reform include a possible conflict of
work goals since reform efforts propose that teachers take on a broader role as part of
the group dynamic working toward systemic change (Johnston, 2002).
The high school curriculum was reinvented when the Cardinal Principles of
Secondary Education were published two decades after the Committee of Ten‘s
proposal (Lee & Ready, 2009). The Cardinal Principles took into consideration
students‘ future plans regarding work and higher education. As such, high schools
attempted to sort students‘ diverse backgrounds by way of a vocational track or an
academic track.
Although there was a realization that differentiated instruction was necessary
to reach the student population, tracking resulted in stratified student outcomes.
Low-income and minority students were steered into low-level courses, which
limited their access to a rigorous curriculum, as well as their opportunities to engage
with staff and other students about planning for higher education (Holland &
Farmer-Hinton, 2009). The implications for current school reform include the
16
challenge of overturning the deeply entrenched culture of perceiving college-ready
students as only those from high-status backgrounds and replacing it with high
expectations for all students.
As part of Lyndon B. Johnson‘s ―War on Poverty‖ in the 1960s, Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act was devised to eliminate the achievement
gap between low-income and minority students and their more advantaged peers
(Borman, 2005). The original intent of Title I was to offer compensatory and
supplemental services. By the 1980s and 1990s, the belief in systemic reform
through effective schools emerged as an alternate solution. Researchers such as
Edmonds (1981) worked toward valid solutions for improving education for low-
income and minority students, supporting the assertion that schools did make a
difference in student learning.
Consequently, instead of serving as a separate program, Title I was
reauthorized in 1994 to promote school-wide reform efforts where at least 50% of
the students were from low-income families (Borman, 2005). This required states to
build teacher and school capacity, ensure inclusion of all students, develop high
academic standards and assessments, and embed accountability measures. Yet,
schools did not make the desired gains in student achievement despite this federal
funding source for school-wide initiatives (Wong & Meyer, 2001). Murphy & Beck
(1995) ascribed this to the schools failing to cultivate a vision or a plan for
addressing the academic needs of low-income and minority students. Overall,
practitioners were inadequately informed of what effective teaching and learning
17
looked like for students from a variety of home settings (Cohen, Moffitt, & Goldin,
2007).
Similarly, Datnow, Borman, Stringfield, Overman, and Castellano (2003)
also found that reforms usually did not feature components to address the needs of
English learners. Datnow and colleagues observed how teachers‘ attitudes toward
low-income and minority students affected how they perceived the feasibility of a
reform. The teachers equated the students‘ diverse backgrounds with low ability and
did not believe that the students‘ skills and effort were malleable through more
culturally responsive teaching.
What is more, Darling-Hammond (2006) posits that the goals of No Child
Left Behind are inconsistent with its incentives. To illustrate, although the goals of
NCLB are to improve academic outcomes of all student groups, the incentives to
meet NCLB implicitly reward schools with fewer low-income and minority
subgroups. Darling-Hammond terms this the ―diversity penalty.‖ Moreover, in
California and other diverse states, 99% of schools are not expected to meet the goal
of having 100% of students at the proficient level by 2014 (Packer, 2004).
In short, sustainable change necessitates the commitment of system leaders
and the redesign of core organizational procedures, such as the selection of teachers,
for the benefit of high-need student populations (Darling-Hammond, Ancess, & Ort,
2002). Darling-Hammond and others note that it requires several years for reforms
to evolve into maturity. As such, discontinuities in the reform process should be
limited as they can destabilize efforts to achieve buy-in, enculturate practices, and
18
establish internal accountability. According to Datnow (2005), the absence of
school-level factors such as a realistic plan for executing and monitoring the reform
effort, on-going professional development, and teacher and administration support
can translate to an unsustainable reform. Schools that sustained reforms were likely
to have stable leadership and commitment from key role groups, in addition to the
reform becoming institutionalized in the school‘s structure and culture.
Root Causes: Knowledge
Although funding and regulation are the beginnings of school reform, the
changes sought depend on how the resources are used at the school site. Hence,
quality of use is reliant upon teachers‘ understanding of the reform (Cohen et al.,
2007). Moreover, if the reform efforts call for a bold transformation, then teachers
must unlearn current skills and acquire new skills (Bardach, 1977). As such,
knowledge is a factor in reform implementation.
Knowledge dimensions. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) categorize
knowledge into four dimensions: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive.
Factual knowledge is comprised of the basic elements a person must know in order
to be familiar with a subject (e.g., vocabulary). Conceptual knowledge is the ability
to make connections among the basic elements and organize them within a structure
(e.g., theory). Procedural knowledge is the ability to perform steps in a process (e.g.,
scientific method). Metacognitive knowledge is the ability to monitor one‘s
understanding of a subject and know when or why to use a certain strategy (e.g.,
reflection).
19
In terms of reform implementation, practitioners may demonstrate gaps
within these knowledge dimensions. To illustrate, a teacher may lack factual
knowledge if he is unable to communicate the goals of the reform. Also, reform
implementation can be problematic if a teacher does not have the necessary
conceptual knowledge around the accountability measures. Additionally, if a teacher
is unable to execute a culturally relevant lesson, there may be an issue with
procedural knowledge. Finally, a teacher may not be utilizing metacognitive
knowledge if there is no reflection on how instruction can be modified to better meet
students‘ needs. Such knowledge gaps would inhibit successful reform
implementation.
Controlled versus automated knowledge. Moreover, Clark (2009) furthers
the distinction between factual knowledge (or controlled, conscious, declarative
knowledge) and procedural knowledge (or automated, unconscious, procedural
knowledge). The distinction is whether the knowledge is controlled or automated.
Clark (2009) posits that controlled knowledge is easier to monitor because it is
factual and declarative, whereas automated knowledge is more challenging to
monitor since it is learned at a slower pace through repeated trials. Using the
examples above, knowledge of the reform goals would constitute controlled
knowledge and delivering a lesson would represent automated knowledge. Because
there is more awareness around controlled knowledge, Clark (2009) conjectures that
reform efforts may narrowly focus on the basic elements of knowledge while
overlooking more automated and procedural knowledge. This can cause fragmented
20
reform implementation because the core of what teachers do may be missing from
the reform plan. Furthermore, any misconceptions based in controlled knowledge
are easier to alter than those based in automated knowledge (Clark, 2009). In other
words, a teacher is more likely to learn what the reform goal is (controlled
knowledge) but may be more resistant to adapting a new instructional model
(automated knowledge), especially after executing repeated trials of his own lesson
delivery model.
Overall, the audacious goal of NCLB to eradicate racial and social class
differences in student achievement by 2014 necessitates profound changes in
practice (Cohen et al., 2007). The ability to educate low-income and minority
students requires many teachers to surrender deeply entrenched beliefs and practices
related to what they think students are capable of achieving (Elmore, 2002a). At
present, there is little evidence that most educators have the capacity to make such
changes single-handedly and little evidence that NCLB provides the means to
facilitate such change (Cohen et al., 2007). Because a large shift must occur from
current practice, increased capacity and updated knowledge are required, making
implementation more difficult (Spillane, 2000).
Root Causes: Motivation
In addition to knowledge and skills, motivation is also a significant factor in
school reform implementation. The beliefs a person has (around tasks and activities,
as well as about themselves) are a key factor in motivation. These motivational
beliefs impact behavior in terms of active choice (starting the task), persistence
21
(continuing in spite of distractions), and mental effort (developing new knowledge)
(Clark & Estes, 2002). Issues in these three areas suggest that motivational factors
are a likely cause. These factors may include goal orientation, attributions, task
value, and self-efficacy (Mayer, 2008; Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). In
assessing the motivation gap, the following questions can illuminate the key beliefs
influencing motivated performance:
Are the goals I have attainable, challenging, and aligned to the district
goals? (goal orientation)
What is the cause of successes and challenges in implementing the district
reform? (attributions)
Do I want to do this reform implementation? (task value)
o How useful is this to me? (utility value)
o How important is this to me? (attainment or importance value)
o How much effort or time will it require? (cost value)
o How much does it interest me? (intrinsic value)
Do I think I can be successful at this reform effort? (self-efficacy)
Goal orientation. Customarily, teachers have identified their work as the
instruction they provide within their classroom walls. Yet, school reform efforts
propose that teachers take on a broader role as part of the group dynamic working
toward systemic change (Johnston, 2002). This shift in work goals may affect
teachers‘ active choice, persistence, and mental effort.
22
Additionally, the more ambiguous a school reform effort is, the more difficult
it is to implement since teachers are left to their own interpretations of what the
school reform proposes and how to execute it (Cohen et al., 2007). Moreover, many
teachers enter the profession because they are intrinsically motivated to help their
students achieve, but a high-stakes environment may force their motivation
extrinsically. This goal conflict may cause teachers to believe that their
professionalism is being challenged. Thus, they may behave in a more controlling
manner, resulting in less effective instruction and a lower level of reform
implementation (Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002).
Goal orientation attempts to explain the reasons for engaging in behaviors.
Two goal orientations that are prominent in motivation research are mastery and
performance (Pintrich, 2003). In addition to the mastery and performance
distinction, there is also an approach and avoid distinction. The terms are defined as
follows. A mastery goal orientation is concerned with learning, mastering, and self-
improvement. In a mastery-approach focus, a person monitors his progress and
understanding of the task. In a mastery-avoid focus, the aim is to not be wrong or
perform the task incorrectly. A performance goal orientation is concerned with
social comparisons and ability judgments relative to others. In a performance-
approach focus, a person strives to be the top performer. In a performance-avoid
focus, the aim is to avoid being the lowest performer.
Based on this, an ambiguous goal or a high-stakes environment are more
likely to encourage teachers to adopt a performance orientation. With an ambiguous
23
goal, teachers do not have a way to monitor their progress nor do they receive
feedback on how they are mastering the skills. Thus, self-improvement would not be
a focus, and teachers may take on a performance-avoid focus, hoping to not be the
lowest performer in the group. In a high-stakes environment, the emphasis is on
social comparisons and how teachers appear to others. Here, the teachers may take
on a performance-approach or performance-avoid focus but at the expense of
effective instruction. Under these circumstances, only a few teachers would
continually do well, while lower-achieving teachers may become increasingly
frustrated and withdraw (Schunk et al., 2008). When only performance goal
orientations are in place, teachers become full of anxiety trying to avoid failure and
demonstrate their worth. Additionally, instead of viewing mistakes as a learning
experience, they feel defeated. This can lead to fragmented reform implementation
due to insufficient mental effort.
Attributions. Attributions are the perceived causes of outcomes, both
favorable and unfavorable (Weiner, 2005). Attributions are classified on three
dimensions (locus, stability, and controllability) and are the personal factors that
influence behaviors. Locus describes whether the cause is internal or external to the
person. Stability indicates how stable a cause is over time and ranges from stable to
unstable. Controllability denotes if the cause is controllable or uncontrollable by the
person.
Of great consequence is how children gain recognition and form their identity
in the classroom setting. Students gain recognition through their teacher‘s evaluation
24
of their behavior and academic performance, and so form an identity based on their
relationship to their teacher (Packer & Goicoechea, 2000). For instance, a successful
student has claimed her identity in the classroom as a scholar. However, a student
struggling for identity can manifest as failing to learn. Consequently, when a teacher
no longer values a student as part of his classroom and gives up on helping the
student to learn, the student‘s identity as a person capable of learning is shattered.
When teachers make stereotypical attributions about students‘ negative
outcomes that are internal, stable, and controllable, it implies that they believe the
students are choosing that behavior. For example, if a Latino English learner fails a
test and a teacher attributes it to the student being lazy and not putting forth effort,
the teacher is likely to criticize the student and not change instruction for that student
(Reyna, 2000). Such maladaptive attributions negatively influence the teacher‘s
future expectancies for the success of Latino English learners. Moreover, when an
attribution is based on a disposition or trait, it is known as a fundamental attribution
error (Schunk et al., 2008). Since many school reforms are taking place at
institutions serving low-income and minority students, this can be one cause of
teachers failing to implement reform.
If teachers maintain these low expectations for Latino English learners, then
the students will not progress through the program and become fluent English
speakers, as shown by the low completion rates. Attributions impede teachers from
persisting with reform implementation. The poor achievement outcomes validate
their preconceptions, again placing blame on the students.
25
Task value. Many teachers have witnessed various school reform efforts
throughout their careers. In general, the reforms appear to be a passing fad, given
only enough attention until the next solution comes along. Despite the school‘s
attempts to improve, teachers instead observe its resistance to change (Henkin &
Holliman, 2009). Given this pattern, teachers may assign a low task value for the
current reform, which results in decreased motivation to implement it fully.
Task value is defined as a person‘s beliefs about reasons for doing the task
(Schunk et al., 2008). When people have low task value, they are less likely to start
the task and persist in spite of distractions. Wigfield and Eccles (2000) identify four
types of values that influence task value: (1) utility value, (2) attainment or
importance value, (3) cost value, and (4) intrinsic value. Utility value is the
perceived usefulness in meeting future goals. Attainment value is the subjective
importance of doing well on the task. Cost value is the perceived time and effort
required, including emotional investment and anxiety from fear of failure. Intrinsic
value is the subjective interest of enjoyment of the task.
Fragmented reform implementation can occur if teachers do not see its
usefulness, negate its importance, perceive too high of a cost, or do not find it
interesting. Additionally, if a reform does not have clear expectations and
opportunities to succeed, teacher motivation and engagement in deeper learning
strategies are likely to wane. When tasks are not at an optimal level of difficulty,
teachers are less motivated to master the new skills and have little opportunity to
develop perceptions of competence. Moreover, limited feedback may lead teachers
26
to develop inaccurate perceptions of competence and perpetuate low expectations.
All these factors contribute to a low task value and a less than desirable level of
reform implementation.
Teacher efficacy. Teacher efficacy, or the teacher‘s belief that he or she can
be successful in specific instructional tasks, influences reform implementation.
Additionally, teacher efficacy has been found to be a strong predictor of level of
effort and persistence (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). If teachers
feel unprepared or uncertain about the school reform, implementation is less likely to
reach a desired level. If teachers are not confident in their professional capacity,
they are less likely to persist with activities in line with school-wide reform
(Leithwood et al., 2002). For example, if teachers hold a prejudice toward minority
youth, then their sense of teaching efficacy in relation to teaching students from
diverse backgrounds is reduced (Bennett, 2001). Less efficacious teachers may find
a lack of student achievement dispiriting and are not as likely to expend effort on
trying alternative instructional strategies to improve student outcomes.
In addition, teachers may experience low efficacy if they do not have models
to observe who are experiencing success with reform implementation. Effective
models must be competent, credible, enthusiastic, and perceived to be similar,
otherwise teachers will not be motivated to capture complex skills through such
vicarious learning (Bandura, 1986). Observing models can inhibit or disinhibit
behavior, facilitate responses, and lead to new behaviors. However, if feedback is
27
absent, then teachers do not have a chance to develop an accurate perception of
progress, which reduces teaching efficacy.
Furthermore, collective or group efficacy also influences reform
implementation. Group efficacy includes group members‘ perceptions of how well
the group will work together in relation to the goal, given each individual‘s skills and
roles (Bandura, 1997). Group efficacy impacts the group‘s sense of purpose and the
degrees of persistence and effort, which are influenced by the leadership of the
administrators (Schunk et al., 2008). Thus, if administration is ineffective, then low
group efficacy and disjointed reform implementation can result.
Root Causes: Organization
Alongside knowledge and motivation, the third causal factor in school reform
implementation is organizational culture. Clark and Estes (2002) state that ―missing
or inadequate processes and materials can prevent the achievement of [work] goals,‖
(p. 103) no matter how motivated or knowledgeable people may be. This section
will examine the effect of culture/context and the four frames of leadership on
organizational causes of the gap.
Culture/context. Schools serve a dual function of socialization and
selectivity through their rules, activities, and roles for teachers and students.
Blossfeld & Shavit (1993) argue that schools maintain the hegemony of White,
middle-class values by excluding members of low-status groups by tracking them
into lower levels of education. In other words, the school system socializes children
of low-status social origins so that they can acculturate to the value system held by
28
the dominant group. Then, the school system diverts them into subordinate
educational alternatives so that the dominant group can preserve their status and
privileges. As a result, such an organizational culture can impede school reform
efforts related to improving educational outcomes for low-income and minority
students.
Additionally, educational expansion may serve to mask persisting barriers in
education (Blossfeld & Shavit, 1993). To put it another way, limited attention is
given to the equalization of educational opportunity as long as children from
disadvantaged social origins continue to access education at increasing rates.
However, educational expansion does not guarantee full participation or equal
outcomes. For instance, programs for English learners and students with disabilities
absorb low-status students admitted to the public school system without disturbing
the hegemony of the dominant group, which benefits disproportionately because of
the exclusion of the other, believed to be troublesome. General education is
reflective of the White, middle-class student experience as the norm and against
which all other cultural groups are benchmarked. Consequently, if a school believes
it is doing its part in terms of educational expansion, it may fail to confront any weak
implementation efforts toward achieving school-wide reform related to improving
outcomes for low-income and minority youth.
Furthermore, Stanton-Salazar (1997) calls attention to the conflicting roles of
educators. In addition to providing nurturing support and academic guidance to their
students, teachers are also obligated to the bureaucratic demands of the school
29
system. These actions are often times contradictory, as teachers are also conduits of
a hierarchical social order. For instance, teachers use instructional methods and
evaluation procedures based on the cultural capital of the dominant group. Because
these protocols fail to trigger the funds of knowledge of students from low-status
groups, the evaluation results designate them as low-performing students (Gonzalez,
2005). Such tracking of students into alternate programs prevents them from having
access to opportunities to learn how to decode and navigate the system in their favor,
as opposed to their middle-class peers who are generously given access to pathways
of privilege. This demonstrates how teachers and other faculty, perhaps unwillingly,
can be institutional agents of cultural reproduction. The culpability, then, shifts to
the school, which can either transmit institutional resources and opportunities to
students or withhold them. In short, culture/context is a crucial factor in school
reform implementation.
Four frames of leadership. Bolman and Deal‘s (2008) four-frame model
will be used to conceptualize leadership issues as they relate to school reform
implementation. This framework is a collection of four distinct perspectives that
serve as lenses to bring organizational culture into focus, allowing managers to
reflect on experience to stimulate the decision-making process. The four frames are
as follows: structural (roles and rules), human resource (interpersonal relationships),
political (coalition building and power), and symbolic (charisma and rituals). First,
the structural frame represents top-down leadership, authority that governs with
rules, policies, and rationality. Second, the human resource frame centers on human
30
needs and building relationships. Third, the political frame focuses on interactions
between interests groups that bargain and negotiate power. Last, the symbolic frame
is characterized by the use of symbolism to discern meaning out of events and
activities amidst ambiguity and uncertainty—i.e. rituals and celebrations. Depending
on the leadership issue, one approach may be more suitable than other approaches,
and it is probable that a combination of frames would be most successful in
analyzing a critical incident.
The four-frame model can provide insight on why school reform efforts are
not being implemented. Under the structural frame, fragmented reform
implementation can occur if the reform goals have not been communicated clearly.
If the mission is not brought from abstract to concrete by way of specific targets and
measures, then teachers will not be able to align what they do in the classroom to the
reform initiatives (Clark & Estes, 2002). Without benchmarks for the organizational
goals (e.g., a school district‘s mission statement) and the work goals (e.g., a
classroom lesson), the administration and teachers do not have a mutual compass to
guide their productivity. If the administration does not facilitate this process, then
teachers will not have a clear understanding of their work goals and how they
support the school in achieving its overarching goals.
The human resource frame highlights empowerment, motivation, and
satisfaction. If the needs of a school and the staff are misaligned, then individuals
will not find their work meaningful or satisfying, and the school will not have the
capacity necessary to succeed (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Moreover, without
31
professional development follow-through, coaching, or mentoring, teachers may feel
less inclined to try something new, especially instructional activities that correspond
to the reform‘s goals. When teachers are not validated for their ideas and recognized
for their efforts toward the reform‘s goals, they may feel that the school is not
invested in their well-being and can result in a lower level of reform implementation.
The political frame accentuates building coalitions with external
constituencies such as legislators, trustees, parents, alumni, and foundations, as they
also influence the decision-making process. This can affect the extent of reform
implementation if there are factions within the school community. According to
Bolman and Deal (2008), organizations operate and compete in a world of scarce
resources. Without coalition building, inefficiencies would arise from the scattered
approach, and constituents would not feel enticed to work together toward the
organizational goal.
The symbolic frame sets the tone of the school community. A leader in this
frame develops the culture, beliefs, values, practices, and artifacts that embody his
expectations for student achievement (Bolman & Deal, 2008). It is about the
perception of the leader‘s character and his vision for the organization. Simply put,
if the staff does not belief in the administrator or the vision, reform implementation
will not be a major piece of their daily practice. As it is, education can be a very
wearisome arena, especially without inspiration, direction, and cohesiveness.
Without symbolic leadership, teachers would find it challenging to aim for peak
performance.
32
Summary
This review examined the causal factors that may prevent school districts
from sustaining implementation of comprehensive school reform efforts. From the
Clark and Estes‘ (2002) gap analysis model, three types of gaps can lead to
underperformance: knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture. First, causes
of the knowledge gap may be due to missing knowledge dimensions (factual,
conceptual, procedural, or metacognitive) or whether knowledge is controlled or
automated. Second, causes of the motivation gap may stem from goal orientation,
attributions, task value, or teacher efficacy. Last, causes of the organizational gap
may result from culture/context or ineffective leadership (structural, human resource,
political, or symbolic). This thorough understanding of root causes provides a rich
foundation for assisting school districts in examining the level of implementation of
comprehensive school reform efforts.
Methodology
Cuauhtemoc Avila, Dale Folkens, and Mary Laihee
Project Team Collaboration
The formation of the three-person project team was initiated at the Summer
Conference in August 2009. After attending faculty presentations representing a
wide variety of dissertation topics, students indicated their top three choices and then
were assigned to their thematic groups. As a result, eighteen doctoral students
became part of ―An Alternative Capstone Project.‖
33
The capstone project had partnerships with two school districts, with
institutional problem-solving as the theme. Foundational work on using the gap
analysis model as the problem-solving lens began in Fall 2009. Next, both districts
were assigned nine students each from the capstone group of eighteen. From there,
project teams of three were created to focus on a specific topic identified by the
district. Each team of three, including this high school project team assigned to the
RUSD, worked together for about eighteen months and fulfilled all tasks of the
inquiry process by Spring 2011. (See Appendix A for a timeline.)
Description of the Project
The Rowland Unified School District, which serves a predominantly ethnic
minority student population, has responded to external pressures to improve student
achievement with a comprehensive school reform effort to support good instruction,
enhance learning at the elementary and middle school levels for Latino students, and
make its two high schools highly effective in both perception and reality. This
alternative capstone project was undertaken by a three-person team that followed a
consulting model. The project team focused exclusively on the implementation of the
reforms at the district‘s two comprehensive high schools—Nogales and Rowland.
The project team utilized the Gap Analysis model, which identifies goals and
measures progress being made toward those goals. The project consisted of three
stages: (1) collection of data through structured interviews, referenced against
educational best practices and outcome data; (2) data analysis and interpretation; and
(3) presentation of recommendations.
34
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project was to analyze three school district reforms in an
effort to identify the root causes of student performance gaps. The major goal of this
project was to provide the Rowland Unified School District with a set of
recommendations based on scholarly research that addresses the root causes to
maximize the impact of its reform efforts at the two high schools. Descriptions of
each of the district reforms—English Learner Instructional Support Leads,
Partnership with the Ball Foundation, and Three Essential Priorities for Teaching and
Learning—can be found in the next section.
District Reform Efforts
English Learner Instructional Support (ELIS) Leads. The ELIS Leads
were instituted in two phases, beginning in 2004, through the department of
Curriculum and Bilingual Education. Phase I took place from 2004 to 2007 and was
guided by professional reading, with reflection and dialogue with peer experts to
share research-based practices. Phase II occurred from 2007 to 2008 and was guided
by the following key understandings for English learner (EL) support: academic
language proficiency to address both English Language Development (ELD) and
Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) strategies in the
classroom; strategies that promote linguistic and cognitive scaffolding;
differentiation; collaborative work; standards-based instruction; EL needs embedded
into district-wide initiatives; professional development accessing the expertise of
35
educators at the local, county, and state levels; and ongoing and sustained
professional development for the ELIS Leads cadre.
The ELIS Leads reform was not a district office-initiated effort and was
voluntary for secondary schools, which joined in during Phase II. The objective was
to continue building a common core of knowledge and practice to enhance the
capacity to serve English learners across all content areas, including ELD instruction.
The goals for the ELIS Leads included: serving as a liaison between district and site
through the dissemination of content and information, sharing their expertise by
establishing their classroom as a model, and facilitating the application of strategies
in other classrooms.
Partnership with the Ball Foundation. The Ball Foundation awarded the
Rowland Unified School District with a multi-million dollar partnership in 2006.
The partnership includes three key initiatives: to increase student achievement in
literacy, to assist in the development of a strategic plan, and to develop communities
of practice. The strategic plan focuses on two strategies and their outcomes. The
first strategy centers on transforming teaching and learning to maximize each
student‘s unique potential. The targeted results from this strategy include identifying
such teaching principles and sharing them with the learning communities. The
second strategy strives to ensure a coherent and constantly emerging system. The
results of this emerging system are to be measured through the collective
understanding of the district‘s mission and by monitoring the implementation of the
strategic plan.
36
The implementation of the Ball partnership was divided into three phases:
Inquiry and Engagement, Implementation of Design, and Transition to
Sustainability. The district is in the midst of Phase II and looking toward building
the capacity of its employees to ensure the sustainability of the reform. The
partnership with the Ball Foundation is in place until 2011.
Three Essential Priorities for Teaching and Learning. In Spring 2010, the
RUSD conceptualized its Three Essential Priorities for Teaching and Learning. The
purpose of the Three Essential Priorities is to increase common understanding of the
overarching district goals among all role groups. This would help to align all plans,
programs, and efforts in order to produce maximum impact in achieving the RUSD‘s
goals. The Three Essential Priorities call all educators and administrators to (1)
strengthen first best instruction, English Learner (EL) instruction, and Response to
Instruction and Intervention (RtI
2
); (2) implement district-wide agreements about
efficacious instruction and support for teaching and learning; and (3) build cultural
proficiency across the system to improve teaching and learning. At the time this
project was undertaken, the Three Essential Priorities were being introduced at the
district administrative level.
The Gap Analysis Model
For this project, the Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis model was the most
viable among several available frameworks designed to assist organizations, such as
school districts, improve their performance. The principles of the gap analysis
model, which focus on performance gaps and attribute them to the absence of
37
knowledge, motivation, or organizational resources, are highly applicable to school
reform. Accordingly, district goals and potential performance gaps within its reform
efforts can be analyzed from this perspective. Essentially, then, this framework was
selected for its potential to support the RUSD in identifying solutions to help it meet
federal and state benchmarks related to student performance.
Goals. The gap analysis model is an effective tool for explicitly
communicating goals. The model emphasizes alignment of goals at the global,
intermediate, and performance levels. A global goal provides a vision for the
organization, is broad in scope, and may take years to accomplish (e.g., a school
district‘s mission statement). Performance goals (or work goals) can be either
intermediate or current. An intermediate performance goal is moderate in scope,
may take weeks or months to accomplish, and usually involves a group or team (e.g.,
a curriculum unit plan). A current performance goal is narrow in scope, may take
hours or days to accomplish, and is usually performed at the individual level (e.g., a
classroom lesson). Effective performance goals ultimately support the global goal
and are clearly defined to enhance focus to the task. Once an effective performance
goal is defined, measures and standards are identified for benchmarking. For this
project, one of the team‘s objectives was to examine the perception of performance
goals and determine if they were appropriate.
Gaps and roots. To determine a performance gap between a desired goal
and actual performance, the present level of performance is subtracted from the
standard or desired goal. From this precise problem statement, a thorough analysis
38
of knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers follows. Thus, the
instrumental component of the gap analysis is the keen examination of root causes.
Because of its systematic approach, the gap analysis model is useful in identifying
and targeting performance gaps that stem from a lack of knowledge and skills, a lack
of motivation, and/or a lack of tools, facilities, and effective processes within the
organization. This process promotes efficiency by thwarting hasty solutions that
shortsightedly attribute performance gaps to individuals whose performance is
dependent on other variables (e.g., student performance is dependent on teacher
effectiveness).
Solutions. It follows that the identification of performance gaps and their
root causes can lead to solutions—or at least to possible solutions—depending on the
circumstances surrounding the performance gap. For example, a school
experiencing low student achievement may discover through gap analysis that one of
the causes behind its low tests scores is the presence of a motivation gap among
students. A possible solution to address this deficiency is to implement a series of
school-wide activities to motivate students. However, the school may discover that
there also exists a motivation gap among teachers, which must first be addressed and
closed before addressing and closing the gap among students. In either case,
knowing the root causes of current gaps in performance is fundamental in targeting
effective solutions.
39
Creating an Advantageous Partnership with the RUSD
During initial touch points with the school district in early Spring 2010, the
team‘s efforts focused on developing mutual trust and open communication, which
were critical to the project‘s success. First, the team explained the gap analysis
framework to school personnel to establish transparency in its methods. The
team affirmed institutional areas of strength to build on this trust, genuinely
recognizing the district‘s current school reform efforts. Then the team discussed
general performance gaps at the two high schools and conveyed the rationale for
using the gap analysis model.
Second, the team displayed a flow chart of the gap analysis process (See
Appendix B) to indicate possible opportunities for school personnel at each level to
take ownership of the district‘s reform process. For instance, the team judiciously
included school personnel in directing the problem statements in terms of goals,
standards, performance indicators, and gaps to ensure alignment with the district‘s
mission. Additionally, it was critical for school personnel to view the work goals as
concrete, challenging, and current because goals that are easily measurable,
reasonably ambitious, and short-range are more appealing to work toward (Clark &
Estes, 2002).
Third, the team reminded staff members throughout the project that although
the gap analysis model is theoretically sound, in practice it may require several
cycles in order to completely close or eliminate performance gaps. This is certainly
true in education. For example, student learning is impacted by many factors. Due
40
to the confluence of factors, the team explained that the gap analysis is to be thought
of as a process and not as a quick fix.
Data Collection and Analysis
Interview protocol. It was critical for the team to review the district‘s topic
of exploration for this collaborative alternative capstone project, as it was
instrumental in helping the project team maintain a procedural balance between the
overall goals of the project and the interview process. The team scheduled a
planning meeting in early February 2010 to review the project‘s overall goals and
develop a plan with strategies to collect the data needed to accomplish the goals.
The team reached five conclusions: (1) the first round of interviews must target key
informants to scan for themes related to district reforms and student achievement; (2)
the team must establish trust with all interviewees, especially during the initial round
of interviews with key informants; (3) the interviewees must be made aware of the
project‘s purpose; (4) the interview questions must be aligned to district reforms; and
(5) the interviews must be electronically recorded and the data transcribed into a
common data table within three days of the interviews. With regard to the second
and third conclusions, the team created an information sheet that included a summary
of the project‘s goals, the inquiry process, a confidentiality statement, and team
contact information (See Appendix C). Prior to the official interview, the team
presented each interviewee with the information sheet and the gap analysis flow
chart.
41
Preparing for the interviews. The project team went through a four-step
process to prepare for the interviews. The first step was to review pertinent
documents, including quantitative data, obtained from the school district to become
reacquainted with the project‘s overarching goals and ensure that such goals were
aligned with the initial scanning interview questions. The second step was to have
mastery level understanding of the fundamentals of interview instrumentation and
the mechanics of effective interviewing per Patton (2002), as well as mastery level
understanding of the principles involved in the change process espoused by Hall and
Hord (2001). The third step was for each team member to simulate the interview
process by conducting mock interviews with each other, with a significant amount of
time dedicated to practicing probing questions. Adjustments to the interview
protocols (See Appendix D) were made after a careful and critical analysis of the
mock interviews. The fourth and last step was to coordinate the first round of
interviews with the project team‘s district liaison. Interview data recording was done
through the use of a digital audio recorder, which allowed the project team to focus
on interacting with the interviewee.
Purposeful sampling. In order to effectively analyze the level of
implementation of the three district reforms, identify root causes of the performance
gaps in the implementation of reforms (which could possibly contribute to the
student performance gap on standardized tests as measured by federal and state
benchmarks), and generate a set of viable recommendations to close the performance
gaps, it was imperative to know the extent to which the reforms were being
42
implemented at various levels of the organization: the central office, school sites, and
classrooms. Hence, the sampling for this project was purposeful and criterion-based
(Patton, 2002). This sampling method ensured that data from specific categories of
staff members responsible for reform implementation at the district‘s central office,
the two school sites, and the classrooms could be collected through a series of
structured interviews. The targeted sample size was twenty-three (n = 23) and
included three central office administrators, two principals, one learning director, one
assistant principal, two counselors, four clerical staff members, nine core
department chairs, and one instructional assistant.
In addition to the data collected through structured interviews, the project
team gathered and reviewed data and information from extant resources to expand its
understanding of the district‘s reform efforts. These resources
contained demographic and summative outcome data for the school district at large
and data germane to each of the two high schools exclusively. Such resources
included the School Accountability Report Card (SARC), the Single Plan for Student
Achievement, and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) self-
studies and exit reports. The qualitative data collected through the structured
interviews were triangulated against the quantitative data collected from extant
resources to maximize the validity of the findings and to align the final
recommendations to reliable research. The data collection phase of the project was
conducted between March and May of 2010.
43
Scanning interviews. The project team utilized the scanning interviews to
gain an understanding of the school district‘s mission and view of the problem. The
scanning interview addressed five areas (overview, history, goals, gaps, and next
steps) and took approximately forty-five minutes to complete per interviewee.
Focusing on district goals and current reforms that targeted student performance, the
project team conducted six face-to-face scanning interviews with key informants at
both the district and school-site levels (superintendent, assistant superintendent of
human resources, assistant superintendent of schools, two high school principals, and
learning director). All interviews were scheduled between 12:00 – 3:00 p.m. on
March 31, 2010 and April 1, 2010 at the district office. Team member one
interviewed three staff members, team member two interviewed two staff members,
and team members two and three jointly interviewed one staff member. The project
team transcribed the interview data into a data table, and the root causes were coded
as knowledge (K), motivation (M), and/or organizational (O) issues to identify
emergent themes.
Stages of concern interviews. The purpose of the stages of concern
interview was to gather participants‘ feelings and perceptions about the district‘s
reform efforts in order to assess the level of implementation and to understand the
change process (Hall & Hord, 2001). The format was a brief face-to-face
conversation known as a one-legged interview and took about fifteen to twenty-five
minutes to complete per interviewee. The project team conducted eight structured
interviews designed around the anticipated emergent themes from the scanning
44
interviews to measure existing patterns of concerns. The interviews were conducted
with three teachers and two clerical support staff members from Nogales High
School. From Rowland High School, the team interviewed one teacher, one clerical
staff member, and one instructional support staff member. The interviews were
conducted between 7:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on April 29, 2010 in the NHS main
office and the RHS library. The project team transcribed the data into a data table to
facilitate the classification of levels of concerns. The data was coded to correspond
to the interviewee‘s feelings about the reform (0: Awareness, 1: Informational, 2:
Personal, 3: Management, or 4: Consequence) (See Table 1). Additionally, the root
causes were coded as knowledge (K), motivation (M), and/or organizational (O)
issues to identify emergent themes.
Table 1
Stages of Concern Coding
Ball ELIS Priorities
Nogales A 1 0 0
HS B 0 3 0
C 0 2 1
D 0 0 1
E 1 2 0
Rowland A 3 2 1
HS B 0 0 0
C 0 1 0
One-month interviews. One-month interviews provide information
associated with an interviewee‘s fidelity and intensity of implementation by
measuring the degree to which the interviewee plans and implements a program over
the course of a given month. For this interview, participants were asked about their
45
goals, strategies, and measures of success for the past thirty days. The format was a
face-to-face interview that took about thirty to forty-five minutes.
The team structured the one-month interviews around emergent themes
ascertained during the scanning interviews with key informants and hoped to
gauge the level of implementation of the three district reforms being examined. At
Nogales High School, the team interviewed an assistant principal, two teachers, and
one counselor. At Rowland High School, the team interviewed a counselor, three
teachers, and a clerical staff member. The interviews were conducted between 7:30
a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on April 29, 2010 in the NHS main office and the RHS library.
The project team transcribed the responses into a data table to measure the degree of
planning and, therefore, the fidelity to the implementation of the reforms. The root
causes were coded as knowledge (K), motivation (M), and/or organizational (O)
issues to identify emergent themes.
Innovation configuration. An innovation configuration is the act of
adapting, modifying, and or mutating aspects of an innovation, where there is
variation along a continuum from being very close to what the innovation is
supposed to look like to what is nearly unrecognizable (Hall & Hord, 2001). An
Innovation Configuration Map (ICM) identifies the major components of an
innovation and then describes the observable variations of each component. The
project team created an ICM with three components (high, medium, and low) and
four dimensions (challenges and concerns, fully implemented, common culture, and
sustainable use) to measure the degree of implementation of each the three district
46
reforms (See Appendix E). The project team collected the analyzed data from each
of the levels of interviews, measured it against the ICM, and charted the data on a
summary reform implementation chart (See Table 2).
Table 2
Innovation Configuration Map Coding
Nogales High School
Ball ELIS Lead Essential Priorities
Challenges
Fully
Implemented
Common
Culture
Sustainable
Use
Challenges
Fully
Implemented
Common
Culture
Sustainable
Use
Challenges
Fully
Implemented
Common
Culture
Sustainable
Use
A M M L M M M L M L L L L
B L M L L M M M M L L L L
C M M L M H H M H L L L L
D L L L L M H H H L L L L
E L L L L L M M M L L L L
F L L L L L L L M L L L M
G L L L L M L L M M L L M
H L L L L M M L M M M L M
I L L L L L L M M L L L M
Rowland High School
Ball ELIS Lead Essential Priorities
Challenges
Fully
Implemented
Common
Culture
Sustainable
Use
Challenges
Fully
Implemented
Common
Culture
Sustainable
Use
Challenges
Fully
Implemented
Common
Culture
Sustainable
Use
A M M L M M L L M L L L L
B M L L M M M M M L L L L
C L L L L L L L L L L L L
D L L L L L L L L L L L L
E L L L L L L L L L L L L
F L M L M L L L L M L L L
G M M L L L L L L M L L L
H L L L L M M L M L L L L
Confirmation of Data
Sufficiency and accuracy. The project team needed to ensure that sufficient
and accurate data were collected to make reliable inferences from the findings, and
thus, recommendations consistent with current research in knowledge, motivation,
and organizational theories. For a second time, the team reviewed data from extant
resources, scanning interviews, stages of concern interviews, one-month interviews,
47
and the Innovation Configuration Map data summary chart to certify the sufficiency
and accuracy of the collected data. It was determined that the data was sufficient and
accurate to make reliable inferences between the findings and the recent literature.
To reaffirm this determination, the team briefly re-interviewed three district-level
administrators with follow-up questions to clarify several points related to the
specificity of the three reforms being examined.
Challenges and limitations. Several challenges limited the depth and scope
of the project. First, the project was an alternative study and, due to Human Subjects
Considerations, interviewing students was not permissible. Interviewing students
could have afforded the project insightful information concerning the impact of the
implementation of reforms on learning. Second, the timeframe to collect the data
was limited to only a couple of months and was, thus, insufficient to allow for
multiple visits to the schools for general campus observations and silent participation
in various committee and stakeholder group meetings. Such observations could
have perhaps enhanced the team‘s understanding of the dynamics surrounding the
emergent themes. Third, the time of year in which the data were collected (March to
May) encompassed the district‘s state exams testing window and WASC visitations
for the two schools. Thus, scheduling the interviews and interviewing energetic staff
members was rather challenging. Collecting data during a less intense time of year
at the two schools would have been more conducive to optimal conditions for data
collection and perhaps a richer quality of information.
48
Human subjects considerations. The purpose of this alternative capstone
project was to provide assistance to a specific school district on issues of practice
identified by the district administration. The intent of the project was not to produce
generalizable knowledge, as in a traditional dissertation, but rather to document
activities carried out in the process of providing consultation to the district on these
issues. Therefore, this project is not considered as research and, thus, does not fall
under the guidelines for research designed to produce generalizable knowledge. The
following sections from a University Institutional Review Board (IRB) publication
clarify the status of the present project:
Federal Regulations define research as ―a systematic investigation, including
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
generalizable knowledge
1
‖ (45CFR46.102(d)). As described in the Belmont
Report,
2
… the term ―research‖ designates an activity designed to test a
hypothesis [and] permit conclusions to be drawn … Research is usually
described in a formal protocol that sets forth an objective and a set of
procedures to reach that objective.
Research generally does not include operational activities such as defined
practice activities in public health, medicine, psychology, and social work
(e.g., routine outbreak investigations and disease monitoring) and studies for
internal management purposes such as program evaluation, quality assurance,
quality improvement, fiscal or program audits, marketing studies, or
contracted-for services. It generally does not include journalism or political
polls. However, some of these activities may include or constitute research
in circumstances where there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable
knowledge. (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, p. 2)
1
"Generalizable knowledge" is information where the intended use of the research findings can be applied to
populations or situations beyond that studied.
2
The Belmont Report is a statement of ethical principles (including beneficence, justice, and autonomy) for
human subjects research by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
49
Further clarification is provided in the following section:
Quality improvement projects are generally not considered research unless
there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge and use the
data derived from the project to improve or alter the quality of care or the
efficiency of an institutional practice. (Office for the Protection of Research
Subjects, p. 4)
Presentations to the District
The presentations to the district were a collaborative effort amongst the nine
doctoral students assigned to the RUSD, including the high school team of three. In
early September of 2010, the team submitted an executive summary of the root
causes of underperformance associated with the implementation of district reforms
(See Appendix F). On September 21, 2010, the doctoral students met with a group
from the RUSD that included the superintendent and several cabinet-level
administrators to discuss the content of the executive summary. The district cabinet
offered feedback and clarifying information that it perceived would enhance the
accuracy of the findings.
On November 17, 2010, the team formally presented to district officials a
summary of key findings from the inquiry project, as well as a set of
recommendations to address the possible gaps (See Appendices G and H). The
findings and recommendations were validated by this comprehensive district panel,
who then requested that the same presentation be made to other district personnel,
including the school board. This second presentation was made on February 19,
2011.
50
Findings
Cuauhtemoc Avila, Dale Folkens, and Mary Laihee
Introduction
In its efforts to meet federal and state benchmarks for student performance,
the RUSD has adopted two organizational goals: (1) make its two high schools
highly effective and (2) implement district-wide reforms—e.g. the Ball Foundation,
ELIS Lead, and the Three Essential Priorities. This alternative capstone project
focused primarily on the level of implementation of district reforms, with school
improvement forming part of the project‘s overall analysis. The main outcome of
this project was to provide the RUSD with a set of recommendations to maximize
the impact of district reform efforts at each of its two high schools, Nogales and
Rowland. The project team reviewed existing district documents (Strategic Plan,
WASC Reports, Single Plan for Student Achievement, School Accountability Report
Cards, etc.) and conducted a series of structured interviews with purposefully
sampled key informants from the district and school sites, with the intent of
measuring the level of implementation of district reforms.
Through the scanning interviews conducted in March and April of 2010 with
district- and school-level administrators, the project team identified four emergent
themes that helped frame its probe of reform implementation throughout the district
in general and at the two high schools exclusively. The four emergent themes were
the following: negative perceptions about each high school, the absence of clear and
51
measurable goals, the needs of English language learners, and a culture of
decentralization.
The document review and the complete interview process revealed that while
some performance or work goals are being met towards accomplishing the
organizational goal, many other work goals or objectives have not been made clear
or have not been identified. This has resulted in essential work goals not being met.
These gaps stemmed from deficiencies in knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational processes and appear to have contributed to the low to moderate level
of implementation of district reforms. What follows is a summary of the findings
collected through the review of documents and interview process. The positive
activities that took place at the district and school levels towards meeting the
organizational goal have been highlighted. Then, the root causes of the performance
gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational procedures and
resources have been detailed. The root causes may be the variables hindering
successful reform implementation and perhaps school improvement.
Positive Activities
Knowledge. Staff members from both high schools, including teachers,
administration, support personnel, and clerical workers, demonstrated a professional
working knowledge of their role in the larger picture of their school site and the
district as a whole. When prompted for answers that staff members did not have,
they were able to direct the team to other employees that would have the
information. The staff also did not attempt to cover up a lack of knowledge. A
52
number of respondents stated plainly, ―I do not know anything about that,‖ ―That is
not my job,‖ and ―I have never heard of that.‖
The respondents were able to communicate an understanding of how external
standardized assessment strategies (California High School Exit Exam and California
Standards Tests) are used to monitor and ―label‖ students, schools, and districts.
While the staff members did not necessarily agree with the ranking and labels given,
they underst00d the connection between the scores and student achievement as
measured on the exams.
At Rowland High School, the principal had done an effective job of
communicating where they are and where they want to be (API score over 800). The
staff members were aware that this is a school-wide goal and that it takes all
stakeholders to move toward this end. According to one teacher, the principal had
begun to use data to drive professional development and to guide instruction. Staff
members were making connections between teaching methodologies and student
learning.
At Nogales High School, the staff was aware of their school-wide goal of
reaching the 700 mark for their API score and making concerted efforts to reach that
goal. These efforts are a result of the principal‘s direction to use a model of
collaboration built upon Professional Learning Communities. The PLCs have been
instrumental for teachers to share their knowledge, abilities, and strengths with their
colleagues. The teachers and staff spoke highly of this time to collaborate and plan.
53
Motivation. Motivational factors are behind some of the work goals being
met as part of efforts to fulfill the larger organizational goal. For example, staff
members at both schools dutifully expressed that the responsibility of getting all
students to learn belongs to every staff member. One teacher at NHS remarked,
―Even though I‘m not an EL teacher, we all have EL students.‖ Meanwhile, other
teachers detailed the various strategies used in their classrooms to reach all students,
including cooperative pairings and groups, hands-on activities, Cornell note-taking,
extended time, popsicle sticks for classroom management, and assessment of content
knowledge versus language skills. To some extent, then, these attributions indicate
that there are staff members who take responsibility for the success or failure of the
school as measured by student performance.
In addition, the general feeling at NHS and RHS toward the RUSD is
positive. Staff members at both high schools reported that they feel supported by the
district, although they could not give specific examples. NHS and RHS seem to
have a significant amount of autonomy with regard to reform implementation. One
teacher stated, ―I do not feel under the gun in terms of the district micromanaging
us. It‘s clear what their expectations are, and everyone works really hard to meet
them.‖ Staff members at both schools appear to value the school district and,
therefore, are more inclined to support tasks related to the implementation of district
reforms.
Moreover, the RUSD has taken the initiative to enact several reform goals to
improve school capacity. One goal pertains to increasing teacher collaboration.
54
Because this goal is meaningful to teachers, many of them reported higher levels of
teacher collaboration within both schools. Additionally, a few designated staff
members at NHS and RHS have been motivated to participate in collaborative
activities through the Ball Foundation‘s Communities of Practice or other reform
committees.
Finally, staff members at both NHS and RHS conveyed a sense of confidence
and pride related to their respective school sites. Some staff members spoke of the
great teachers and programs at the schools. ―This is a good school. It is all about the
students,‖ mentioned one support staff member at RHS. One teacher summed up the
general sentiment by indicating, ―The RUSD has all the right ingredients to do some
great things.‖ Showing such efficacy in the schools, the district, and personal
abilities is indeed conducive to successful reform implementation.
Organizational culture. In addition to the observable level of
knowledge/skills and motivation among a number of staff members that have
contributed to the RUSD‘s primary goal was the presence of organizational
processes, material resources, and a culture conducive to the implementation of the
various reforms. Evidence of these organizational characteristics during the
interview process was discernible through recent district actions intended to
reinforce its culture of educational excellence by altering how things are done and
how resources are allocated.
First, the RUSD has a firm culture of educational excellence, as evidenced by
its many successful schools and programs that include 4 National Blue Ribbon
55
Schools, 16 California Distinguished Schools, and multiple Golden Bell awards.
This culture of excellence was visible at RHS and, to a lesser extent, at NHS. At
RHS, for example, there is a culture of professionalism and high expectations among
the staff that many attribute to the academic success of students. "They are like a
family, with high expectations and professionalism," said one respondent. Asked
what has been the key to much of the success at the school, several staff members
replied that it was the level of professionalism. Second, in response to emerging
achievement deficits at particular schools or among certain groups of students, the
RUSD has taken the initiative to implement reforms deemed instrumental in building
the needed teaching capacity to improve student achievement—e.g. the Ball
Foundation. Third, with respect to the ongoing language needs of English language
learners, the RUSD has created the ELIS Lead position at the school sites to improve
expressly the quality of the local English language learner program. Fourth, the
RUSD has taken major steps to better coordinate district resources in order to meet
its two organizational goals. For instance, the district has created the Executive
Cabinet, Instructional Cabinet, and Site Instructional Leadership to build capacity
and align resources to focus reform implementation on student achievement. This
has manifested, for instance, in ongoing collaboration activities and instructional
walk-throughs. "The learning walks have generated awareness of practices among
staff district-wide. In the process, we hope that they will help dispel negative
perceptions," stated a central office administrator.
56
Root Causes: Knowledge
The knowledge lens revealed a pervasive gap in knowledge associated with
district reforms among many district employees, especially teachers. The findings
along the district‘s knowledge gap spectrum fall primarily within the factual and
conceptual knowledge domains—with an inclination towards the factual. There
were a few respondents with knowledge levels within the procedural domain—which
is knowledge to specifically utilize the skills needed for solving problems that range
from simple routine exercises to complex novelties (e.g., the skills needed to
implement a school reform). The overall findings illustrate that employees
possessed varying knowledge levels concerning the three district reforms under
implementation at the time of the interviews and suggest that the knowledge gap is a
contributing factor to the district‘s modest and fragmented level of reform
implementation.
Ball Foundation. Many staff members demonstrated a general awareness of
the district‘s reforms, with respect to the names and basic facts associated with the
reforms. For example, the Ball Foundation, the centerpiece of the district‘s
professional development plan, is in its fourth year of implementation and represents
the district‘s marquee reform. Yet, most respondents only acknowledged peripheral
knowledge of the partnership between the school district and the Ball Foundation.
The following responses were indicative of the general levels of awareness among
respondents: ―Ball brings money, but I don‘t understand how it‘s going to translate
to systemic change;‖ ―I know that it brings some people together for professional
57
development but don‘t know much else;‖ and ―What do we get in return?‖ Only two
of the sixteen non-administrative employees interviewed (one teacher and one
counselor) were able to articulate their understanding of the partnership between the
school district and the Ball Foundation, offering extensive details along the factual,
procedural, and conceptual knowledge domains.
ELIS Leads. Similar gaps in knowledge connected to the other two district
reforms appeared during the analysis of interview data. The majority of respondents
indicated that they were not aware of the English Language Instructional Support
(ELIS) Lead position, were aware of the position but had no knowledge of what staff
member was in the position, or knew about the position and the person in it but could
not give details concerning the position or the role of the ELIS Lead on campus. For
example, some of the common responses concerning the knowledge level related to
the ELIS Lead reform included: ―This is my first year, so I don‘t fully understand the
pieces connected with ELs—so I‘m only speaking in generalities;‖ ―That would be
more Mrs. ... I don‘t have a caseload here;‖ ―I don‘t have much involvement, so I
can‘t really say;‖ and ―I personally am not affected by this because I only have one
EL student in my class.‖ As was the case with the Ball Foundation, however, some
staff members were relatively knowledgeable of the role of the ELIS Lead and
knowledgeable of the instructional strategies, organizational methods, and
classification criteria being used with English learners.
Three Essential Priorities. Meanwhile, the knowledge gap related to the
Three Essential Priorities was more profound and widespread than the gaps linked to
58
the Ball Foundation and the ELIS Leads. For instance, the following statements
summarized the level of knowledge most respondents held about this reform: ―I
haven‘t heard about it;‖ ―It‘s not familiar;‖ ―It hasn‘t been communicated very
broadly;‖ ―I don‘t know much about this;‖ ―Not exactly;‖ ―I was looking at them the
other day, and it sounds like something that came from the Ball Foundation;‖ and
―As a school, we haven‘t been given those yet.‖ The magnitude of this gap was
perhaps due to the reform‘s novelty at the time that the interviews were conducted,
as most respondents were either not familiar with the name of this reform or had only
heard that the school district had recently conceived the idea of the Three Essential
Priorities. The knowledge level among site and district level administrators was
notably higher than the level among all other respondents. However, no district level
administrator made reference to an implementation plan for the Three Essential
Priorities, which signals the emergence of an implementation gap relevant to this
reform.
Cultural perceptions. One unique observation made during the analysis of
interview data was the presence of certain perceptions among staff members—and
according to staff members, perceptions among parents and students—about the
culture of schools and the cultural backgrounds of various student groups. For
example, some staff members at NHS perceived their campus to be ―ghetto,‖ given
its physical appearance and believed that this stigma was in part responsible for the
underperformance of the school. One staff member stated that even district
administrators perceived NHS as a ―ghetto‖ school and, thus, had low expectations
59
for the school. Meanwhile, some staff members from RHS expressed their
disagreement with teachers at NHS who believe that RHS staff members have it
easier because of their school‘s higher levels of performance and that, consequently,
district administrators give RHS greater support.
Moreover, a couple of staff members at NHS expressed that some Asian
parents look favorably toward attending RHS or schools in the Walnut Valley
Unified School District because of their high-achieving Asian students, as they do
not want their children being dragged down by low-performing students.
Meanwhile, some teachers shared that some Latino parents perceive Asian students
to be high achievers and hoped that having their own children attend school with
Asian students would result in the higher performance ―rubbing off‖ on their
children. Thus, the perceptions that NHS is a ―ghetto‖ school, RHS receives
preferential treatment from district leaders, and only Asian students are capable of
performing at high academic levels are cultural issues that might be addressed within
the content and during the implementation of district reforms.
Root Causes: Motivation
Interviews with teachers, support staff, and administrators suggested that
there were some motivational concerns. The project team explored how
motivational beliefs affected the level of reform implementation at the RUSD‘s two
high schools—Nogales High School (NHS) and Rowland High School (RHS). The
team examined motivational issues that stemmed from external causes, like goals
60
and attributions. The team members also looked at motivational problems that were
due to internal causes, such as task value and self-efficacy.
Goals. Teachers and support staff at both school sites were not aware of any
school-wide goals related to the reform efforts. For example, NHS and RHS have
been experiencing difficulty with Latino English learners not progressing through the
English Language Development (ELD) program. Yet, no school-wide goals exist to
increase the rates for their redesignation as fluent English proficient. Although the
staff is aware of this particular challenge at both sites, there are no measures of
progress to address it. According to one teacher, ―The district operates from
generalities. There is not much goal-setting taking place.‖ Another teacher had a
similar view, ―The district does not measure plans or goals it attempts to implement.‖
The lack of direction deters teachers from making substantial progress toward
full implementation of district reforms. Without clear work goals, teachers might
substitute their own personal goals, which may not be aligned to the reform efforts.
Such ambiguous goals are more likely to lead to a performance-avoid orientation as
opposed to a mastery goal orientation. Thus, teachers may not persist or spend
quality time on tasks related to reform implementation. Furthermore, the school
community has not seen much progress, making it difficult to commit to long-term
reform. One teacher observed, ―[The Partnership with] Ball will have an impact, but
collaborative leadership is a slow process. We need to have some successes.
Discussions have value and tangible payoff down the road, but there isn‘t something
tangible right now that we‘ve done that wasn‘t there last year.‖
61
Attributions. Some staff members expressed views that were inconsistent
with a student-centered approach. When asked about English learners enrolling in
Advanced Placement and Honors courses, one teacher responded, ―Some students
don‘t want to. They think it‘s not worth it. They want to have a life or need to
work.‖ Another teacher pointed out that the ELD classes are small (about fifteen
students) not because of scheduling but because ―many students drop out due to
pregnancy, credit deficiencies, and other normal reasons.‖ According to support
staff, the teachers range in their ability to connect with students and their families.
For example, students thrive in certain classrooms but are mediocre in others or just
skip class altogether. Several teachers did describe students as lacking motivation to
learn and their families as not valuing education. Furthermore, some teachers felt
that not much could be done to help these students.
Based on this data, teachers at both high schools appear to be attributing the
challenges to reform implementation to deficiencies in the student population instead
of recognizing variations in students‘ home settings and acknowledging that cultural
models are not shared universally. With these external attributions, teachers may
feel it would be futile to persist, believing it is out of their hands, and instead focus
on other work goals. Moreover, the project team anticipates that addressing this
sensitive issue with the staff at both high schools is likely to be met with resistance,
especially when many of the individual and institutional habits and patterns are at a
pre-conscious level of awareness.
62
Task value. Although a few teachers welcomed the independent decision-
making afforded by the RUSD‘s hands-off approach, some teachers specified that
they would appreciate more structure. For example, one teacher stated that the
district does not have a plan for the ELD program. Another teacher acknowledged a
plan but commented, ―The [ELIS] Lead is just not working. Two workshops per year
are not good.‖ When it comes to the Ball Partnership, another teacher said she does
not feel like she can contact anyone for assistance other than her peers but, even
then, she does not know who does what. Another teacher expressed that not enough
is being done at the district level to effectively implement the reforms at the
classroom level.
In this case, the teachers do not see the district valuing certain reform
activities. In particular, the district has not communicated the relevance of the
reform efforts at the classroom level and has not provided enough follow-up
support. As such, teachers on a whole are experiencing fragmented reform
implementation. Moreover, the teachers who are on reform committees have
objections to being pulled from the classroom to participate in committee meetings,
and because of the time commitment, some teachers have discontinued their
participation.
When teachers do not perceive task value, they may choose not to actively
pursue the work goal. Recall that task value is comprised of utility value, attainment
value, intrinsic value, and cost value. Since the relevance of the reform efforts at the
classroom level is vague, teachers do not perceive much utility value, attainment
63
value, or intrinsic value. Additionally, with having to be away from their classrooms
and not being given adequate follow-up support, teachers feel that the cost value is
not justified.
Teacher efficacy. At NHS, the staff was concerned with the physical
appearance of the school. One teacher noted, ―Rowland High School has a new
[International Baccalaureate World School] sign that is permanent and looks very
nice. We have a banner that flaps with the wind.‖ Another teacher made a related
comment, ―When people drive by our school, they see our parking lot, our trash
cans. We just a need a facelift to make it look like the type of school it really is. A
nice sign: Nogales High School, an IB World School. That would be our number
one priority.‖
At RHS, the staff was concerned with maintaining enrollment, having lost
students to neighboring school districts such as Walnut, Diamond Bar, and
Fullerton. One teacher emphasized that, ―Rowland High School is frustrated that
there is a general thought that we have it easier.‖ In other words, to remain a
competitive school, RHS needs to continue to push itself academically.
In both cases, the belief of collective teacher efficacy, or teachers‘
perceptions that their efforts as a whole will positively impact student achievement,
appears to be a strong influence. Group efficacy affects persistence. At NHS,
concerns about the appearance of the school campus appear to hinder the teachers‘
group efficacy. They may not persist because many teachers believe that the
physical appearance of the school is symbolic of their status in the district and of a
64
student population that they do not perceive to be as teachable. These beliefs impact
reform implementation by maintaining a culture of low expectations. At RHS, the
school has mobilized around the high-performing students, but group efficacy toward
meeting the needs of diverse learners is not as high. These teachers may not persist
because there are other work goals that have been given more priority. They may be
focusing energy on ensuring that high-performing students stay enrolled, which may
be taking precedence over reform efforts related to raising achievement for all
students.
Root Causes: Organization
In addition to performance gaps occasioned by the absence of
knowledge/skills and motivation were performance gaps resulting from deficiencies
in organizational processes and material resources. The interview process revealed
that several practices and a shortage of material resources have adversely affected
performance at various job levels (district/school sites) and in various areas of the
instructional program (instruction, professional development, and assessment).
Several of these practices have become rooted in the school or district culture,
preventing or slowing progress along the reform implementation spectrum.
Work processes. One such practice is a district process that allows high-
achieving students from NHS to enroll at RHS to prevent these students from
transferring to neighboring school districts—e.g. Walnut Valley Unified School
District. According to one district administrator, the RUSD is "...losing high-
performing Asian students to Walnut Valley." As of 2009, the district has lost up
65
to10% of its enrollment, or 1,600 students, to Walnut Valley. Many students transfer
after completing middle school, with the majority of them in the NHS attendance
area. The RUSD has responded to this trend by allowing open intra-district permits
to discourage students scheduled to attend NHS from leaving the district and instead
transfer to RHS. This has resulted in an "...exodus of Asian students from NHS to
RHS to avoid district loss of students to Walnut Valley. There is a perception of
Asians wanting to be with their people,‖ according to one staff member. However,
this district practice has perpetuated the low-achievement scores at NHS by
facilitating the transfer of many of its high-achieving students to RHS, thereby
reinforcing NHS' negative reputation of being a low-performing school. A site
administrator commented that this reinforcement, in turn, has "...neutralized morale
among staff, students, and parents, which has made the implementation of strategies
and reforms a more challenging task.‖ In this case, district practice or policy is not
aligned with NHS‘ efforts to improve its academic performance goals and thereby
improve its reputation. This practice has evolved into part of the RUSD‘s
environmental culture that intentionally or not contributes to the pernicious
reputation that plagues NHS.
A practice antithetical to system-wide change and implementation progress
discovered during the interview process was that of limited follow-through. That is,
it has been common that ideas or plans are proposed at the district or site
administrative level but rarely make it to fruition in the classrooms. ―Whether it‘s
cultural competence, RTI, or something else, it‘s usually just a buzz word at the
66
district office. These things are never clarified or actually implemented at our
[classroom] level,‖ said one teacher. One case in point was the English language
learner program. Although steps in the right direction to strengthen the program
have been underway for several years—e.g., the ELIS Lead—it was evident that its
fragmented implementation reflects a practice of strong verbal commitment with
limited performance towards actualization. "There is no plan for English language
learners. Just a lot of talk," said another teacher. In other words, the organizational
goal was discussed and partly implemented but lacked specificity at the performance
level. Another example was the implementation of the ELIS Lead. This strategy to
enhance the English language learner program emerged from the office of
Curriculum and Bilingual Education, not necessarily as a central office mandate. "It
has not been embraced by everyone. There was initial opposition to it at the
secondary level," said a district administrator. During the interviews, it was not clear
what instruments were being used to measure the implementation of the ELIS Lead
position, what person was responsible for monitoring its implementation, what the
specific target goals were, or what accountability plan was in place.
According to a number of respondents, the district and school practice of
limited follow-through on plans intended to address the needs of English language
learners has been pervasive enough that it has engendered the cultural phenomena of
intentional failure among English language learners as a form of survival. ―Many
students remain classified as long-term English language learners because of poor
grades, not because of language proficiency scores,‖ said one respondent. Such
67
students have intentionally failed certain classes to prevent redesignation into the
mainstream instructional program, which has allowed them to stay in classes with
their immediate primary language peers. Other English language learners have
summarily suspended their attendance of certain classes because ―some teachers are
not approachable or do not work well with them,‖ added the respondent. One
teacher said that these are well-known practices, but neither the district nor the
schools have addressed them directly. Several respondents made it clear that the
district simply ignores English language learners. By failing to meet their needs, the
district and schools have enabled students to maintain language group affiliation at
the expense of academic performance.
Although limited follow-through surrounding English language learners was
expressed as a definite practice, poor goal-setting at the district level was described
as a burgeoning tendency. Many of the respondents stated that lately the district has
not had or has not clearly communicated goals. Some respondents expressed their
awareness of the district‘s general expectation to meet API and AYP benchmarks but
shared their concerns over the absence of clear work goals for individuals or
groups/departments in order to meet the API and AYP targets. Both the district and
the schools apparently lack clear work goals and expectations for schools,
departments, and individuals, which has resulted in inefficient or ineffective
processes. For example, a number of respondents expressed that the school district
does not prioritize the needs of English language learners, as evidenced by the
absence of a comprehensive and concrete plan tailored to meet their specific needs.
68
In the absence of clear work goals, people tend to focus on tasks they deem
important, instead of helping achieve the organizational goal (Clark & Estes, 2002).
At RHS, poor goal-setting has resulted in ineffective practices. For example, two
respondents responsible for overseeing English language learner program revealed
that in early Fall 2009, up to one-fifth of the English language learner population had
been placed in the wrong content classes. Neither respondent was sure if all
misplacements had been corrected by the Spring 2010. Some findings epitomized
the growing practice of poor goal-setting. Respondents showed limited and
inconsistent awareness about the reforms, for none of them was able to provide
evidence of methodical, structured planning related to an expected practice over the
course of a given month.
Material resources. It was a common theme expressed at NHS that the
district has insufficient financial resources to assist the school with comprehensive
teacher professionalism development efforts or to hire the quality teachers needed to
move NHS out of Program Improvement status. ―There is nothing to help a school
like ours get the personnel we need to make this school student-centered. The
district has some say, but they are bound by contact,‖ said one staff member. It was
expressed that the school district, therefore, lacks a mandate for staff members to
connect with and engage students in the process of learning. Additionally, several
respondents indicated that the district administrators perpetuate the perception that
Nogales is a "ghetto" school by failing to provide it with the support needed to
improve the school‘s physical appearance. One teacher stated that the school has too
69
many bungalows. "We need new buildings," she added. "Growth has lead to the
front of the school being away from the main street. The view of the school from the
main street is of old buildings, a parking lot, and trash bins. On weekends, the
parking lot is used for a swap meet, perpetuating the stigma of a ‗ghetto‘ school,‖
said a school administrator. However, a respondent who previously worked at the
school stated that, at times, the lack of initiative at NHS contributes to the school‘s
poor reputation: ―The school has quality teachers and students but has not
established a culture of celebrating its achievements—however small they might
be—by showcasing them to the community via media outlets.‖
Value chains. Finally, the interview process revealed that although the
school district has identified particular district-wide reforms to address student
achievement, a culture of decentralization district-wide and within the schools has
resulted in practices that preclude alignment and implementation of the various plans
(e.g. Strategic Plan, Ball Foundation, Single Action Plan for Student Achievement,
ELIS Lead), leading to awareness deficits and, thus, fragmented implementation at
the school level. Over the years, the district has loosely operated under a
decentralized structure, banking on self-motivated administrators to get the job
done. ―Recent budget cuts and reorganization changes have made the district more
centralized, occasioning somewhat of a culture clash,‖ said one central office
administrator.
70
Summary
In sum, the structured interviews and review of existing documents revealed
several positive findings and emergent themes. More importantly, the interview
process revealed that while some work goals are being met toward the
accomplishment of district goals, many other work goals have not been made clear
or have not been identified. This has resulted in essential work goals not being met
due to deficiencies in knowledge, motivation, and organizational processes. These
gaps appear to have been responsible for the low to moderate level of
implementation of district reforms.
71
Chapter 3: Proposed Recommendations Based on Best Practices
Cuauhtemoc Avila, Dale Folkens, and Mary Laihee
The Rowland Unified School District has established a remarkable culture of
educational excellence, as evidenced by its 4 National Blue Ribbon Schools, 16
California Distinguished Schools, and multiple Golden Bell awards. To build on this
excellence, the RUSD has taken initiative to increase school capacity in order to
enhance student achievement, creating the Executive Cabinet, Instructional Cabinet,
and Site Instructional Leadership to align resources and improve reform
implementation. As a result, several staff members reported higher levels of teacher
collaboration at both Nogales High School and Rowland High School. Additionally,
the RUSD‘s high level of performance in its exceptional programs is complemented
by a generally positive disposition toward NHS, RHS, and the district. For instance,
several staff members mentioned professionalism, high expectations, and support as
key factors to the district‘s success.
However, a thorough analysis of extant data and extended conversations with
staff members revealed that although the RUSD has made strides in implementing
reform efforts intended to address student achievement and, thus, meet federal and
state accountability benchmarks for district and school effectiveness, there remains
fragmented implementation of reforms that stem from possible gaps in knowledge,
motivation, and organizational processes. To address these possible gaps, the project
team has identified pertinent scholarly research around three areas that could
increase effectiveness at NHS and RHS: (1) goals, (2) implementation and
72
accountability, and (3) cultural settings. From here, the team has detailed a proposed
set of recommendations to assist the district in its endeavor to implement reforms at
the desired level in order to improve student achievement.
Literature Review
Goals
The gap analysis inquiry project at the Rowland Unified School District
revealed the impact of teacher beliefs on reform implementation at the high schools.
Motivational concerns around the variables of goal orientation, task value, teacher
efficacy, and attributions were key factors that contributed to the low to moderate
level of reform implementation. In order to reach a desired level of reform
implementation, the review of literature on goals included (1) creating C
3
goals, (2)
fostering communication, and (3) reinforcing teacher commitment.
Creating C
3
goals. To elicit a positive response, school reform goals must
provide an explicit, realistic, and encouraging vision. According to Clark and Estes
(2002), the optimal work goals are C
3
goals: concrete, challenging, and current.
Such goals lead to higher performance than do ambiguous goals (Locke & Latham,
2002). In order for the C
3
work goals to have the most impact, they must first be
aligned to the overall organizational goal (Clark & Estes, 2002). For instance, a
school district should clarify how short-term work goals support the longer-term
context of school reform (Leithwood et al., 2002).
School leadership can facilitate teacher understanding of the connection
between external mandates for change and the school‘s vision. Leithwood and
73
colleagues (2002) emphasize highlighting the overall aim to improve teaching and
learning and to raise student achievement. Thus, teachers would have a more holistic
view and better understand the direction of school reform and their part in it. C
3
work goals enhance competence, as well as streamline resources and promote
collaboration, which can lead to a higher incidence of school reform implementation
(Cohen et al., 2007).
When work goals are created as C
3
goals, teachers are more likely to improve
their mastery of the task as opposed to simply reducing risk and barely adhering to
the performance standard (Cohen et al., 2007). C
3
work goals encourage more of a
mastery approach goal orientation, in which a person is more likely to choose more
personally challenging tasks, be more open to risks and new tasks, and seek adaptive
help (Pintrich, 2003). To help teachers adopt mastery approach goals, school
leadership should also emphasize individual improvement through accurate feedback
and recognize teacher effort (Schunk et al., 2008). Furthermore, with C
3
goals and a
mastery approach goal orientation, teachers are more likely to develop adaptive
behaviors and experience more positive emotion, such as enjoyment, curiosity,
engagement, and encouragement (Gonida, Voulala, & Kiosseoglou, 2009).
Additionally, C
3
goals help teachers to develop task value (Schunk et al.,
2008). With clear expectations and opportunities to succeed, teacher motivation and
engagement in deeper learning strategies are more likely to thrive. According to
Expectancy-Value Theory, when tasks are at an optimal level of difficulty, teachers
will be motivated to master the new skills and will develop perceptions of
74
competence because they have an opportunity to be successful (Wigfield & Eccles,
2000). As such, increased motivation results from high task value coupled with high
expectancy for success. The theory also espouses accurate feedback, which helps
teachers to develop accurate perceptions of competence and maintain high
expectations. In sum, C
3
goals can advantageously impact school reform
implementation by providing teachers with a clear direction, encouraging mastery of
the task, promoting positive affect, and increasing teachers‘ task value.
Fostering communication. The traditional structure of teachers overseeing
classroom duties and administrators overseeing management duties lends itself to a
division of knowledge and labor (Johnston, 2002). However, in order for teachers to
be full participants in school reform implementation, they also must be well versed
in the policies. Accordingly, Leithwood and colleagues (2002) emphasize that
administrators be clear about the reasons for school reform policy and invite teachers
to be involved in the decision-making process, as well as provide them with
opportunities to develop the necessary skills for implementation. Johnston (2002)
agrees and suggests that principals can play a key role in facilitating professional
development that centers on perspective building through faculty analysis of federal
and state policies, in both historical and contemporary contexts, and their
relationship to the school‘s mission. To understand how these align and as a way to
begin this discussion, Johnston recommends that a visual representation be
constructed:
75
[I]nstructional programs or organizational units would be named, the primary
features of programs listed beneath, and then a circle drawn around each.
Lines representing established or potential relationships would then be drawn
between the various program initiatives and organizational units. (p. 227)
This tool is one way to increase task value for teachers by helping them understand
their role within the reform movement, as well as strategize prospective interactions
that could drive implementation. Teacher motivation can be increased by drawing
parallels between policy and improving student outcomes (Leithwood et al., 2002).
Reinforcing teacher commitment. Teachers often describe themselves as
committed to their profession and want to be fulfilled at work. However, the
organizational culture of some schools and school districts may reduce the quality of
work experience for teachers. For example, in-group favoritism toward one school
may lower the levels of commitment, morale, and loyalty for teachers at another
school. This is an issue for consistent reform implementation since
teacher/administrator conflict strongly predicts lack of teacher commitment (Henkin
& Holliman, 2009).
Self-Determination Theory postulates that people will experience well-being
if the three basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and belongingness
are met (Ryan & Deci, 2000). As such, a school district should foster a supportive
and fair environment for each of its schools so that all teachers have a sense of
relatedness and connectedness. When teachers have feelings of belonging and trust,
they are more likely to internalize and implement the goals of comprehensive school
reform. This is significant because organizational goals and teachers‘ work goals are
76
then aligned and work is more meaningful, which boosts productivity (Henkin &
Holliman, 2009).
Teacher efficacy at the previously less favored school would increase due to
the positive physiological and emotional cues, allowing teachers to refocus their
efforts on school reform implementation (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). If a
district is more transparent in its communication and its policies, it can lead to
teachers feeling more secure in their roles and about the equal status of their schools.
Removing this organizational barrier would increase teacher motivation to
concentrate more on instructional tasks.
Thus, commitment-based management strategies are effective in cultivating
positive emotions and self-efficacy. School leaders can acknowledge teachers for
good work, invite their input on important decisions, provide a forum for teachers to
admire each other‘s work, and inform the school community of teachers‘
involvement in the school‘s achievements (Leithwood et al., 2002). Leithwood and
colleagues urge that teachers be respected as professionals, so actions that lessen
teacher efficacy should be avoided, including harsh critiques and pessimistic
publicity.
Moreover, innovation support—which includes such practices as supporting
teachers with trying out new ideas, diversity among the faculty and administration,
and open communication—is a strong indicator of positive teacher commitment
(Henkin & Holliman, 2009). Hence, when the quality of work experience is
improved, teachers are more likely to report feelings of belonging and trust and are
77
more resilient when problems arise. Henkin and Holliman suggest that this leads to
superior work output and assuming additional work responsibilities, which would
benefit effective reform implementation.
Implementation and Accountability
In an addition to revealing a low to moderate level of reform implementation
associated with motivational variables, the inquiry project also suggests the presence
of performance gaps in reform implementation linked to procedural organizational
variables. Specifically, the RUSD lacks a sound and comprehensive plan for reform
implementation, including uniformed steps and procedures, accountability measures,
and strategies to maintain the number of reform initiatives at a manageable level.
The success of an organization, including large urban schools districts, is
often attributed to the presence and practice of essential principles found in recent
management theory, which blends features of early management models (e.g.,
Frederick Taylor‘s Scientific Management Model of the early 1900s and Mary Follet
Parker‘s Human Relations Movement of the 1920s), with features found in
contemporary literature. The work of Bolman and Deal (2008) and Collins (2001)
represents the hallmark of current management theory; theory supported by findings
that identify great leaders as being humble and people-oriented, yet dynamic and
relentless, according to several instruments used to measure the public image,
personality traits, and leadership focus among leaders. These leaders are skillful at
balancing personal qualities with fundamental organizational principles and
strategies to narrow the organizational focus (Au and Valencia, 2010; Collins, 2001),
78
systematically implement reforms (Hall & Hord, 2001), and use data as an
accountability measure (Datnow et al., 2007; Foley, 2001; Stecher & Kirby, 2004) to
successfully manage large organizations. These principles and practices are germane
to educational settings (Finn, 2002; Stecher & Kirby, 2004). The literature review
on organizational processes has been organized around (1) leadership, (2) narrowing
the focus, (3) implementation, and (4) accountability.
Leadership. Bolman and Deal (2008) contend that successful organizations
require leaders capable of managing personnel, resources, and processes in a highly
synchronized manner. The authors offer such balanced leadership through their
Four-Frame Leadership Model, which details the four primary approaches in
management practice: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. The
model is intended to help change agents, such as superintendents of schools,
conceptualize, coordinate, and apply the appropriate balance of these approaches to
manage the variety and complexity of issues and situations they encounter. Below is
the Four-Frame Leadership Model in summary form.
● Structural: This approach focuses on structural elements within the
organization, as well as strategy, implementation, and adaptation. It works
well when there is a need to clarify goals and expectations, ensure that cause-
and-effect relationships are well understood, and prevent or remove conflict,
uncertainty, or ambiguity.
● Human Resource: This approach focuses on people and emphasizes support,
empowerment (perhaps through distributed leadership mechanisms), staff
79
development, and responsiveness to employee needs. A focus on people
works well when employee morale is a consideration and when there is
relatively little conflict.
● Political: This approach focuses on the political realities that exist within
and outside the organization, dealing with interest groups (and their varying
agendas), building power bases, coalition-building, negotiating conflicts over
limited resources, and creating compromises. The political frame is
appropriate when resources are scarce or diminishing, as well as when goals
or values are in conflict.
● Symbolic: This approach focuses on vision and inspiration through traditions,
ceremonies, and rituals. Symbolic leaders make people believe that their
personal work and the work of the organization are important and
meaningful. This approach helps to clarify goals and/or cause-and-effect
relationships in social settings.
Narrowing the focus. Collins (2001) suggests that true leadership takes time
(up to twenty years) to effect institutional and long-lasting change. Collins
deductively explores the differences between good companies and good companies
that have become great companies, as measured by financial performance several
multiples better than the market average over a fifteen-year period. Collins finds the
overriding factor in achieving the transition from good to great to be a narrow
focusing of company resources on its field of competence. The impact of this focus
80
is guided through the following three stages, and their respective principles, that
companies go through during the transition.
Stage I: Build Up
● Level 5 Leadership: Level 5 leaders advocate the concept of team, not the
individual. When goals are accomplished, they look out the window for
someone to attribute the success to. When goals are not met, they look at the
mirror and accept responsibility. These leaders show a remarkable sense of
personal humility and an equally remarkable sense of professional will.
● First Who, Then What: Great companies get the wrong people off the bus, the
right people on the bus and in the right seats. When in doubt, great
companies do not hire personnel, they keep looking.
● Confront the Brutal Facts: Great companies start with an honest and diligent
effort to determine the truth of a situation. When they do, the right decisions
often become self-evident.
Stage II: Breakthrough
● Hedgehog Concept: What can you be best in the world at? Great companies
are willing to transcend the curse of competence in many areas to be great in
one area.
● Culture of Discipline: Great companies create a culture of discipline, where
disciplined people exercise disciplined thought and engage in disciplined
action. This eliminates the need for hierarchy, bureaucracy, and excessive
controls.
81
Stage III: Flywheel
● The Flywheel: Great companies generate momentum from the additive effect
of many small initiatives that, in time, act on each other like compound
interest until, like relentlessly pushing a giant, heavy flywheel in one
direction, one experiences the point of breakthrough and beyond.
Successful organizations do a few things well. Narrowing the organizational
focus is the overriding factor between good companies and good companies that
become great (Collins, 2001). Au and Valencia (2010) argue that this principle
needs to be at the heart of school reform policy. Policies should provide schools
with incentives for staying the course and making progress toward clearly specified
goals. Currently, federal and state initiatives, as well as district mandates, present
schools with too many opportunities for reform (Foley, 2001). This stimulates a
chase for resources and forces schools to take on more initiatives than they can
manage, resulting in mediocre implementation at best (Au & Valencia, 2010).
Studies conducted by Cambone (1995) and Lipson, Mosenthal, Mekkelsen, and Russ
(2004) reveal that the vast majority of schools successful in raising student
achievement maintain a narrow and consistent focus over a period of years. Thus, it
behooves organizations, such as school districts, to identity the root causes of
performance gaps and implement solutions that directly target such causes (Clark &
Estes, 2002). This is likely to reduce the number of district initiatives while
increasing their impact on employee performance.
82
Implementation. To successfully effect change, leaders must also have a
plan that systematically guides the implementation of an initiative or reform. Hall
and Hord (2001) provide an excellent overview of the principles and tools that make
up their Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) for school change. The three
main features of the CBAM are Innovation Configuration (IC), Stages of Concern
(SoC), and Levels of Use (LoU). Hall and Hord emphasize twelve principles
throughout the CBAM that promote a team approach to change, highlighting the
assertion that knowing what to change is only a small part of the equation. They
argue that knowing how to change is the fundamental feature of the change process.
Below is a summary of the CBAM.
● Innovation Configuration (IC): The IC establishes clarity on what the
expected innovation or reform is, what individuals are supposed to do during
its implementation, and what the innovation looks like at the ideal level of
implementation. The IC also prevents a common pitfall of school reform:
purchase materials, train teachers, and the innovation will be implemented
exactly as planned.
● Stages of Concern (SoC): The SoC measures what teachers think or feel
about the innovation, using seven stages of concern that range from
Awareness (where a teacher is merely becoming aware of the innovation
without any particular concern) to Refocusing (where there is deep reflection
about the universal benefits of the innovation).
83
● Levels of Use (LoU): The LoU determines the level and quality of the
innovation being implemented. There are eight levels of implementation,
ranging from Non-use (where there exists no evidence that the innovation in
question is being implemented) to Renewal (where the implementer re-
evaluates the quality of the innovation and seeks to modify it or seeks
alternatives to better meet the needs of students).
Accountability. The successful implementation of a reform depends, to a
large extent, on effective leadership practices, precise implementation protocol, and
systems for accountability. Bolman and Deal (2005) link accountability to the
Structural Frame, which is grounded on clear rules and expectations for both
individuals and groups. Collins (2001) links accountability to the hiring of
disciplined people, which eliminates the needs for hierarchy, bureaucracy, and
excessive controls. Hall and Hord (2001) advocate the LoU strand of the CBAM to
hold individuals or groups accountable for the implementation of an innovation.
A direct and effective form of accountability is found in systems that use data
to drive the decision-making process, such as in value-streams (Womack, Jones, &
Roos, 1990) and equity scorecards (Bensimon, 2004; Harris & Bensimon, 2007).
Value-streams is a form of analysis grounded in the Toyota Process System (TPS)
that describes how departments and divisions within an organization interact and
what processes they implement to identify effective and ineffective practices, while
pursuing organizational goals. Value-streams allow problems to be easily traced to
84
their root causes and dealt with immediately and effectively because quality control
is built into processes rather than into inspections at the end of production.
Stecher and Kirby (2004) and Finn (2002) contend that value-streams is
highly applicable to school systems, as the latter can create accountability measures,
outcomes, and process indicators to govern the collective activities of the entire
system (e.g., a school or school district). Thus, in the process of implementing an
initiative or reform, frequent assessments can help detect and correct
implementations problems in the process, rather than after the reform is poorly
implemented, and hold individual and groups immediately accountable for their
respective roles in the process.
Systems driven by data, such as equity scorecards, enable educators to learn
more about their school, pinpoint successes and challenges, identify areas of
improvement, and help evaluate the effectiveness of programs and practices (Datnow
et al., 2007). An example of a data-driven scorecard germane to K-12 education is
the Professional Responsibility Index (PRI), comprised of an annual score for
individual schools in a system based on several disaggregated indicators of
performance, including performance on standardized assessments, graduation rate,
and attendance (Foley, 2001).
The PRI compels schools to pay direct attention to the achievement of every
student. In Philadelphia, for example, the PRI was instituted as part of the
comprehensive reform effort Children Achieving and revealed an alarming inequity
in student performance outcomes across the district. The low achievement of English
85
language learners and minority, low-income, and disabled students, and the slow
pace of change, also served as pressures on the whole district to improve and forced
central office leaders to develop stronger signals to schools about reforming their
instructional practices (Foley, 2001).
Cultural Settings
The analysis of interview data revealed that among a number of staff
members, there was the presence of knowledge gaps related to district reforms,
school cultures, and the cultural backgrounds of different student populations.
According to Clark and Estes (2002), knowledge gaps are best addressed with four
knowledge enhancements: information, job aids, training, and education.
Information enhancements provide the most basic level of information or facts a
person needs to perform a task, such as being aware that one is responsible for
implementing a new reading program. Job aids, meanwhile, enhance information at
a slightly higher level than do information enhancements, for they ―…provide people
with recipes for achieving performance goals in a form that permits them to do it on
their own‖ (p. 58). Moreover, training (information and job aids combined)
provides ―how to‖ knowledge and skills through practice and corrective feedback to
achieve specific performance goals. Lastly, education is formal conceptual and
theoretical knowledge about what and how things happen. Each enhancement is
intended to address knowledge gaps at specific levels of knowledge deficiency.
Since the knowledge deficiencies in the RUSD concerning district reforms are
declarative (factual and conceptual) and procedural in nature, training is perhaps the
86
most appropriate knowledge enhancement to address gaps in the implementation of
district reforms. The knowledge literature review is comprised of (1) building
teacher capacity, (2) developing teacher efficacy, and (3) increasing cultural
proficiency.
Building teacher capacity. Training or professional development is defined
as a comprehensive, sustained, and intensive approach to improve one‘s
effectiveness in raising performance (Wei, Darling-Hammond, & Adamson, 2010)
and is, thus, considered a viable tool for capacity building (Colbert, Brown, Choi, &
Thomas, 2008). However, professional development comes in various forms, and
not all variations are necessarily effective. Wei and colleagues (2010), in the first
two of a three-phase study on professional development in the United States, have
found the following indicators in, what they suggest is, effective professional
development. First, professional development must focus on the specific material
that one is expected to learn. One can easily recall training sessions taking place in
schools with no students, where there are multiple coffee breaks, consultants in fancy
clothing, and participants veering from the agenda at will. To be impactful,
professional development must be focused, structured, and well-managed (Marchant,
2002). Second, professional development must be offered as a coherent part of a
whole school reform effort, with assessments, standards, and professional
development seamlessly linked. Participants should be able to visualize how a given
training connects to other pieces of the system, as when one is provided with a
sample of what one‘s performance should look like as a finished product (Hall &
87
Hord, 2001). Clark and Estes (2002) emphasize that training objectives should be
clearly linked to performance and organizational goals.
Third, professional development must be designed to engage teachers in
active learning that allows them to make sense of what they learned in meaningful
ways. That is, participants must be able to see the purpose and the value in the
training. Butler (1992) and Mariage and Garmon (2003) argue that professional
development must be translated into manageable and comprehensible strategies and
procedures to alter teaching practices in order to improve learning performance.
Fourth, professional development must be presented in an intensive, sustained, and
continuous manner over time, as ―professional development that is short, episodic,
and disconnected from practice has little impact‖ (Wei et al., 2010, p. 1). In other
words, one-day or infrequent trainings often sputter connections to performance, and
organizational goals quickly evaporate, producing little, if any, effect. By contrast,
long-term training has been proven to have meaningful and lasting effects, especially
as the trainings generate momentum and consistency over time. A case in point is
made by Cobb (2000), who found that among a sample of teachers who received
professional development over a period of years, there were more positive attitudes
toward school initiatives being implemented and more favorable perceptions of their
impact with each successive year of the training.
Finally, professional development must be supported by coaching, modeling,
observation, and feedback. Professional development must prepare participants to
make decisions congruent with expected performance objectives. This means
88
participants need to acquire and develop the ―how to‖ knowledge to perform tasks
independently. Moreover, with reference to teachers, Fearn and Farnan (2007)
contend that to enhance their knowledge and skills, teachers have to see what
effective instruction looks like in the classroom, with such living examples modeled
by colleagues with whom they can identify (i.e., other teachers). This position is
supported by research in learning and motivation theory that centers on learning
from examples, such the work of Atkinson, Derry, Renkl, and Wortham (2000),
which has shown increases in skill development when examples are modeled or
presented in close proximity to matched practice problems.
Yet, learning in any context, including trainings or professional development,
is inextricably tied to motivational factors. Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that
the knowledge and skills gap affecting individuals invariantly stifles their collective
motivation to implement innovations, become more aware of the cultural dynamics
of other schools in the district, and increase their knowledge concerning the cultural
backgrounds of their students. Clark and Estes (2002) argue that unmotivated
individuals tend to blame others for their poor performance, are indifferent to
change, and lack the direction, persistence, and energy to accomplish tasks. Thus,
efforts to build knowledge capacity related to district reforms and cultural settings
must include strategies to secure buy-in. Locke and Latham (2002) believe that
individual confidence is nurtured through assigning short-term, challenging, but
achievable goals; positive feedback; depersonalized corrective feedback; and
focusing on past successes. Clark and Estes (2002), on the other hand, contend that
89
buy-in is accomplished by increasing the utility of a task, incentives, positive mood,
and trust and fairness.
Developing teacher efficacy. Effective professional development supports
teachers in reflecting on and analyzing their own practice, while allowing them to
observe experts, as well as to be observed and receive feedback from experts
(Elmore, 2002a). During in-services, teachers should have opportunities to be
successful in using innovative instructional strategies. In-services can include work
sessions where teachers can receive clear and accurate feedback from experienced
staff, which will improve their self-efficacy when it comes to completing the task on
their own (Pintrich, 2003). The experienced staff can give corrective feedback on
the strategy instead of directing it toward the new teacher, and the administrators can
give positive feedback to the teachers for accomplishing challenging tasks to
increase their confidence (Clark & Estes, 2002). When the teachers have more
confidence in their abilities, they will engage in more meaningful learning, which
can result in improved performance when using the instructional strategies in their
own classrooms.
Furthermore, to maximize the impact of the in-service, the lead presenters
should be experienced teachers whom the staff views as relevant, credible, and
competent (Gredler, 2005). This allows teachers to observe one of their peers who
has mastered the instructional strategies, which can motivate them to change their
pedagogy by seeing someone similar to them who is now an expert (Onchwari &
Keengwe, 2008). According to Social Cognitive Theory, vicarious learning that uses
90
relevant, credible, and competent models can support teachers in capturing complex
skills that cannot be learned through enactive learning alone (Bandura, 1986).
Additionally, teacher experts can also be used as coping models to increase self-
efficacy (Schunk, et al., 2008). When teachers observe coping models who have
overcome feelings of anxiety and inadequacy and who are eventually able to
improve and succeed on the task, the observers become more confident in their
abilities because of the perceived similarity.
Through such in-services, a school district can increase teacher efficacy by
systematically allowing the staff to exchange knowledge about best practices (Cohen
et al., 2007). Moreover, Evers, Brouwers, and Tomic (2002) assert that collaboration
is the basis for effective reform implementation and that teacher-centered trainings
that focus on improving self-efficacy may increase teacher willingness to adopt
innovative instructional strategies, as well as reduce teacher burnout. Such
professional development can foster internal accountability, which is vital in the
school improvement process. Schools that possess an internal accountability
structure are likely to respond to reform implementation in a more effective and
consistent manner (Elmore, 2002a). Elmore also states that when teachers see what
is possible to do through the observation of other teachers, beliefs begin to change,
which fosters a practice of improvement.
Increasing cultural proficiency. Using the lens of Attribution Theory
(Weiner, 2005) described in Chapter 2, teachers who are less successful in teaching
English learners may be attributing their performance to the perceived stereotype that
91
English learners are apathetic. If a teacher believes this, he is less likely to take
responsibility for the instruction of English learners and more likely to punish them
and deny them assistance (Reyna, 2000). Such maladaptive attributions negatively
influence the teacher‘s future expectancies for the success of English learners.
On the other hand, the more adaptive pathway is a result of making
attributions to unstable, internal, and controllable causes (Reyna, 2000). For
example, if a teacher attributes failure to a lack of his own teaching effort, he is
taking responsibility and might expect to do better next time if he engages in more
culturally responsive teaching. Therefore, one solution to reach the desired level of
school reform implementation is to have teachers participate in attribution retraining.
Teachers who view instruction of English learners as unstable and achievable will be
more likely to persist at school-wide reform efforts. Moreover, teachers can develop
attributions that are more accurate by taking a scientific approach to evaluating
students and using multiple assessments to avoid attributional bias (Schunk et al.,
2008). Collecting data on a student and using data to inform teaching can help
teachers avoid making an ultimate attribution error, as well as increase teaching
efficacy due to more accurate feedback.
This is in line with Gallimore and Goldenberg‘s (2001) cultural models and
cultural settings framework, which offers an approach that values students‘ funds of
knowledge, moving away from the deficit explanation that blames unsuccessful
students and their families for their diverse backgrounds to the differences
explanation that recognizes variations in students‘ home settings. Gallimore and
92
Goldenberg define cultural models as shared mental schema of how the world works
and cultural settings as the contextual influences that can impact both teaching and
learning. The advantage of a models and settings analysis is that it forces a hard look
at the biases inherent in the context, or the structure of the school, and proposes ways
in which the school system can be transformed to meet the educational needs of
students and the pedagogical needs of teachers. Instead of attributing diversity to
deficiencies in the child, an accountable educator can apply cultural models and
settings to inform their instructional methods and evaluation procedures. To
transform schools, educators must acknowledge that what they expect or assume as
models and settings are not shared universally. Tapping into student experience
makes learning more meaningful by validating a student‘s identity and expands the
opportunities to learn, as well as the opportunities to teach.
In a similar manner, Bennett‘s (2001) model for ethnic identity development
suggests that schools take into consideration minority youth‘s cultural histories and
coping strategies in response to societal oppression and reflect on how they are
manipulated for placement in English Language Development classes. Fostering a
cultural model of teaching that moves beyond stereotypical notions about minority
youth is one solution to help teachers become more effective in the classroom by
engaging them in high expectations for all students. According to Bennett, if
teachers have high expectations for minority youth, then their sense of teaching
efficacy in relation to teaching students from diverse backgrounds is increased. As a
93
result, when teachers are confident in their professional capacity, they are more
likely to persist at school-wide reform activities.
Summary of Recommendations
The following recommendations stem from a thorough analysis of both
seminal and burgeoning perspectives in knowledge, motivation, and organizational
literature. These recommendations take into account several prevalent themes found
throughout the school district, such as decentralized practices and the unmet
academic needs of English learners. If implemented strategically with moral
conviction, these recommendations can guide district leaders in meeting performance
goals at both high schools by maximizing the impact of district reform efforts. A
summary table of the following recommendations can be found in Appendix G.
Goals
Creating C
3
goals. In order for the C
3
work goals to have the most impact,
they must first be aligned to the overall organizational goal (Clark & Estes, 2002).
The Rowland Unified School District can clarify how short-term work goals support
the longer-term context of school reform (Leithwood et al., 2002). For example, at
NHS and RHS, classroom goals (work goals) can be created that feed into the Three
Essential Priorities for Teaching and Learning (intermediate goals) and into the
RUSD‘s mission (global goal) so that school reform initiatives are made relevant to
classroom teachers. Thus, with clear expectations and opportunities to succeed,
teacher motivation and engagement can thrive (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), which
would benefit effective reform implementation.
94
Fostering communication. Johnston (2002) suggests that principals can
play a strategic role in encouraging teachers to be full participants of school-wide
reform efforts. As a way to begin this discussion, Johnston recommends that NHS
and RHS create a visual representation of the current reform strategies and their
relationships, naming programs or units, with their primary features listed beneath,
and drawing a circle around each. Then, lines representing established or potential
relationships would be drawn between the programs.
By drawing parallels between policy and improving student outcomes,
teacher motivation can be increased (Leithwood et al., 2002). The visual
representation may help key players at NHS and RHS better understand their role
within the reform movement, as well as strategize prospective interactions that could
drive implementation. Making roles and relationships concrete and clear can
facilitate buy-in and understanding, especially at the secondary setting, which can
lead to a higher level of reform implementation.
Reinforcing teacher commitment. When teachers have feelings of
belonging and trust, they are more likely to internalize and implement school reform
goals (Henkin & Holliman, 2009). Some suggestions to build a supportive
community across both high schools at the RUSD include acknowledging teachers
for their good work, inviting teachers‘ input on school decisions, providing a forum
for teachers to admire each other‘s work, and informing the school community of
teachers‘ involvement in the school‘s achievements (Leithwood et al., 2002).
Through the celebration of accomplishments, teachers at both NHS and RHS can
95
become more cohesive as they witness the RUSD‘s overall values being consistently
and equitably reinforced. Teacher efficacy and task value are positively impacted by
such feedback (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998), which are instrumental to achieving
the desired level of reform implementation.
Implementation and Accountability
Leadership. First, district leaders must create a context for change by
accessing and practicing proven principles of effective leadership, such as those
found in the Four-Frame Leadership Model (Bolman & Deal, 2008) and those
espoused by the Build-up, Breakthrough, Flywheel Model (Collins, 2001). These
principles must form part of the institutional culture to impact change and be
integrated within the district‘s vision and set of organizational expectations. In
accord with such principles, the RUSD can implement the Gap Analysis Process
Model (Clark & Estes, 2002) to identify the root causes behind the gap in the use of
uniformed leadership principles. Solutions to address the root causes of this
particular performance gap can then be identified and implemented via professional
development, motivational activities, or organizational processes, under the
guidelines and principles of the Four-Frame Leadership and the Build-up,
Breakthrough, Flywheel models.
Narrowing the focus. Second, the RUSD must narrow the organizational
focus. Schools and districts that are successful in raising student achievement do a
few things well and maintain a consistent focus over a period of years (Au &
Valencia, 2010). This is achievable by reducing or merging the number of initiatives
96
currently under implementation. For example, the school district can coordinate
value-streams (Finn, 2002; Stecher & Kirby, 2004; Womack et al., 1990) around the
Three Essential Priorities or, more specifically, the needs of English learners, to
narrow its focus and maximize reform implementation efforts. Given that the
academic performance of English learners is, for all intents and purposes, what
currently prevents the school district in general and several schools in particular from
meeting external performance benchmarks like API and AYP, it seems logical that at
least one solution to this student performance gap is to focus exclusively on meeting
the academic needs of English learners. The RUSD should prioritize the
implementation of the English Learner Master Plan (ELMP), making it the
centerpiece of all district reform initiatives. All or most of the resources currently
invested in professional development (e.g., Communities of Practice, instructional
walks, Professional Leaning Communities, etc.) and other district activities should be
concentrated on the needs of English learners and the implementation of the ELMP.
Filtering and sequencing district resources and activities through this narrowed lens
will make organizational goals more realistic, while avoiding reform overload
(Foley, 2001) with scattered, inconsistent, and ultimately ineffective efforts (Clark &
Estes, 2002).
Implementation. Third, the district needs to establish a clear and consistent
protocol to guide the implementation of reforms. A coordinated effort to monitor
implementation of a given reform (e.g., the ELMP) can prevent a common pitfall of
school reform: purchase materials, train teachers, and innovation will be
97
implemented exactly as planned. Very often, judgments are made about the relative
success or failure of a reform, without any effort to document whether or not it is in
fact being implemented as intended in the classroom (Hall & Hord, 2001). Hall and
Hord argue that knowing what to change is only a small part of the equation;
knowing how to change is the real key. For example, if the district elects to focus
reforms efforts on English learners, it can develop implementation protocol for the
ELMP, using the principles of Hall and Hord‘s (2001) CBAM as the blueprint for
implementation. To implement the ELMP at its highest level (or the implementation
of any of the district‘s other reforms), district leaders need to clearly and effectively
communicate the goals and expectations associated with it, consider the impact on
personnel responsible for its implementation, and consistently monitor and assess its
implementation. In line with the CBAM, the district can take the following steps to
implement the ELMP.
● Innovation Configuration (IC): Clearly communicate what the ELMP is,
what it looks like at its ideal level of implementation, and specify the role of
each person responsible for its implementation.
● Stages of Concern (SoC): As the ELMP is being implemented, conduct
surveys to measure concerns among staff members regarding the
implementation of the ELMP. Determine the level of concerns (awareness,
information, personal, management, consequence, collaboration, and
refocusing), and address concerns according to their respective level. For
instance, coordinate professional development through Communities of
98
Practice or Professional Learning Communities to address the specific
concern(s) among staff members.
● Level of Implementation (LoI): Have district- and school-level teams measure
the actual implementation on a scale that ranges from no implementation to
full implementation. For example, monthly progress reports on district- and
school-level implementation can be part of the agenda at Instructional
Cabinet meetings. Also, instructional walks can exclusively center on or
include the various components of the ELMP. Additionally, administrative
classroom observations can be conducted daily to monitor fidelity to the
instructional expectations of the ELMP. Moreover, the district can
coordinate two annual district-level symposiums to report on the needs and
progress of English learners via the implementation of the ELMP. A
symposium for all schools can take place at the beginning of the school year
to give schools the opportunity to present their specific plans to address the
needs of English learners via the implementation of the ELMP. A second
symposium for all schools can take place at the end of the school year for all
schools to present their respective accomplishments related to English
learners and the implementation of the ELMP.
Accountability. Fourth, the RUSD must commit to instituting data-driven
accountability measures to guarantee that current reforms are fully implemented.
Such accountability can be accomplished through structural management methods
that clearly delineate rules and expectations, value-streaming of schools or
99
departments to assess the effectiveness of district processes (Finn, 2002; Stecher &
Kirby, 2004; Womack et al., 1990), or a local version of the PRI to assess the impact
of school and district practices on student performance (Foley, 2001). Using English
learners as the narrowed focus and the ELMP as the innovation being implemented,
the district can use an accountability scorecard (Bensimon, 2004; Harris &
Bensimon, 2007) such as the PRI to hold itself, schools, and individuals accountable
for expectations related to organizational goals, the focus on English learners, and
the implementation of the ELMP. In the case of schools, the PRI can include three
sets of indicators for each school: Student Data, School Reform Implementation
Data, and Interventions. Student Data may include performance data on the CSTs,
graduation rate, attendance, and course failure rate among the EL subgroup. School
Reform Implementation Data can include level of reform implementation (e.g., data
from the CBAM). Interventions may include the specific steps a school is taking to
close performance gaps among staff members, steps such as professional
development opportunities for groups or individuals, percentage of performance
improvement plans among staff members, or other efforts that clearly demonstrate
that implementation of the ELMP is being addressed at the individual level.
The use of data is instrumental in determining whether or not school practices
are having their intended impact on student outcomes (Datnow et al., 2007) and
holds schools, departments, and individuals accountable for their performance
(Foley, 2001). Accountability is essential in meeting the educational needs of all
students, especially in educational settings where autonomy is highly regarded.
100
Without data, it is difficult to have accountability. Without accountability, the
educational needs of students, such as English learners, will continue to be
disregarded.
Cultural Settings
Building teacher capacity. In structuring learning activities to increase the
knowledge among staff members as it relates to district reforms, school culture, and
the cultural backgrounds of students, leaders in the RUSD must do so with
consideration of the motivational nuances that may affect the level and quality of the
expected learning. Specifically, district and site leaders can take the following steps
to optimize the knowledge capacity. First, clearly communicate the reform‘s goals
and expectations (Bolman & Deal, 2008) via print and electronic media (e.g.,
newsletters, flyers, posters, and emails) and via presentations to staff members so
that the knowledge of the reforms is common and consistent district-wide (Marzano,
2003). Second, ensure that all professional development activities related to district
reforms link training objectives to organizational goals and are sustained over the
course of an extended period of time (Wei et al., 2010). For example, the RUSD can
use the ELMP as the umbrella to guide all assessments, standards, and professional
development so that teachers can visualize how a given training connects to other
pieces of the system (Hall & Hord, 2001).
Developing teacher efficacy. To set the context of the professional
development, the RUSD can choose an experienced teacher to be one of the lead
presenters, alongside the outside consultant, to model English learner instructional
101
strategies. This allows teachers to observe one of their peers who has mastered the
instructional strategies, which can motivate them to change their pedagogy by seeing
someone similar to them who is now an expert (Onchwari & Keengwe, 2008). To
maximize the impact of the in-service delivery, when selecting lead presenters, the
district should consider teacher leaders who are viewed by the staff as relevant,
credible, and competent (Gredler, 2005). Another recommendation would be for the
RUSD to incorporate work sessions during the in-services, where teachers can
receive clear and accurate feedback from experienced staff, which would improve
their self-efficacy when it comes to completing the task on their own (Pintrich,
2003). Overall, teacher-centered trainings that focus on improving self-efficacy may
increase teacher persistence at reform implementation, as well as reduce teacher
burnout (Evers et al., 2002).
Increasing cultural proficiency. One recommendation to reach the desired
level of school reform implementation is to have teachers at NHS and RHS
participate in attribution retraining. According to Reyna (2000), teachers striving
toward cultural proficiency are the ones who are making attributions to unstable,
internal, and controllable causes. For example, if a teacher attributes low EL
achievement to a lack of his own teaching effort, he is taking responsibility and
might expect to do better next time if he incorporates more EL instructional
strategies into his lessons. Additionally, if teachers have high expectations for
minority youth, then their sense of teaching efficacy in relation to teaching students
from diverse backgrounds is increased (Bennett, 2001). As a result, when teachers
102
are confident in their professional capacity with regard to their cultural setting, they
are more likely to persist at school-wide reform activities.
Implications to Professional Practice
The challenges faced by the leadership in the RUSD may at times be complex
and daunting. Nonetheless, the leadership does have at its disposal a variety of
resources that, if utilized properly, can be instrumental in managing the
organizational vision (Bennis & Goldsmith, 2003), the needs of employees (Webb &
Norton, 2009), and limited resources during the implementation of district reforms,
in light of the district‘s political realities (Houston, 2001).
One of the guiding principles in managing change is the understanding that
change is a process, not an event (Hall & Hord, 2001). Hence, as the above
recommendations are targeted on the organizational level for the RUSD, progress
will not be achieved quickly, and substantial growth may not be visible for years.
Staying the course over a period of time on a select set of recommendations will be
more impactful than continuously searching for quick fixes to shortcomings
occasioned or enabled by institutional practices that require Horizon 2 reforms –
reforms that pursue deep, long-term changes to the culture of an organization
(Fullan, 2001). Therefore, an effective and responsive leadership team is needed to
promote a system-wide learning model that is encouraging and flexible, yet
consistent in guiding the change process. Most of all, it is essential for the RUSD to
regularly evaluate its improvement efforts and act on their realities by making the
103
necessary corrections so that school reform implementation continues to positively
impact student achievement (Clark & Estes, 2002).
104
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational
objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., & Behre, W. J. (1999). Unowned places and times: Maps
and interviews about violence in high schools. American Educational
Research Journal, 36(1), 3-42.
Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merril, M. M. (2003). Transition from studying
examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading
worked-out examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 774-783.
Au, K. H., & Valencia, S. W. (2010). Fulfilling the potential of standards-based
education: Promising policy principles. Language Arts, 87(5).
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a
law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
educational research, 71(2), 171-217.
Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, J. (2003) Learning to lead (4
th
ed.). New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to
institutional change. Change, 36(1), 45–52.
Blossfeld, H.-P., & Shavit, Y. (1993). Persisting barriers: Changes in educational
opportunities in thirteen countries. In Y. Shavit & H.-P. Blossfeld (Eds.),
Persistent inequality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
105
Borman, G. D. (2005). National efforts to bring reform to scale in high-poverty
schools: Outcomes and implications. Review of Research in Education, 29, 1-
27. Retrieved January 23, 2010, from
http://www.aera.net/publications/?id=320
Butler, J. A. (1992). Staff development. NW Archives. Regional Educational
Laboratory. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from
http://www.nwrel.org/archives/sirs/6/cu12.html
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved January 12, 2010, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/index.asp
Cambone, J. (1995). Time for teachers in school restructuring. Teachers College
Record, 96(3), 1-32.
Carter, C. S. (2001). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty
Schools. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.
Clark, R. E. (2009). Resistance to change: Unconscious knowledge and the challenge
of unlearning. In D. C. Berliner & H. Kupermintz (Eds.), Changing
Institutions, Environments and People (pp. 75-94). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting
the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Cobb, J. (2000). The impact of a professional development school on preservice
teacher preparation and children‘s achievement: Perceptions of inservice
teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 22(3), 64-76.
Cohen, D. K., Moffitt, S. L., & Goldin, S. (2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma.
American Journal of Education, 113, 515-548. doi:10.1086/518487
Colbert, J.A., Brown, R.S., Choi, S., & Thomas, S. (2008). An investigation of the
impact of teacher-driven professional development on pedagogy and student
learning. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 135-154.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others
don’t. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No Child Left Behind and high school reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 642-667.
106
Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Ort S. W. (2002). Reinventing high school:
outcomes of the Coalition Campus Schools Project. American Educational
Research Journal, 39(3), 639-673.
Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in
changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly,
41(1), 121-155.
Datnow, A., Borman, G. D., Stringfield, S., Overman, L. T., & Castellano, M.
(2003). Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse
contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational
Education and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 143-170.
Datnow, A., Park, V. & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-
performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary
students. Center on Educational Governance. Los Angeles, CA: University
of Southern California, Rossier School of Education. Retrieved June
13, 2009, from http://newschools.org/about/publications/achieving-with-data
Edmonds, R. R. (1981). Search for effective schools. Unpublished report prepared
for NIE. East Lansing, MI: The Institute for Research on Teaching, College
of Education, Michigan State University.
Elmore, R. F. (2002a). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/Bridging_Gap.pdf
Elmore, R. F. (2002b). Testing trap: The single largest – and possibly most
destructive – federal intrusion into America‘s public schools. Harvard
Magazine, 105(1), 35-37, 97.
Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: A
study on teachers‘ beliefs when implementing an innovative educational
system in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,
227-243.
Fearn, L., & Farnan, N. (2007). The influence of professional development on young
writers‘ writing performance. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 17-28.
107
Finn, C. E., Jr. (2002). Real accountability in K–12 Education: The marriage of Ted
and Alice. In W. M. Evers and H. J. Walberg (Eds.), School Accountability:
An Assessment by the Koret Task Force on K–12 Education. Stanford, CA:
The Hoover Institution.
Foley, E. (2001). Contradictions and control in systemic reform: The ascendancy of
the central office in Philadelphia schools. Madison, WI: Consortium for
Policy Research in Education.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and
potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Harris, F. III, & Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The equity scorecard: A collaborative
approach to assess and respond to racial/ethnic disparities in student
outcomes. Wiley Inter-Science, 120.
Holland, N. E., & Farmer-Hinton, R. L. (2009). Leave no schools behind: The
importance of a college culture in urban public high schools. High School
Journal, 92(3), 24-43.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research.
Educational Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
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, California:
Corwin Press.
Gonida, E. N., Voulala, K., & Kiosseoglou, G. (2009). Students' achievement goal
orientations and their behavioral and emotional engagement: Co-examining
the role of perceived school goal structures and parent goals during
adolescence. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 53-60.
Gonzalez, N. (2005). Beyond culture: The hybridity of funds of knowledge. In N.
Gonzalez, L. C. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing
practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 29-46). Mahwah,
NJ: Eribaum.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and
potholes. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
108
Hanushek, E. A. (2007). The role of education quality in economic growth. (Policy
Research Working Paper No. 4122). Washington DC: World Bank.
Henkin, A. B., & Holliman, S. L. (2009). Urban teacher commitment: Exploring
associations with organizational conflict, support for innovation, and
participation. Urban Education, 44(2), 160-180.
Johnston, B. J. (2002). Absent from school: Educational policy and comprehensive
reform. The Urban Review, 34(3), 205-230. Retrieved January 23, 2010,
from www.csa.com
Karoly, L. A., & Panis, C. W. A. (2004). The 21
st
century at work: Forces
shaping the future workforce and workplace in the United States. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved June 12, 2009, from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG164/
Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficieny under the No
Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational
Researcher, 34(8), 3-13
Kirst, M. W. (2004). The turning points: A history of American school governance.
In N. Epstein (Ed.), Who’s in charge here? (p. 14-41). Education
Commission of the States.
Lee, V. E., & Ready, D. D. (2009). U. S. high school curriculum: Three phases of
contemporary research and reform. The Future of Children, 19(1), 135-156.
Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers'
motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 38(1), 94-119. Retrieved March 17, 2010, fromwww.csa.com
Linn, R. L. (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. Los Angeles, CA:
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Retrieved September 28, 2008, from
http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/policy/cresst_policy8.pdf
Lipson, M., Mosenthal, J., Mekkelsen, J., & Russ, B. (2004). Building knowledge
and fashioning success one school at a time. The Reading Teacher, 57(6),
534-542.
Marchant, G.J. (2002). Professional development schools and indicators of student
achievement. The Teacher Educator, 38(2), 112-125.
109
Mariage, T.V., & Garmon, A. M. (2003). A case for educational change: Improving
student achievement through a school-university partnership. Remedial and
Special Education, 24(4), 215-234.
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2
nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Mortimer, R. (2008). Mary Parker Follet and management theory: Pioneer in
psychology and industrial management. Retrieved June 14, 2010, from
http://businessmanagement.suite101.com/article.cfm/mary_parker_follett_an
d_management_theory
Murphy, J., & Beck, L. (1995). School-based management as school reform: Taking
stock. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) Summary Data Tables. Washington DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved January 15, 2010, from
http://nces.edu.gov/nationsreportcard
Nogales High School, School Accountability Report Card. (2009). Retrieved March
12, 2010, from http://www.nhs.rowland.k12.ca.us/
Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, Office of the Provost. (n.d.). Is your
project human subjects research? A guide for investigators. University of
Southern California.
Onchwari, G., & Keengwe, J. (2008). The impact of a mentor-coaching model on
Teacher professional development. Early Childhood Education Journal,
36(1), 19-24.
Packer, J. (2004, July 28). No Child Left Behind and adequate yearly progress
fundamental flaws: A forecast for failure. Paper presented at the Center for
Education Policy Forum on Ideas to Improve the Accountability Provisions,
Washington, D. C.
Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of
learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4),
227-241.
Patton, Q. M. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
110
PEW Institute (2008). U.S. population projections: 2005-2050. Retrieved January
15, 2010, from http://pewsocialtrends.org/pub/703population-projections-
united-states
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94(4), 667-686.
R-30 Report. (2009). Rowland Unified School District.
Reyna, C. (2000). Lazy, dumb, or industrious: When stereotypes convey attribution
information in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 85-110.
Rowland High School, School Accountability Report Card. (2009). Retrieved March
12, 2010, from http://www.rhs.rowland.k12.ca.us/
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic
definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25,
54-67.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education:
Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policy-makers
and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2),
141-179.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational
Review, 67(1), 1-40.
Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
behind. Retrieved January 14, 2009 from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/whitepapers/wp138/wp138.pdf
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability:
Lessons for education from other sectors. Santa Monica, CA: Rand
Corporation.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY:
Harper & Brothers Publishers.
111
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy:
Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
Tucci, T. N. (2009). Prioritizing the nation’s dropout factories: The need for
federal policy that targets the lowest-performing high schools. Washington,
D.C.: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from
http://www.all4ed.org/files/PrioritizingLowestPerformingSchools.pdf
Webb, L. D., & Norton, M. S. (2009). Human resources administration: Personnel
issues and needs in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional
development in the United States: Trends and challenges, phase II of a three-
phase study. The Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
National Staff Development Council.
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attributional perspective and the social
psychology of perceived competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.),
Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 73-84). New York: Guilford
Press.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement
motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
Womack, J. P., Jones, D.T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the
world: The story of lean production. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Wong, K., & Myer, S. (2001). Title I schoolwide programs as an alternative to
categorical practices: An organizational analysis of surveys from the
Prospects study. In G. D. Borman, S. C. Stringfield, & R. E. Slavin (Eds.),
Title I: Compensatory education at the crossroads (pp. 195-234). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
112
Appendix A:
Alternative Capstone Project Timeline
Summer 2009
Summer Conference to Preview Thematic Dissertation Group Options
Fall 2009
Inquiry Team Formation
District Context of Need
Understanding District Priorities
Narrowing Inquiry Focus
Spring 2010
Exploring Root Causes
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Summer 2010
Identification of Performance Gaps and their Root Causes
Development of Findings and Root Causes Executive Summary
Fall 2010
Preliminary Presentation of Root Causes Executive Summary to the District
Presentation of Recommendations/Considerations to the District
Spring 2011
Presentation of Recommendations/Considerations to the School Board
113
Appendix B:
The Seven Steps of Gap Analysis
114
Appendix C:
Information Sheet
115
Appendix D:
Interview Protocols
Scanning Interview
Introduction
Thank you for taking time to talk with me today and also allowing me to
record the interview. This is an opportunity for you to share your views
on the district‘s reform efforts as they relate to making the two high
schools effective. We will spend about 45 minutes together. Your
comments will be helpful, and we want to assure you that we will not
quote or attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC team.
Behavior/
Experiences
Knowledge/Skills
Opinion/Values
To begin, could you share with me your view of the performance status of
the two high schools?
What are the strengths of each school?
What are the major challenges at each school?
What is being done about it?
Would you consider the situation to be a "problem" -- in what
sense?
Behavior/
Experiences
Knowledge/Skills
Opinion/Values
In recent years (5-10 years), what reform efforts have been implemented
to address the challenges at the high schools?
What was the process in selecting these reforms?
How would you describe the level of implementation to date of
the reforms?
Was there any success with these reforms?
Do they continue to this day or what happened?
Behavior/
Experiences
Knowledge/Skills
Opinion/Values
Are there any formal or informal school or district goals to make the high
schools highly effective?
What is the goal of this effort?
How does the district envision the high schools to be?
What do you aspire to?
What is the timeframe for accomplishing these goals?
What criteria are used as indicators of progress towards these
goals?
How will you or the district know if it is successful?
Do different role groups have different goals for this effort?
How far are the schools from achieving these goals (where you
are now and where do you aspire to be)?
Opinion/Values
What do you believe is keeping the schools from being highly effective
(gap between where you are now and "perfect" success)?
Is this problem linked to one or many role groups?
What do you believe has led to this?
Do you believe these role groups have the knowledge,
motivation, and resources to perform effectively?
Opinion/Values
Lastly, what do you believe the team should explore or do to gain a better
understanding of the high schools' current performance?
116
Stages of Concern
Introduction
Thank you for taking time to talk with me today and also allowing me to
record the interview. This is an opportunity for you to share your views
on the district‘s reform efforts as they relate to making the two high
schools effective. We will spend about 15-25 minutes together. Your
comments will be helpful, and we want to assure you that we will not
quote or attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC team.
Behavior/
Experiences
What are some things you are doing in your classroom to address the
needs of English learners?
Feelings/Emotions How is it going?
Knowledge/Skills
What does it take to make this intervention a successful one?
Opinion/Values
What do you see as the pros and cons for your own involvement in the
instruction of English learners?
Knowledge/Skills
What are the measures of success?
Opinion/Values
What is your opinion on having an ELL Lead Teacher?
Behavior/
Experiences
What is your role in working with the ELL Lead Teacher?
Probes
Tell me what you mean by…
Give me an example of…
117
One-Month Interview
Introduction
Thank you for taking time to talk with me today and also allowing me to
record the interview. This is an opportunity for you to share your views
on the district‘s reform efforts as they relate to making the two high
schools effective. We will spend about 30-45 minutes together. Your
comments will be helpful, and we want to assure you that we will not
quote or attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC team.
Knowledge/Skills
Tell me about the district's Three Essential Priorities for Teaching and
Learning.
Behaviors/
Experiences
During the past month, what were your classroom goals related to first
instruction/English Learner instruction?
Knowledge/Skills
Behaviors/
Experiences
Did this require certain strategies? Can you tell me about them?
Knowledge/Skills
Opinion/Values
How were these strategies determined?
Opinions/Values
Feelings/Emotions
What was the outcome of these strategies?
118
Appendix E:
Innovation Configuration Map
Circle: NHS or RHS
Dimension High Medium Low
Challenges &
Concerns
No serious obstacle
or challenge
Staff focused on
improving full use of
reform and its impact
on student
performance
Common
commitment to
approach
Some obstacles
and/or challenges
to implementation
Staff focused on
thoughts and
actions needed to
improving reform
Majority of staff
showing
commitment to
approach
Serious external
obstacles to
implementation
Staff focused on
whether approach
to reform is best
design or is feasible
Possible strong
disagreement about
best direction
Fully
Implemented
in Practice
Full implementation
of all components of
the reform across the
school
Best practices have
been established and
are communicated in
a coordinated manner
Practice is reflected
in policy and
procedures
Uneven and/or
inconsistent
implementation of
the reform across
the school
Best practices are
being collected,
with plans for
communicating
these across the
school
Possibly some
good ideas about
the implementation
of the reform
Little actual
implementation of
the reform beyond
minimal
bureaucratic
requirements
Common
Culture:
Data,
Reflection,
and
Continuous
Improvement
Extensive use of data
and reflection about
the reform: its design,
implementation, and
effectiveness in
supporting student
achievement
Common and clear
expectations across
the school
Extensive work on
continuous
improvement
Use of data and
reflection guides
decisions about the
reform
Expectations
communicated
across the school
Moderately
effective
continuous
improvement
efforts
Little common
understanding of
the reform
Little or no data
collection
regarding reform
Little or no
reflection about
how to improve
implementation of
reform
Sustainable
Use:
Resources,
Staff,
Regularization
Strong possibility of
sustainability
Strong and ongoing
staff and fiscal
resource commitment
Shared expertise and
capacity building
Inclusion in regular
way the school
operates
Moderate
possibility of
sustainability
Moderate staff and
fiscal resource
commitment
District support and
expertise
Very tenuous
approach to
implementation of
reform
Little chance of
sustainability in
terms of staffing,
resources, or
regularized patterns
119
Appendix F:
Root Causes Executive Summary
Background
Despite the accountability measures of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB), and the many accountability provisions found in state and federal policies,
establishing parity in educational access, academic performance, and educational
attainment among all student groups remains elusive. The Rowland Unified School
District (RUSD), which serves a predominantly ethnic minority student population,
has responded to these external pressures with three reform efforts designed to
support good instruction, enhance learning at the elementary and middle school
levels for Latino students, and make its two high schools highly effective in both
perception and reality.
Purpose
The current dissertation project was undertaken by a three-person project
team that followed a consulting model. The RUSD requested that the project team
analyze the implementation of its three reforms—Partnership with the Ball
Foundation, English Learner Instructional Support Leads, and Three Essential
Priorities—at the district‘s two high schools, Nogales (NHS) and Rowland (RHS).
The two major goals of this project were the following: (1) determine if there exist
current gaps in the implementation of the three district reforms; (2) if performance
gaps are identified, provide the RUSD with a set of recommendations based on
scholarly research that addresses the root causes of these performance gaps.
120
Gap Analysis
For this project, the Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis model was the most
viable among several available process models designed to assist organizations such
as school districts improve their performance. The principles of the gap analysis
model focus on goals, performance gaps, and solutions.
Goals
The gap analysis model emphasizes alignment of goals at the global,
intermediate, and performance levels. A global goal provides a vision for the
organization, is broad in scope, and may take years to accomplish (e.g., a school
district‘s mission statement). An intermediate goal is moderate in scope and may
take weeks or months to accomplish (e.g., a curriculum unit plan for a reading
program). A performance goal is narrow in scope and may take hours or days to
accomplish (e.g., a classroom reading lesson).
Gaps and Roots
To determine a performance gap between the current level of performance
and the standard level of performance (goal), the present level of performance is
subtracted from the standard or desired goal. For instance, to learn if a district-wide
reading program is being implemented at the desired level, one would examine the
current level of implementation and subtract it from the desired level of
implementation. From this precise problem statement, a thorough analysis of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers follows to determine if one or
more of these barriers is associated with a gap in performance (e.g., the
121
implementation of a reading program at a low level). Because of its systematic
approach, the gap analysis model is useful in identifying and targeting the root
causes of performance gaps. For example, an analysis on the implementation of the
reading program could reveal that a lack of motivation among staff members is
impeding the implementation of the program at its ideal level.
Interventions
It follows that the identification of performance gaps and their root causes
can lead to interventions to address the performance gaps. In the above example, a
school not implementing the district-wide reading program at the desired level may
discover through gap analysis that one of the causes behind the program‘s limited
implementation is the presence of a motivation gap among staff members. A
possible intervention to address this deficiency is to implement a series of school-
wide activities to motivate staff members. The school may also discover that there
exists a motivation gap related to the reading program among district-level
personnel, a gap which must first be addressed and closed before addressing and
closing the motivation gap among staff members at the school sites. In either case,
knowing the root causes of current gaps in performance is fundamental in generating
effective interventions.
Inquiry Process
For this project, the gap analysis process model (Clark & Estes, 2002) served
as the framework for authentic institutional problem-solving. The gap analysis
model was useful in identifying and targeting performance gaps that stemmed from a
122
lack of knowledge and skills, a lack of motivation, and/or a lack of organizational
resources and effective processes. From the outset of the project, the team‘s efforts
focused on developing mutual trust and open communication with the school
district. The team affirmed institutional areas of strength to build on this trust,
genuinely recognizing the district‘s current school reform efforts. The team
discussed general performance gaps in student academic performance at the two high
schools and conveyed the rationale for using the gap analysis model to analyze the
implementation of district reforms intended to close such performance gaps. The
team emphasized that although the gap analysis model is theoretically sound, it
requires several cycles in order to completely close or eliminate performance gaps.
To measure the current level of reform implementation, the project team
reviewed existing district documents (Strategic Plan, WASC Reports, Single Action
Plan for Student Achievement, School Accountability Report Cards, etc.) and spoke
with twenty-three staff members from the school district and the two high schools
who had some level of responsibility for the implementation of one or more of the
three district reforms.
Findings
In its efforts to meet state and federal benchmarks for student performance,
the RUSD has adopted two organizational goals: (1) make its two high schools
highly effective and (2) implement district-wide reforms—e.g. the Ball Foundation,
ELIS Lead, and the Three Essential Priorities. This alternative capstone project
focused primarily on the current level of implementation of district reforms. The
123
review of existing documents and the conversations with staff members revealed
several positive findings and emergent themes. More importantly, however, the
conversations revealed that while currently some performance goals are being met
toward the implementation of district reforms, many other performance goals have
not been made clear or have not been identified and, therefore, are not being met.
Barriers within the four emergent themes, associated with knowledge, motivation,
and organizational processes and resources, appear to be responsible for the low to
moderate level of implementation of district reforms thus far.
Positive Activities
The team recognizes that the RUSD has established a remarkable culture of
educational excellence, as evidenced by its many successful schools and programs,
including 4 National Blue Ribbon Schools, 16 California Distinguished Schools, and
multiple Golden Bell awards. To build on this excellence, the RUSD has taken
initiative to build school capacity to enhance student achievement. For instance, the
district has created the Executive Cabinet, Instructional Cabinet, and Instructional
Leadership Teams to align resources and improve reform implementation. As a
result, several staff members reported higher levels of teacher collaboration within
both schools. A case in point is the recent learning walks. Following a learning
walk at NHS, a central office administrator commented, "The learning walks have
generated awareness of practices among staff district-wide. In the process, we hope
that they will help dispel negative perceptions [about NHS]."
124
Additionally, the team learned that the district‘s high level of performance in its
exceptional programs is complemented by a generally positive disposition towards
NHS, RHS, and the district among many staff members. For example, it was shared
by several staff members that RHS has built a culture of professionalism and high
expectations among the staff. "The staff is like a family, with high expectations and
professionalism," said one respondent. Asked what has been the key to much of the
success at the school, several staff members replied that it was the level of
professionalism and the way things operate at the school. Additionally, many staff
members at both high schools reported that they feel supported by the school district.
Emergent Themes
During the initial conversation with district personnel, four emergent themes
appeared prevalent in the dynamics of the district‘s organizational culture—themes
that were reinforced during subsequent conversations with other district-level and
school personnel. The four emergent themes are the perception that NHS is not a
good school; absence of clear and measurable goals, particularly performance goals;
English learners; and decentralization.
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Perceptions
A majority of the conversations with staff members indicated that there is a
perception that NHS is not a good school, given its academic performance, physical
appearance, and composition of its student body population. A similar perception,
though to a much lesser extent, was found about RHS. According to several staff
members, it is believed among some students, parents, and community leaders that
125
students will receive a better education in a neighboring district. At NHS, however,
concerns about the appearance of the school campus seem to hinder teacher
efficacy. Staff members might not be participating fully in reform efforts because
they believe that the physical appearance of their school is symbolic of the school‘s
sub-par status in the district. Also, with respect to resources, it was a common theme
expressed that the district does not have the sufficient financial resources to assist
NHS with the personnel it needs to make the school more effective. ―There is
nothing to help a school like ours get the personnel we need to make this school
student-centered. The district has some say, but they are bound by contract,‖ said
one staff member. It was expressed that the lack of resources constitutes a lack of
mandate for staff members to effectively connect with and engage students in the
process of learning. Additionally, several respondents indicated that district
administrators perpetuate the perception that Nogales is a "ghetto" school by failing
to provide it the support needed to improve the school‘s physical appearance.
Furthermore, the team learned from a number of conversations that some
district processes and the limitation of resources also contribute to the perception that
NHS lacks effectiveness, resulting in partial implementation of reforms. The most
notable of these practices is open enrollment. At the high school level, this practice
allows high-achieving students from NHS to enroll at RHS to prevent these students
from transferring to neighboring school districts (e.g., Walnut Valley Unified School
District). According to a number of district and school personnel, open enrollment
has resulted in a mass exodus of Asian students from NHS to RHS. This exodus, in
126
turn, has perpetuated the low-achievement scores at NHS and reinforced its negative
reputation of being a low-performing school. This reinforcement has "...neutralized
morale among staff, students, and parents, which has made the implementation of
strategies and reforms a more challenging task," said a site administrator.
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Goals
Some staff members spoke of the organizational goals related to student
achievement and the reforms being implemented, but most staff members at the
school sites were not able to articulate the district‘s organizational goals or their
individual performance goals associated with the implementation of reforms.
Teachers and support staff at both school sites were not aware of any school-wide
goals or progress indicators related to the reform efforts. In general, they were
knowledgeable about the name of each reform and the contact person assigned to the
reform, but not much more. Many staff members shared that they were not sure
about the details and specific components for the implementation of the reform
strategies. One teacher stated that she had never heard of the ―Three Essentials.‖
When she was provided a copy of the Essentials, she quickly recognized and
admitted that she did not know that they were called the ―Essentials.‖ According to
one teacher, ―The district operates from generalities. There is not much goal-setting
taking place.‖
There was a general sentiment that when plans are proposed at the district or
site administrative level, they rarely make it to fruition, particularly in the
classrooms. One teacher stated that, ―The district does not measure plans or goals it
127
attempts to implement.‖ Several teachers stated that the English learner program, for
example, lacks a plan with clear goals, expectations, and measures of accountability.
Meanwhile, one teacher added the following, ―Whether it‘s cultural competence,
RTI, or something else, it‘s usually just a buzz word at the district office. These
things are never clarified or actually implemented at our [classroom] level.‖ Other
conversations emphasized that the district has not had or has not clearly
communicated clear performance goals for individuals or groups/departments in
order to meet API, AYP, or other performance targets. Apparently, the absence or
lack of awareness of clear and measurable goals, particularly performance goals,
prevent many staff members from thoroughly implementing district reforms.
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: English Learners
It appears that the absence or lack of awareness of goals and the perception
that NHS is not a good school are especially impacting the needs of English learners.
While the majority of staff members expressed the need to focus on the achievement
of second language learners, many felt that the school district is not doing enough, if
anything, to address the needs of this student population. In some cases, teachers at
both high schools attributed challenges to reform implementation to deficiencies in
the student population. Some teachers felt that there is not much that can be done to
help certain student groups. These views are inconsistent with a student-centered
approach. For example, when asked about English learners enrolling in Advanced
Placement and Honors courses, one teacher responded, ―Some students don‘t want
to. They think it‘s not worth it. They want to have a life or need to work.‖ Another
128
teacher pointed out that the English Language Development classes are small (about
fifteen students) not because of scheduling but because ―many students drop out due
to pregnancy, credit deficiencies, and other normal reasons.‖
At RHS, meanwhile, the school has mobilized around the high-performing
students, but teacher efficacy toward meeting the needs of diverse learners is not as
high. Staff members here might be focusing energy on ensuring that high-
performing students stay enrolled, which could be taking precedence over reform
efforts related to raising achievement for all students. An instructional assistant that
works with English learners stated that some English learners have summarily
suspended their attendance to certain classes because "…some teachers are not
approachable or do not work well with them." Some staff members believed that not
following up on the needs of English learners has resulted in the cultural phenomena
of intentional failure, as students intentionally fail certain classes to prevent re-
designation into the mainstream instructional program in order to remain in classes
with their immediate primary language peers.
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Decentralization
The existence of a culture of decentralization emerged in many conversations.
According to a number of staff members, district mandates are often seen as optional
or are loosely enforced, leaving implementation to the discretion of school sites or
individuals. Such a culture of decentralization is also practiced within the site level,
as departments and individual employees seemingly perform their job
responsibilities with minimal oversight. Some teachers expressed low task value
129
related to the reform efforts because not enough is being done at the district level to
effectively implement the reforms at the classroom level. Some respondents felt that
the district does not communicate the relevance of the reform efforts at the classroom
level nor provide enough follow-up support. For instance, one teacher stated, ―The
[ELIS] Lead is just not working. Two workshops per year are not good.‖
Additionally, a few of the staff members indicated that they were aware of the
request from the district office in regards to the implementation of reforms but were
unclear as to why they had been asked to do certain tasks. For example, a teacher
stated that he has been trained with strategies to facilitate the learning of his EL
students but added that he does not understand why and how these strategies are
supposed to fit within lessons in his classroom. Without central accountability, there
is a tendency for individuals to perform their responsibilities at their judgment.
Additionally, the team learned that recent budget cuts, coupled with efforts to
implement one of the three key initiatives of the Ball Foundation—the development
of a strategic plan—did occasion the need to centralize some district processes.
However, the team discerned that the district‘s culture of decentralization is
interfering with district efforts to effectively align and implement the various district
and school-level reforms and plans (e.g., Strategic Plan, Ball Foundation, Single
Action Plan for Student Achievement, ELIS Lead) at their desired level. In the
following statement, one staff member captures the essence of how recent actions to
centralize some district practices have been received by many staff members,
130
―Recent efforts to reorganize the central office to coordinate such plans has
occasioned somewhat of a culture clash across the district.‖
Limitations and Cautions
Several challenges limited the depth and scope of the project. First, the
project did not constitute a traditional study and, therefore, interviewing students was
not permissible. Interviewing students could have afforded the project insightful
information concerning the impact of the implementation of reforms on learning.
Second, the timeframe to collect the data was limited to only a couple of months and
was, thus, insufficient to allow for multiple visits to the schools for general campus
observations and silent participation in various committee and stakeholder group
meetings. Such observations could have perhaps enhanced the team‘s
understanding of the dynamics surrounding the emergent themes. Third, the time of
year in which the data were collected (March-May) encompassed the district‘s state
exams testing window and WASC visitations for the two schools. Thus, scheduling
the interviews and interviewing energetic staff members was rather challenging.
Collecting data during a less intense time of year at the two schools would have been
more conducive to optimal conditions for data collection and perhaps a richer quality
of information. Finally, the participants represented a group of key informants rather
than a comprehensive sample of district employees. The findings from the
conversations with key informants were largely based on respondents‘ self-reports.
Nonetheless, self-reports or perceptions, whether consistent with reality or not, often
guide individual behavior and thus should be acknowledged and addressed.
131
Conclusion
The RUSD has made strides in implementing reform efforts intended to
address student achievement and, thus, meet federal and state accountability
benchmarks for district and school effectiveness. However, a detailed analysis of
extant data and conversations with staff members finds fragmented implementation
of reforms that stem from gaps in knowledge, motivation, and district process and
resources. In light of the district‘s recent reduction of financial resources, it is
imperative and cost-effective for the RUSD to extensively assess the effectiveness of
reform implementation with a sense of urgency. Firstly, this assessment will help the
district intensify current reform efforts that are positively impacting student
achievement, without further straining district budgets. Secondly, the assessment
will help identify interventions to eliminate existing barriers to reform
implementation. Thirdly, the assessment will help discontinue those efforts that are
yielding little, if any, impact on reform implementation or student achievement. The
next phase of the project includes the team consulting with the RUSD to develop a
comprehensive plan that addresses the root causes of performance gaps. The team
will follow up on the above findings and the comprehensive plan with a set of
recommendations based on scholarly research to assist the district in its endeavor to
implement reforms at the desired level in order to improve student achievement.
132
Appendix G:
Recommendations Table
Recommendations Rationale Evidence/Literature
Possible gap: Some lack of clarity of
overall district goals
Create high school classroom goals
that feed into the Essential
Priorities and into the RUSD‘s
mission so that school reform
initiatives are made relevant to
classroom teachers.
School reform goals that provide an
explicit, realistic, and encouraging
vision are more likely to elicit a
positive response. Such goals lead to
higher performance than do
ambiguous goals.
With clear expectations and
opportunities to succeed, teacher
motivation and engagement are more
likely to thrive.
Leithwood,
Steinbach, &
Jantzi (2002)
Locke & Latham
(2002)
Wigfield &
Eccles (2000)
Possible gap: Uneven value for goals
Create a visual representation of the
current reform strategies at NHS and
RHS and their relationships, naming
programs or units, with their primary
features listed beneath, and drawing a
circle around each. Then, lines
representing established or potential
relationships would be drawn between
the programs.
Facilitate understanding of the
connection between external mandates
for change and the school‘s vision.
Acknowledge teachers for good work,
invite their input on decisions, provide
a forum for teachers to admire each
other‘s work, and inform the school
community of teachers‘ involvement
in the school‘s achievements.
Making roles and relationships
concrete and clear can help to create
buy-in and understanding.
Visual representations can help key
players understand their role within
the reform movement, as well as
strategize prospective interactions that
could drive implementation.
Teacher motivation can be increased
by drawing parallels between policy
and improving student outcomes.
Teacher efficacy and task value are
impacted by feedback.
When teachers have feelings of
belonging and trust, they are more
likely to internalize and implement
school reform goals.
Johnston (2002)
Leithwood et al.
(2002)
Tschannen-
Moran, Woolfolk
Hoy, & Hoy
(1998)
Henkin &
Holliman (2009)
Possible gap: Disparity in the allotment
of resources, including staffing
Evaluate the distribution of staff based
on years of service, teaching
experience, and stability of
administration. This would not
necessarily require a ―re-shuffle‖ of
current staff but awareness and
concentrated efforts when hiring and
placing staff.
Revisit contractual elements regarding
transfer policies.
Examine the distribution of resources
and availability of additional funding.
Profit sharing and joint grants would
be two methods for closing the
financial gap between the schools.
Distribution of resources is not only
about the basic allocation of funds but
also about the allocation of peripheral
resources (booster clubs, access to
donations, grants, and the ability to
fundraise in the community).
Allensworth,
Ponisciak, &
Mazzeo (2009)
Possible gap: Fragmented
implementation
Have a comprehensive plan to
facilitate the implementation of an
innovation or reform, such as the
Concerns-Based Adoption Model
Knowing what to change is only a
small part of the equation; knowing
how to change is the real key.
IC prevents a common pitfall
of school reform: purchase
materials, train teachers, and
Hall & Hord
(2001)
·
133
(CBAM):
Innovation Configuration (IC)
offers clear expectations on
what the change is supposed
to look like.
Stages of Concern (SoC)
measures concerns regarding
the implementation.
Level of Implementation (LoI)
measures actual
implementation on a scale that
ranges from no
implementation to full
implementation.
Narrow the organizational focus by
reducing or merging the number of
initiatives under implementation.
Value-stream around the primary
focus (e.g., Three Essential Priorities
or ELs) to maximize implementation
efforts.
innovation will be
implemented exactly as
planned.
SoC gauges level of
implementation based on
teachers‘ concerns.
LoI prevents judgments that
are made about the relative
success or failure of a program
or reform.
Schools that are successful in raising
student achievement do a few things
well and maintain a consistent focus
over a period of years.
Having multiple foci often leads to
organizational efforts that are
scattered and inconsistent.
·
·
Au & Valencia
(2010)
Womack, Jones,
& Roos (1990)
Possible gap: Need for a robust system
of accountability
Value-stream resources and processes
to maximize outputs while holding
individuals accountable.
Build a culture of freedom and
responsibility, where self-disciplined
people are willing to go to extreme
length.
Implement a version of the
Professional Responsibility Index
(PRI), an annual score for every
school in a system, based on several
indicators of performance, such as test
scores, graduation rate, and
attendance.
Value-streams are accountability
measures, outcomes, and process
indicators that govern the collective
activities of the entire system.
When an organizational culture of
discipline mixes with a high ethic, you
get great performance.
The use of test data is instrumental in
determining whether or not school
practices are having their intended
impact on student outcomes.
Stecher and Kirby
(2004)
Bolman & Deal
(2008)
Datnow, Park, &
Wohlstetter
(2007)
Foley (2001)
Possible gap: Socio-economic
segregation
Explore utilizing school boundaries to
integrate the community and the
schools. For example, ensure that the
enrollment at the two high schools
reflects the demographics of the
district, as opposed to the
demographics of one side of the
freeway.
Socio-Economic Integration is an
attempt to integrate schools based on
the SES of the student population.
Implementation of SE Integration in
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Massachusetts,
and North Carolina has shown
positive gains in closing the
achievement gap with low-performing
students.
Kahlenberg
(2003)
Kahlenberg
(2009)
Au (1993)
Possible gap: Disconnect between the
schools and the community
Build the schools into the focal point
of the community, thus strengthening
the school culture, as well as
providing an invaluable asset to the
local community through the services
provided. Services may include basic
medical care, literacy programs, or
legal aid workshops.
Movement from the idea that a school
is a part of the community to the idea
that the school is the center of the
community has found recent
momentum, with efforts like the
Harlem Children‘s Zone in New York
and Stevenson-YMCA Community
School in Southern California.
Aarons (2009)
O‘Donnell,
Kirkner, &
Meyers-Adams
(2008)
134
Appendix H:
Recommendations PowerPoint
Slide 1
Rowland Unified School District
USC Inquiry Project:
Proposed Recommendations
University of Southern California
RUSD-USC Partnership Inquiry Team
November 17, 2010
1
Slide 2
Introduction
Project Design
University of Southern California
2
135
Slide 3
Gap
Analysis
Process
(Clark & Estes, 2002)
Systematic, problem-
solving framework
(six steps)
Organizations can “dig
deeply” into the root
causes of the performance
gaps
Performance gaps are
identified, quantified,
and classified
Sound solutions are
developed from a deep
understanding of the
problems
How to examine root causes: motivation,
knowledge/skill, organizational culture
All goals are aligned & can
be measured
3
Slide 4
PHASE III
“One-Month” interviews
Follow up on unique issues
PHASE II
Stages of Concern (SoC)
Innovation Configurations
Inquiry Methods
PHASE I
District Context
Scanning Interviews
Document Analysis
4
Slide 5
Project Timeline
Overview
Fall
2009
Inquiry Team Formation
Context of Need
Understanding District Priorities
Narrowing Inquiry Focus
Spring
2010
Exploring the Roots
Data Collection
Summer 2010
Data Analysis
Identification of Performance Gaps & their Root Causes
Development of Findings
Fall
2010
Presentation of Findings & Recommendations/ Considerations
to District groups
5
136
Slide 6
POSSIBLE GAPS IDENTIFIED BY ALL
THREE TEAMS
University of Southern California
6
Slide 7
•Goals
•Pedagogy
Knowledge
& Skill
Motivation
Organizational
•Self-efficacy
•Attributions
•Goals
•Value
• Accountability
• Perceived levels
of Support
• Aligning of Goals
7
Slide 8
COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM TEAM
University of Southern California
Gilda Dixon
Brent Forsee
Monalisa Hasson
8
137
Slide 9
Positive Findings
Self-Efficacy
•A clear belief within RUSD that
the capacity and innovation for
improvement lies within the
district.
Decentralization
•RUSD staff take tremendous
pride in the historical culture of
de-centralization. This is seen as
a strength as district leadership
and staff believe a de-
centralized approach fosters
creativity and innovation.
Evidence of this effort
• Communities of practice
• Instructional Cabinet
• Various site leadership
teams comprised of
teachers and site leadership.
Ball Foundation
•RUSD’s partnership with The
Ball Foundation leading to
inter-school and inter-
departmental collaborative
effort that has grown in the
past four years.
9
Slide 10
Goals
•No clear uniformed understanding,
district-wide, of the roles the reform
movements play within RUSD
Accountability
•Need for an accountability
structure/alignment between
the district and sites that
honors the decentralized/
creative culture of RUSD
Alignment
•Lack of alignment of the
reform movements, as
district goals, throughout
all levels of RUSD
systems.
Possible Gaps
10
Slide 11
Current RUSD Reform Initiatives:
Strategic Plan
Ball Foundation
Program
Improvement
Three Essential
Priorities for
Teaching &
Learning
11
138
Slide 12
Alignment of Organizational Goal
Structure: Considerations
Clarify the
organizational goal
structure
Visual representation
of Three Essential
Priorities for Teaching
& Learning
Provide principals with
specific training on
goal structure
Intermediate Goal:
Implement
Three Essential
Priorities for Teaching
& Learning
Organizational Goal:
Academic Success
for ALL Students
Work Goals:
C
3
Goals
This link
must be
made
more clear
for all
RUSD role
groups
12
Slide 13
Determine district-wide “non-negotiables”
consistent with goal alignment
Create accountability structures at
site level.
The Three Essential Priorities
should work as a filter for all other
reform initiatives.
Recommendations
13
Slide 14
Goal Alignment
Clear
non-negotiables
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
Attainable Goals
C
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
I
n
g
Immediate goals
targeted to
non-negotiables
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
(Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002)
14
139
Slide 15
QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
University of Southern California
15
Slide 16
HIGH SCHOOL TEAM
University of Southern California
Cuauhtemoc Avila
Dale Folkens
Mary Laihee
16
Slide 17
Positive Findings at the
High Schools
Remarkable culture of
educational excellence
Initiatives to build school
capacity to enhance
student achievement
17
140
Slide 18
Resources
•Appearance of disparity with
resources
•Disconnect between goals and
efforts for attainment
Implementation
& Accountability
•Fragmented
implementation
•Absence of robust
accountability
Cultural Settings
•Perceptions regarding the
educational abilities, efforts
and involvement of
students and the
communities of each school
Goals
•Some lack of clarity of
overall district goals
•Uneven value for goals
Possible Gaps
Affecting the
High Schools
18
Slide 19
Goals
The mission of RUSD, the progressive international community united in learning,
is to empower students so that each actualizes his or her unique potential and
responsibly contributes to a global society, through a system distinguished by
rigorous academics, innovative use of technology, creative exploration, and
nurturing learning experiences.
Essential Priority I for
Teaching and Learning:
Strengthen first, best
instruction, EL instruction and
RtI 2
HS Classroom Goal
Measure/Indicator: ?
Standard: ?
Gap: ?
Essential Priority II for
Teaching and Learning:
Implement district-wide
agreements about efficacious
instruction and support for
teaching and learning
HS Classroom Goal
Measure/Indicator: ?
Standard: ?
Gap: ?
Essential Priority III for
Teaching and Learning:
Build cultural proficiency
across the system to improve
teaching and learning
HS Classroom Goal
Measure/Indicator: ?
Standard: ?
Gap: ?
Create C
3
work goals aligned to global goal
•Concrete, challenging, current
•Demonstrate relevancy to HS practitioners
(Clark & Estes, 2002; Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002)
19
Slide 20
Goals
Three
Essential
Priorities
Executive
Cabinet
Instructional
Cabinet
Site
Instructional
Leaders
Communities
of Practice
•Teachers as full participants
•Create a visual representation of the current reform strategies at NHS
and RHS and their relationships
Facilitate perspective building around policies
(Johnston, 2002; Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002)
20
141
Slide 21
Goals
•When teachers have feelings of belonging and trust, they are more
likely to internalize and implement the goals of school reform
Celebrate accomplishments toward goals
(Henkin & Holliman, 2009; Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002)
Invite HS
teacher input
on important
decisions
Provide a
forum for HS
teachers to
admire each
other’s work
Inform the school
community of HS
teachers’
involvement in
the schools’
achievements
21
Slide 22
Resources
Students to be
educated by an
experienced, highly
qualified, and
consistent staff
(Behrstock & Clifford, 2010)
Evaluate the stability of
the staff assigned to the
school; Revisit
contractual elements
regarding placement and
movement of staff
members
Equitable
Distribution
of Staff
Equitable
Distribution of
Resources
Staff have access to
similar resources and
professional growth
Staff and student access to
programs should be
district-wide, not
dependent upon school
site
Students have access to
equitable resources and
programs (Bolman & Deal, 2008)
Equitable
Alignment of
Goals
Goals and expectations
should be challenging
and rigorous for
students at both schools
(Education Trust, 2005)
Growth goals for both
schools should reflect
the same expectations
for teaching and
learning
22
Slide 23
Implementation & Accountability
Implementation
Innovation
Configuration
Stages of
Concern
Level of Use
Accountability
Equity
Discipline
Enforcement
(Au & Valencia, 2010; Foley, 2001; Hall & Hord, 2001; Stecher & Kirby, 2004) 23
142
Slide 24
Cultural Settings
Socio-Economic
Integration
Districts nationwide have
used SEI to address gaps
for lower SES populations
(Kahlenberg, 2009; Au, 1993)
Examine drawing school
boundaries to integrate
the community
(Kahlenberg, 2009; Au, 1993)
Community-
School Outreach
Utilize school facilities
(libraries, computer labs, and
athletic venues) for the benefit
of the community ’
(O’Donnell, Kirkner, & Meyer-Adams, 2008)
Mutually beneficial community
involvement for the schools
(Au, 1993; Daggett, 2007)
24
Slide 25
QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
University of Southern California
25
Slide 26
HISPANIC ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNER TEAM
University of Southern California
Alberto Alvarez
Maurita De La Torre
Lesette Molina-Solis
26
143
Slide 27
Positive Findings for ELs
Excellent culture of
professionalism and
high expectations
Master Plan for ELs
English Learner Advocacy Clear vision for reform
27
Slide 28
The implementation of a
relatively new district plan for
supporting the progress of ELs
A perception of
professional accountability
by teachers for the
progress of Hispanic ELs
A gap of cultural knowledge
of students’ backgrounds
and experiences
The academic impact of
a decentralized district
on the Hispanic EL
subgroup
Possible
Gaps
28
Slide 29
Processes of
Change
Turnaround Change
systemic process
Dramatic improvements
•test scores
•Cultures
•attitudes
Transformational
Theory
Adult learning:
Challenge adult
assumptions through
inquiry-based coaching
Systemic linear model
Educational Equity:
•Access to rigorous,
challenging curriculum
•Academic language/
Literacy reading/writing
•CREATE model
29
144
Slide 30
District Support
is effective
when it provides:
District Role
•Establish instructional
& curricular focus
•Consistent & coordinated
instructional activities
•Strong leadership from
Superintendent
•Emphasis on monitoring
instruction & curriculum
Teacher
Motivation
is necessary to focus
on changing teacher
Practice
Elmore 1996)
Professional
Development
That includes:
•Best Practices
•Data Driven
•Decision Making
•Admin PD as
instructional leaders
30
Slide 31
Cultural
Proficiency
Funds of Knowledge
Using student knowledge
of families & communities
as a resource for
instruction
(Gonzalez, Moll, Floyd-Tenery, Rivera,
Rendon, Gonzalez, & Amanti, 1993)
Cultural Modeling
Connecting students’
knowledge from home
with knowledge
presented at school
(Lee, Rosenfeld, Mendenhall, Rivers, & Tynes, 2003)
Third Space
Establishing a connection
between the student
and classroom culture
(Gutierrez, 1995)
31
Slide 32
Connect Cultural Proficiency to
academic goals
Coherent District Support for
alignment of goals
Recommendations
Augment Accountability
32
145
Slide 33
QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
University of Southern California
33
Slide 34
Determine
district-wide
“non-negotiables”
& ensure “buy in”
Coherent &
Consistent
District
Support
Align Cultural
Proficiency to
academic
goals
Strengthen
Community
of the school
Clarify
the roles of the four
reform initiatives &
how they relate to
each other
Examine
School
Boundaries
Create
accountability
structures at
site level
SUSTAINABILITY
of the Reform Effort
Augment
Accountability
Link
classroom goals
to EPs
districtwide
34
Slide 35
QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
University of Southern California
35
146
Slide 36
Special Thanks
RUSD
Dr. Maria G. Ott
Dr. Rob Arias
RUSD District Leadership Team
RUSD site administrators & staff
USC
Dr. David Marsh
Dr. Robert Rueda
Dr. Michael Escalante
Marsh/Rueda 2010
Dissertation Group
University of Southern California
36
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools
PDF
Utilizing gap analysis to examine the effectiveness of high school reform strategies in Rowland Unified School District
PDF
Comprehensive school reform: Effective implementation
PDF
Comprehensive school reform implementation: A gap analysis inquiry project for Rowland Unified School District
PDF
A gap analysis inquiry project on district-level reform implementation for Rowland Unified School District
PDF
Using the gap analysis to examine Focus on Results districtwide reform implementation in Glendale USD: an alternative capstone project
PDF
An alternative capstone project: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results
PDF
The continuous failure of Continuous Improvement: the challenge of implementing Continuous Improvement in low income schools
PDF
An alternative capstone project: A gap analysis inquiry project on the district reform efforts and its impact in narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap in Rowland Unified School District
PDF
The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies
PDF
An alternative capstone project: A qualitative study utilizing the gap analysis process to review a districtwide implementation of the Focus on results reform initiative: Identifying and addressi...
PDF
The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support at Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of teacher needs
PDF
Beyond the numbers chase: how urban high school teachers make sense of data use
PDF
A case study: school-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high poverty urban schools
PDF
The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis
PDF
An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors
PDF
Improving college participation success in Glendale Unified School District: An application of the gap analysis model
PDF
Districtwide instructional improvement: a case study of a high school in the Los Coyotes High School District
PDF
The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district
PDF
The effective implementation of reform strategies, instructional conditions, and best practices to improve student achievement in math: a case study of practices at Land High School
Asset Metadata
Creator
Laihee, Mary Abigail Requejo
(author)
Core Title
Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
02/14/2011
Defense Date
01/19/2011
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Educational Administration,educational change,Educational Psychology,gap analysis,High schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational culture,professional development,secondary education,teacher motivation
Place Name
California
(states),
San Gabriel Valley
(city or populated place)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Marsh, David D. (
committee chair
), Rueda, Robert S. (
committee chair
), Escalante, Michael F. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
laihee@usc.edu,laiheem@alumni.upenn.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3657
Unique identifier
UC1302672
Identifier
etd-Laihee-4328 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-435848 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3657 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Laihee-4328.pdf
Dmrecord
435848
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Laihee, Mary Abigail Requejo
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
educational change
gap analysis
organizational culture
professional development
teacher motivation