University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Comprehensive school reform: Effective implementation

(USC Thesis Other)

Comprehensive school reform: Effective implementation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM: EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION
by
Monalisa Hasson

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 Monalisa Hasson
ii

Dedication
This labor of love for quality education and lifelong learning for all children is dedicated
to my parents who instilled a sense of goodwill, perseverance, and humility in their children.
Spiritually, you were with me every step of the way. I could not have accomplished this daunting
task if it had not been for the foundation you established for me at a very young age.
To my daughters who assisted me during the last three years so that I could focus on my
studies. I thank you for understanding the need to sacrifice some of our time together in order to
embark on a study that could impact the lives of other people‘s children. During my studies, our
little present arrived, my granddaughter, she has filled me with many smiles at just the right
moments. I thank all of you for supporting me throughout the program.
To my brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces who always encouraged me to keep on
going and who never made me feel guilty when I could not attend family events and always made
me feel a part of the family activities even when I could not be present. Thank you for sharing
events through photographs and conversations. I am so proud of each of you and I feel so lucky
to have the privilege to call you mi familia. A special thanks to my sisters Rebecca and Irma who
supported me through difficult times.
I dedicate this work to my colleagues and team members at the Rio and Inglewood
School Districts who supported me in various ways. I give a special thank you and dedication to
my high school teacher, Ms. Faulkner, who believed in me even when I stopped believing in
myself. Because of you, I am.
Last but not least, I dedicate this project to my husband who has supported me through
life. You have been the voice of reason. I could not have accomplished this without your
unwavering love, support, and encouragement.
iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge and thank each person who has encouraged,
supported, and challenged me intellectually throughout my doctoral program. I feel
blessed to have been under the tutelage of such phenomenal educators at the University
of Southern California. My dissertation chair, Dr. Robert Rueda, has the patience of a
saint which I appreciate very much. Dr. David Marsh, co-chair and committee member,
and Dr. Michael Escalante, committee member, provided valuable feedback that allowed
me to reflect on the important work that was taking place during this inquiry project.
This dissertation would not have been possible had it not been for the courageous
leadership of Dr. Maria Ott, Superintendent of the Rowland Unified School District. She
embraced our work and opened the doors of the District to our team of researchers. She
gave of her time and the time of her executive cabinet, teachers, and other stakeholders,
all in the name of improving academic achievement for all students in the Rowland
Unified School District. I would also like to acknowledge the Governing Board of the
Rowland Unified School District for being open to the critical feedback the research team
had to offer based on its findings and conclusions.
Finally, Brent Forsee and Gilda Dixon, my research team partners, provided the
support I needed during various stages of this very important body of work. I thank you
for looking out for me always. Our cohort leader, Maurita De La Torre, was incredible.
In my opinion, she was the glue that kept our work together.

iv

Table of Contents
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... iii
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. v
Chapter One: Introduction and Overview .......................................................................... 1
Chapter Two: Analyzing the Roots of the Problem ......................................................... 26
Literature Review..................................................................................................... 26
Methodology ............................................................................................................ 44
Findings.................................................................................................................... 54
Chapter Three: Possible Solutions to the District‘s Reform Efforts ................................ 63
Literature Review.................................................................................................... 63
Summary of Proposed Solutions and Conclusion ................................................... 75
References ........................................................................................................................ 80
Appendix A: Inquiry Project Proposal ............................................................................. 85
Appendix B: Scanning Interview Questions ................................................................... 93
Appendix C: Stages of Concern Questionnaire ............................................................... 94
Appendix D: One Month Interview Question .................................................................. 96
Appendix E: Strategic Plan .............................................................................................. 97
Appendix F: Ball Foundation Graphic ............................................................................. 98
Appendix G: Comprehensive School Reform, Solutions Summary Chart ...................... 99
Appendix H: Presentation to Rowland Unified School District .................................... 100
Appendix I: Proposed Solutions Chart .......................................................................... 118
v

Abstract
Over the last decade, districts throughout the nation have been challenged with
the goal of improving student achievement with the ultimate target of attaining 100%
proficiency in the core subject areas across all student subgroups. This is an ambitious
endeavor that most would agree should be the ultimate goal regardless of socioeconomic
status, primary language, or ethnicity of the students which a district serves. The
dilemma schools face is in the implementation of comprehensive school reforms that will
move districts toward this goal.
This inquiry-based project investigated the Rowland Unified School District
through a collaborative model of research using the gap analysis method developed by
Clark and Estes (2002) to identify possible barriers to full and effective implementation
of comprehensive reform efforts in the District. The body of literature identified
components or elements of effective implementation. The research team used this
literature research to inform the study of the District, the research team‘s findings,
conclusions, and possible solutions.

1

Chapter One

Introduction and Overview
Authored by: Monalisa Hasson in collaboration with Gilda Dixon and Brent Forsee
Background of the Problem
After decades of attempts at educational reforms and failures at achieving the
progress that would benefit all students, districts throughout the United States are now in
the midst of an educational climate of state and federal mandates requiring research-
based reforms aimed at improving standards-based instruction that is coupled with
strengthened accountability components. Schools throughout the nation are confronted
with increased demands at both the state and the federal levels to improve student
achievement in the core content areas of English language arts, mathematics, science, and
social science, with an emphasis on improvement in English language arts and
mathematics, as assessed by standardized measures of student achievement. This
heightened pressure evolved as a result of a broadening achievement gap between
minority and non-minority students and a succession of legislative changes aimed at
narrowing and eventually eliminating the achievement gap between non-minority
students and minority or socially and/or economically disadvantaged students.
Under the administration of former President Bill Clinton, there was a move
toward providing districts with a blueprint for a systematic approach in addressing the
student achievement gaps with the passage of the Improving America‘s Schools Act
(IASA) in 1994. IASA required states to increase effective learning opportunities
through changes in curriculum paired with annual assessments. These initiatives,
2

however, lacked sufficient or adequate direct guidance for effective development and
implementation. Consequently, districts developed plans to improve student achievement
independently through various changes in curriculum and by developing new programs.
In the late 1990s, additional federal and state mandates surfaced that increased
pressure for standards-based instructional reform that held schools accountable for
student achievement and focused on rigorous curriculum geared toward developing
students‘ cognitive abilities by accessing students‘ higher level thinking skills and
developing and delivering core content material in a manner that was relevant and
meaningful to students within the framework of real life experiences and real world
issues (McLaughlin & Shephard, 1995). Once again, these policy changes did not have a
strong component for guidance in the implementation of these changes that could
maximize success in increasing student performance. In an effort to meet state mandates,
states and districts developed isolated programs to address specific curricular and
instructional components, sometimes implementing programs that had detrimental effects
on student achievement. Ultimately, these reforms resulted in minimal progress toward
increasing student achievement in academic performance (Berends, Bodilly & Kirby,
2002).
The focus would soon shift with the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which resulted in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act of 2001 under the administration of former President George W. Bush. The No Child
Left Behind Act added an accountability component to standards-based education that
built upon the concept that states, districts, and schools would be held strictly accountable
3

for student achievement, especially for achievement of ethnic minority and socially and
economically disadvantaged students. Under NCLB, states were required to align
assessments with content standards and monitor student progress toward proficiency
based on the results of standards-based assessments for each subgroup of students. NCLB
contained provisions that penalized districts and schools that did not achieve Annual
Yearly Progress (AYP) goals over a period of time. NCLB effectively fortified the
government‘s influence and command over public schools and districts and mandated
accountability for results in the form of student performance measures based on
standardized assessment exams (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001).
Even with the emergence of this strengthened legislation, this new mandate did
not initially address a void in the practical application of methods and procedures to
address the increased demand for improved student achievement. Districts and schools
faced a new challenge in identifying strategies that would lead to large scale changes that
would result in improvement in student performance, narrow the achievement gap, and
meet accountability standards mandated by the new federal regulation.
Consequently, New American Schools (NAS), a private organization, was
launched with a targeted effort to assist schools and districts in increasing student
achievement on a large scale through whole school reform. This new approach to
systemic change deviated significantly from past methods due to its private sector
involvement with a venture capitalist influence, whole school design as a reform strategy,
and national large scale change approach (Berend, Bodilly & Kirby, 2002).
4

The movement toward Comprehensive School Reform (CSR), with the goal of
producing systematic change, targeted school-wide strategies affecting all aspects of
education including curriculum and instruction, professional development, organizational
structure, and parent/community involvement (Desimone, 2002). CSR implementation
resulted in the formation of a multitude of programs aimed at addressing the new shift in
strategies targeting improved student performance. Programs such as Accelerated
Schools, Core Knowledge, High Schools That Work, and Success for All, were designed
and were eagerly adopted by some districts, while others chose to incorporate creative
strategies to effect school-wide change in an environment where accountability linked to
improvement of student academic performance provided opportunities for student
success as demanded not only by federal and state mandates but by all stakeholders,
including the school community (Borman, 2009). Failure to meet the new mandates had
the potential to impact continued funding apportionments.
Despite the many programs and various reform efforts, districts continue to
encounter difficulty meeting NCLB and statewide mandates for all student subgroups.
Even though districts have made overall gains in student achievement as measured by the
state Academic Performance Index (API) and the federal gauges of Annual Yearly
Progress (AYP) and Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO), the increases in student
achievement in the State of California fall below the proficiency level targets for a
significant portion of students in the following subgroups: Hispanic/Latino, African-
American, English learners, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and/or Students with
Disabilities (http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest).
5

Rowland Unified School District (RUSD), a mid-sized district serving a
predominantly Hispanic/Latino and Asian student population in the San Gabriel Valley of
Los Angeles County mirrors the statewide dilemma of the achievement gap between
student subgroups. As a result, the RUSD has taken on the challenge of meeting the
NCLB mandates and statewide goals in innovative ways, such as partnerships with
outside groups including the Ball Foundation, a non-profit organization that provides
support in school reform with an emphasis in professional development and literacy; the
creation of an Instructional Cabinet, a District team with representatives from all
employee groups within the organization, aimed at closing the gaps in student
achievement; and intra-site Communities of Practice (COP) designed to further flatten the
organizational hierarchy in a culture of decentralization. The RUSD leadership‘s efforts
toward increased student achievement have resulted in recognized achievement including
the designation of four National Blue Ribbon Schools, 16 California State Distinguished
schools, and a high school named ―One of the Top High Schools in the Nation‖ by
Newsweek Magazine.
Despite all its accolades and distinctions, Rowland Unified School District
(RUSD) has yet to achieve the national NCLB goal of math and English proficiency for
all students and the statewide goal of an 800 API score for all schools, a daunting task not
unfamiliar to many districts within the state. RUSD has 12 or over 50% of its schools
identified in Program Improvement (PI) status as a result of not meeting the state and
federal goals over a period of time.
6

The Rowland Unified School District has made significant gains in student
achievement as evidenced by the data provided through the California Department of
Education (http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest). The data indicates the District‘s AYP, which
measures the percentage of students who are proficient or above, has grown from 49.9%
to 56.5% since 2008 in English language arts. During the same period, the District‘s
AYP grew from 56.1% to 61.3% in mathematics and the API increased from 764 to 792.
However, there is still a significant achievement gap between the subgroups. Specifically,
the Latino subgroup has an achievement gap, when measured by the AYP, of almost 40
percentage points when compared to the other major subgroup, the Asian student
subgroup, in the area of English language arts. Between these two groups, there is also a
gap of 38 percentage points in the area of mathematics. The gap for the Latino subgroup
when measured by the API is 132 points below the Asian student population subgroup.
As expressed by District leadership, differing geographical areas of the District
appear to have inconsistent levels of success in reducing the achievement gap.
Specifically, the District seems to be divided by a north-south corridor divided by the
Pomona Freeway (Highway 60). Like much of the state, geographic areas of higher
socioeconomic status (SES) appear to be having more success than other areas within the
District. Within RUSD, this physical boundary can be measured geographically by the
division created by Highway 60. A higher SES exists south of the highway and a lower
SES exists on the northern side of the highway. There are twelve schools located on the
northern side of the District. The northern side of the District serves larger numbers of
English learners when compared to the southern portion of RUSD. Ten of the twelve
7

schools located on the northern side of the District are in program improvement. There
are ten schools located on the south side. Two of the ten schools on the southern side of
the District are in program improvement. Of the two southern schools in program
improvement, one is the District‘s alternative education high school. Based on these
statistics, a conclusion could be made that the northern schools represent a higher
proportion of students with extraordinary economical and or language barriers within the
District, reinforcing the belief that the areas in greatest educational need have fewer
community resources when measured by District performance data and comparisons in
SES state data.
Also, as noted by Desimone (2003), a major element of effective comprehensive
school reform in addressing achievement gaps is the fidelity of implementation of reform
strategies not only within the district but also within schools and by the different
stakeholders. Spillane, et al (2002) adds that local implementation can be difficult as the
process and concepts may challenge deeply rooted beliefs about teaching and learning.
Fidelity can be further compromised when there is no alignment in priorities or goals
from the district to the site and from the site to the classroom (Elmore, 2002). The fact
that RUSD has been successful meeting state and federal targets in some of its schools
warranted a closer examination into the District-level school reform implementation
process at all levels that identified possible challenges it faces within schools placed in
program improvement status. The current reforms are structural (Strategic Plan), and
based on federal mandates (program improvement addendum), supported by professional
development models to build capacity in leadership and practice (Ball Foundation). The
8

examination into the alignment of goals throughout RUSD also identified immediate gaps
consistent with the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Importance of the Problem
Effectiveness of comprehensive school reform for districts and schools is
paramount to the success of districts if increased student achievement and continued
funding is the goal. The need for an approach to comprehensive school reform
implementation that improves teaching and learning in each classroom and for all
students is of particular interest to the Rowland Unified School District since it entered
district-wide program improvement status at the beginning of the 2009-10 school year. It
has also sustained unprecedented reductions in its workforce as a result of the statewide
fiscal crisis. The stakes are too high to approach reforms in a manner that produces
inconsistent results depending on the school or the individual. The focus must be on the
implementation in a consistent manner across all levels, all schools, and across all
stakeholders (administrators, teachers, students, parents and the community) to improve
student performance. Districts that must meet accountability measures, established by
the state such as the Academic Performance Index (API) in addition to meeting federal
AYP mandates for annual student achievement growth expectations, must include the
critical component of ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of comprehensive school
reform policies‘ implementation. This holds especially true for the Rowland district with
its commitment to empower students to actualize his or her fullest potential.
RUSD, while maintaining a positive community reputation, was placed in
program improvement status for failure to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
9

mandates for all subgroups over a period of five or more years. AYP was developed as a
way to disaggregate student achievement by subgroups within schools and districts.
While RUSD maintains many high performing schools, the lack of subgroup
achievement, a focus of AYP, has been a major factor to its placement in PI status. The
District‘s designation as a program improvement district emphasizes the importance of
reducing the District-wide achievement gap and increasing the urgency to make
systematic changes to achieve its goals. Producing consistent student achievement gains
across subgroups regardless of which school or classroom the child attends provides a
clear lens to the challenge RUSD faces and one which the District willingly sought to
address in correlation with its vision of creating opportunities for students to reach his or
her full potential. In an effort to address these challenges, the RUSD has implemented
District-level reform efforts for improved student learning. Through this inquiry project
study, the District sought to evaluate its current reform efforts as a means to improve
student achievement. The inquiry project team assigned to this study served in the role of
outside evaluators charged with the task of identifying gaps in the areas of intent and
implementation of reform efforts while considering practical and actionable solutions for
the RUSD leadership. Practical and actionable solutions are important in the political
environment of a school district (Bolman & Deal, 2002). This study stretched the
boundaries of action research by suggesting solutions that are actionable in a political
environment as opposed to a theoretical environment. Working collaboratively with the
District leadership, the team had access to information, data, and personnel that served
vital to the study and its investigation of root causes of gaps in reform implementation,
10

and the eventual solutions identified by the team and that the team believes can be
adopted more readily due to the District‘s initiative, transparency, and continued
cooperation throughout this study.
Measuring the effectiveness of school reform strategies in meeting student
achievement goals can be complicated and sometimes elusive. Although there are
various approaches to program or systems evaluation, one that addresses the system in a
holistic fashion is the Clark and Estes‘ (2002) gap analysis model. This gap analysis
model presents a framework for classification and achievement of goals through the
identification of gaps and root causes of those gaps, identifying possible solutions, and
addressing implementation and evaluation for continued success. This model is
designed to examine the implementation of school wide reform strategies at all levels by
various stakeholders (district administrators, school site administrators, teachers, parents,
students, and community). By exploring skills and knowledge, organizational culture;
and motivational causes, the Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis model targets root
causes and challenges to successful comprehensive school reform implementation. This
analysis method allows districts to make strategic changes aimed at closing the gap in
student achievement, while at the same time implementing ongoing, systematic
evaluation useful in meeting accountability requirements in the era of NCLB. These
strategic changes have the potential of being customized and replicated across different
schools and/or districts for school and program improvement purposes.
The project inquiry team applied the Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis model to
form its findings and advise the Rowland Unified School District as to the effectiveness
11

of its comprehensive District-level school reform efforts as it relates to establishing
benchmarks, meeting student performance goals, and closing the achievement gap to
address its current PI status. The team study was comprised of the following: 1) an
examination into what key stakeholders in the District perceived to be the root of the
problem, goals, and possible solutions related to effective District-level school reform
strategies implementation; 2) identification of root causes and gaps; and 3) proposal of
solutions and how the stakeholders (clients) in the District responded to the proposed
solutions.
Significance of the Project
The era of NCLB brings with it the overall goal of ensuring that educational
systems provide appropriate and effective education for all the nation‘s students, as
demonstrated by a system of accountability and data-driven decision-making. At state
and local levels, effective implementation of comprehensive school reform is a necessity
for any school or district in program improvement status. Districts failing to meet federal
and/or state mandates in terms of student achievement and adequate yearly progress not
only results in some students entering post-secondary-school life unprepared or less
prepared than other students but districts can be penalized in their funding allocations if
student achievement gaps persist. As a result, districts must make every effort to ensure
that district-level comprehensive reform strategies are effective in meeting measureable
goals for student performance and must develop systems for evaluation of progress and
identification of barriers to implementation.
12

This inquiry project, through the use of the Clark and Estes (2002) model, assisted
RUSD in evaluating the effectiveness of its District-level school reform efforts and
implementation. Importantly, this approach served useful in identifying the challenges to
achieving the District‘s goal of closing the achievement gaps for subgroups not meeting
state and federal targets needed to move out of PI status across all schools. In
collaboration, results of this project, in the form of recommendations for practice,
provided a starting point from which to continue to implement change that will
effectively address achievement goals.
As RUSD faces increased pressure to comply with state and federal mandates of
accountability by meeting student performance targets and improving student learning
within all of its subgroups, District-level comprehensive school reform strategies have
been launched. The Rowland Unified School District has been creative in its design of
district-level school reform, modeling its efforts after scientifically-based CSR programs
and designing its own strategies to address its particular needs while incorporating major
components of effective comprehensive school reform as described in the literature.
However, like other districts, RUSD faces challenges in implementation.
Comprehensive School Reform Strategies and Programs
Research literature recognizes specific features of comprehensive school reform
from a scientifically-based standpoint proven to have a positive effect on student
performance and models that incorporate these components are clearly presented
(Tushnet, et al, 2004) (Levin and Wiens, 2003).
13

Levin and Wiens (2003) describe implementation strategies identified in their
study of various districts that have been utilized including: 1) greater specification of
curriculum standards and outcomes, with more focus on reading, writing, mathematics,
science, and technology; 2) more assessment of student outcomes and public reporting of
the results on a school-by-school basis; 3) greater opportunity for parents and students to
choose the school the student attends; 4) more pressure on teachers through measures that
control their work, limit their pay, test their competence, etc; 5) altered finance structures
to reward schools that are able to increase academic results or attract more students or
both; and 6) greater decentralization of managerial responsibility to individual schools.
NCLB expands this list to include: 1) measurable goals and benchmarks for student
performance; 2) support for staff and from staff; 3) external assistance; 4) evaluation; 5)
coordination of resources; 6) professional development; 7) use of proven methods and
strategies that are research-based and target student learning, teaching and school
management; and 8) a design that is comprehensive in scope and aligned to a school-wide
reform plan to provide an opportunity for all students to meet state content and
performance standards (Tushnet, et al, 2004).
There is evidence presented in the literature that school reform efforts that
incorporate particular components, as previously enumerated, tend to show improvement
in student achievement when there is fidelity in the implementation of these reforms.
Reform efforts, that are externally developed, aligned, and clearly defined, positively
affect student learning as do reforms with strong professional development and training
components. In the latter, the addition of follow-up to assist teachers in the classroom
14

with implementation, has been associated with effective reform implementation as has
stakeholder ―buy in‖ at all levels (Borman et al, 2003).
One common thread between the literature on comprehensive school reform is the
need for a systematic approach as a long term process that requires the commitment of all
stakeholders, from district to central office to school personnel to parent, students, and
community (Levin & Wiens, 2003). Literature which directly responds to the barriers
associated with commitment and collaboration of all stakeholders, toward adhering to
District-level reform strategies and securing ―buy-in‖ from all levels, informed this
project as to how these strategies were successfully implemented and the challenges
encountered in the process.
Desimone (2003) suggests that school wide reform can be slow and challenging
and recommends that implementation factors be addressed prior to connecting reform
designs to student outcomes. One challenge to effective school reform implementation is
the variability that exists with and among different levels: state, district, school (Hamilton
et al, 2003). How stakeholders interpret and implement policy may differ, thus, leading to
differences in goal attainment at and within different sites. Consistency and alignment of
school efforts with state and district policy also influences the effectiveness of
comprehensive school reform efforts (Desimone, 2003). The gap analysis approach can
identify flaws related to these factors and assist in identifying the root causes of these
flaws (Clark & Estes, 2002). The gap analysis model and the proper diagnosis and
identification of gaps and root causes of these gaps in the areas of knowledge and skill;
15

motivation; and organizational structure and culture dominated the literature review
portion of this study.
Another important literature component examined was the composition and
implementation of the major CSR programs and their evaluation. Programs such as
Success for All have been identified as having significant effects on student achievement
(Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2003). Studies conducted within the last decade by
NAS provide comparative data on the implementation and incorporation of district-level
reform to inform current policies and practices. The studies conducted by NAS
determined that some of the reform efforts were found to be less effective than previously
held by educational practitioners.
Several factors can impact the effectiveness of comprehensive school reform.
Communication is one of these key factors. The level and quality of communication
between and among the various stakeholders can either positively or negatively influence
school reform implementation at all levels (Desimone, 2003). Additionally, perception
and interpretation of school reform strategies can vary based on the role, beliefs, and
values of the stakeholders and this too can affect fidelity in implementation and
ultimately student outcomes (Spillane, 2002).
The Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis Model
In utilizing the Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis model as a framework to
assist RUSD in meeting the state and federal student performance and accountability
goals, several areas within the literature were analyzed and considered in establishing a
starting point from which to begin this project, including identification of the gap to be
16

addressed on behalf of the District and in this case the gap in student achievement leading
to PI status, both framed under the effectiveness of district-level school reform
implementation. Once the goals were identified, gap identification began through the
investigation of root causes of the gaps which led to proposed solutions aimed at closing
the gaps and meeting the predetermined goals.
First, Clark and Estes (2002) indicate that in order to begin the process, global,
intermediate and instructional (performance) goals must be established to drive
improvement efforts. Goal setting and benchmarking are important components driving
the gap analysis model and must be aligned across all levels. Consistent with this thought,
a consensus on goals and measurement of progress toward goals (Elmore, 2003) may
prove helpful as RUSD strives to meet state and federal mandates of increasing student
achievement to meet both AYP and API targets for all subgroups. It must also identify
which intermediate and instructional goals are necessary to achieve the overall global
goal. The goals ideally should be attainable based on the present data compiled by the
District on capacity, resources, vision, etc. Relevant literature within this area provided
information as to the current processes related to goals and objectives and benchmarking
that can aid the District in creating a clear understanding of what is to be accomplished
and also provide the District the ability to effectively evaluate whether or not that
particular goal has been met. As part of the goal development process, important aspects
to consider involve goal alignment both between the different types of goals as well as
between the overall mission and vision of the organization and how all three goal levels
17

interrelate with other major factors within the District such as organizational culture,
knowledge and skills, and motivation issues.
Next, the skill and knowledge factor must be addressed. Clark and Estes (2002)
incorporate an evaluation of whether those expected to perform a task have the required
skills and knowledge necessary to complete that task. 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. Literature
relevant to learning theories provided a lens through which assessment of root causes in
this area are grounded and systematic research-based evaluation can take place in the
process of assisting districts in the improvement efforts. As an example, socio-cognitive
theory can reveal how different types of knowledge are required to meet various tasks
and describes how a mismatch in the types of knowledge acquired and that required by
the task itself can produce unwanted outcomes, especially when district-level reform
involves curriculum, instruction, and use of professional development and training that
are not based on clearly delineated data-driven performance goals.
An inventory of current knowledge and skills becomes vital in addressing any
gaps in this area through professional development and can be a tool for ensuring the
effective implementation of District-level reform strategies. Literature related to the
effective implementation of professional development programs and challenges to such
implementation provided powerful information as a starting point to this investigation.
18

An exploration of successful district-level reform strategies within this area through a
literature review provided a baseline for analysis and evaluation.
Along with the skills and knowledge component is the fact that districts are in and
of themselves organizational structures within their own cultures. Implementation of
district reform strategies cannot happen in a vacuum and attempts at implementation
without taking into consideration organizational culture may not be effective (Sipple, et
al, 2004). Studies conducted by Camburn et al (2003) describe different organizational
configurations, effective leadership styles, and describe various settings similar to the
District that were useful for investigative purposes when data collection and
methodological approaches were considered and when evaluating existing
implementation of policies and strategies established for the purpose of meeting the
stated District goals and objectives.
Leadership theories such as contingency (leader-match) theory whereas leaders
are matched to appropriate situations and suggests that a leader‘s ability to be effective
depends on how well the leader‘s style fits the context, and the path-goal leadership
theory where leaders who can motivate subordinates to accomplish goals are assigned
with the goal to enhance employee performance and employee satisfaction by focusing
on employee motivation (Northouse, 2007) can be instrumental within this area of the
Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis model as a powerful evaluative tool.
Finally, motivation, in terms of choice, persistence, and effort within all levels of
the reform implementation are crucial as an integral part of the gap analysis model.
District-level reform efforts can be thwarted when key players are not motivated to
19

perform the tasks required for success in improving student performance. Motivational
theories served as tools to understanding how different motivational components interact
when goal achievement is the expected outcome. Constructs such as self-efficacy,
beliefs, interests, expectations, and values help guide the analysis of root causes in this
area and can be useful in addressing potential solutions. In thinking about motivational
factors, other questions surfaced for further literature search specifically related to
district-level reform strategies and goals: 1) what are the beliefs of the stakeholders
regarding the new strategies? and 2) Do teachers, parents, students, administrator and
district staff ―buy-in‖ to the new reforms and are they motivated to persist and put forth
the needed effort to accomplish the goal in a milieu of standard-based reforms, statewide
assessment, along with a myriad of other demands? How key stakeholders react to
school reform and identifying what their beliefs are about student abilities, their own
abilities and the effectiveness of the ―new‖ mandates all affect goal attainment and
ultimately student achievement.
Within all of the root causes mentioned above, goal setting; knowledge and skills;
organizational culture; and motivational factors are barriers which districts have had to
face in efforts to implement district-level school reform. Studies describing other
districts‘ attempts at comprehensive school reform implementation were valuable
resources used to identify the possible challenges and root causes of the gaps identified
by districts. In doing so, examination of various components incorporated in CSR
programs informed current practices in addressing implementation gaps in the Rowland
Unified School District.
20

Purpose of the Analysis
Through the examination of root causes, the gap analysis model as presented by
Clark and Estes (2002) centers around the identification of performance gaps in relation
to performance goals in organizations. Performance gaps in organizations are generally
attributable to at least one of three root factors: Knowledge/Skills, Motivation, and/or
Organizational/Cultural barriers (Clark and Estes, 2002). Identifying the gap in
performance is often easy as most organizations have numerous performance indicators.
For educators in California, API scores, AYP, AMO, and numerous other formative and
summative assessments and benchmark indicators are used. These results provide a clear
if not accurate picture of academic performance from year to year. The results can be
easily measured and compared providing the general populous at least a cursory
understanding of a school or district quality.
A lack of knowledge and/or skills is essentially a capacity gap between the
expected performance and the professional ―tool belt‖ available to those within the
organization. A number of approaches may be used to address this gap, however;
professional development has been shown to effectively increase knowledge/skill
capacity. However, the effectiveness of these approaches has been dependent on many
factors including the alignment of the training content with the type of knowledge and
skills that are required, whether or not there is follow up to professional development
trainings, whether or not there is buy-in from the staff, and to what level there is support
from administration for continued practical implementation in the classroom.
21

Motivational gaps seem to be tougher and more complex than those generated
from a lack of knowledge/skills. Motivation is an internal nudge that keeps us moving in
a focused direction to accomplish goals. The lack of accomplishing tasks with quality is
in essence a performance gap. .If this occurs due to a lack of motivation, connecting the
psychological process to that of quality production, there is a motivational gap.
Considerations in examining motivational issues can center on perceptions and beliefs;
self-efficacy; and, more importantly, the active choice to engage in tasks, persistence in
the face of adversity, and mental effort exerted to complete a task and achieve a goal.
Organizational/Cultural root causes for gaps occur when processes and even
policy stand in the way of quality production. The organization/culture must be taken
into consideration as a potential challenge to meeting the goal of closing performance
gaps. These gaps often occur when organizational processes do not align with
organizational goals or structure. To gain a better understanding to how
organization/culture affects achievement gaps, one must understand the unwritten rules of
the organization, its structure, policies, mission statements and vision, and how the
leadership affects all of these components. In RUSD, current reforms, in collaboration
with the Ball Foundation, have focused on ―flattening‖ the district hierarchy to create
―buy in‖ from stakeholders and recognize the creative problem solving possibilities in a
decentralized organizational culture.
Understanding the performance gaps and root causes are critical for
organizational improvement. However, gaps and root causes gain meaning only when
contrasted with organizational goals. For RUSD, the organizational goal appears to be
22

the narrowing of the Hispanic achievement gap in all schools within the District. The
Hispanic subgroup is significant within RUSD and achievement of this goal would
certainly result in significant API gains and movement toward meeting its AYP as well as
lead to its removal from PI status. As stated earlier, RUSD recognizes this need and has
taken a positive step by forming a partnership with the Ball Foundation. However, the
goal has remained elusive as schools above Highway 60 lag behind those below.
Identifying root causes and offering solutions, under this consultant model, may be of
great value to the RUSD.
This inquiry project proposed a systematic investigation (Appendix A) with the
use of the Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis model as a framework, district
cooperation, and utilization of outside resources to assist in closing achievement gaps.
Examination of the root causes (knowledge/skills, organization/culture, and motivation)
through structured interview questionnaires, unstructured interviews, focus groups,
artifacts and available data shed light into the challenges districts face in implementing
district-level school reform as a means of closing achievement gaps and meeting state
and federal mandates requiring increased accountability and improved student
performance.
More specifically, this inquiry project focused on district-level school reform at
the Rowland Unified School District to assist RUSD district leaders in evaluating current
District-level reform strategies, providing documented analysis of its efforts while at the
same time suggesting possible solutions to assist RUSD in meeting its goals. The
intention was to provide a comprehensive evaluation, through the framework of Clark
23

and Estes (2002) gap analysis model, grounded in a research-based theoretical
perspective, a consultative evaluation.
Through collaborative efforts, Rowland Unified School District was chosen for
this project, based on, among other criteria, their innovative district-level reform
strategies and commitment to reform with the goal of transforming teaching and learning
in the face of serious budgetary constraints (Gopalankrishna, 2010). In creating this
partnership, the focus of our evaluation at Rowland Unified School District was centered
around the RUSD redesign process which incorporates the adoption of Holladay‘s (2009)
―Values-Functions-Structures Model, and major structural changes such as the creation of
the Instructional Cabinet, Communities of Learning (COP), and its site-based
reconfigurations.
To accomplish this goal, initially, our team (comprised of three persons with
experience in the district, administration and educational psychology fields) envisioned
establishing rapport and a supportive network through the connection with key District
personnel who would be able to assist the team in navigating through the organization.
Clearly defining the framework under which the team would function and getting a sense
of what the District already had in place were also critical foundational components of
this study. Interviews and artifact collection were integral parts of the initial team contact
with Rowland Unified School District and were utilized in on-going data collection.
Scanning, stages of concern, and month-long interviews were conducted through the use
of interview protocols, specifically developed for this project. The purpose of the
scanning interview was to provide insight at the macro level as to how key personnel
24

view the root causes and gaps within the context of the organization and its District-level
school reform strategies. Stages of concern interviews informed the awareness,
information, personal effects, degree of management of reform, and how it affects those
involved (students, staff, etc.).
Analysis of root causes and gaps continued as different levels of stakeholders
(administration, teachers, parent, and community) provided information. Again, the
interview process was the method of choice in data collection. Triangulation efforts
useful in data validation included utilization of existing documentation such as
documented implementation of instructional strategies, test scores, etc.
Finally, our team utilized its data collection findings to analyze and identify root
causes and gaps that may impact the success of District-level reform strategies and goal
attainment and also provide insight into possible challenges. Driven by this data analysis,
our team created possible solutions specifically targeting the root causes and gaps and
grounded on current research and best practices for the District‘s consideration.
The qualitative approach to data gathering used by the team of researchers, each
with an area of expertise (school site administration, District-level staff, and education
psychology), served as a powerful tool when combined with the Clark and Estes (2002)
gap analysis model to properly diagnose and inform current practice. This approach of
data collection also added to the team‘s body of knowledge, identification of possible
root causes and solutions to be considered in any school reform strategy implementation
with the ultimate goal of increasing student performance.
25

A team methodology and solutions chapter is included in this document that
accurately reflects the conclusions of a consulting team in fidelity with the guidelines of
this Capstone Project.

26

Chapter Two
Analyzing the Roots of the Problem
Individual Literature Review
Authored by: Monalisa Hasson
In analyzing the implementation of comprehensive school reform efforts in the
Rowland Unified School District, the team took into consideration research-based
literature on school reform successes and related factors to success, failures and related
causes of failure, best practices in implementation of reforms; and performance
improvement strategies that target the root causes of performance problems with an
emphasis on causal effects related to knowledge, skills, motivation, and organizational
culture and structure. Additionally, the research delved into literature specific to goal
alignment; professional development and collaboration; leadership; and accountability.
Comprehensive School Reform
According to Elmore (2005), progressive reformers of the pre-1950 era believed
that district-wide reform ideas would travel throughout the organization of their own will
into schools and classrooms. The result was the ability of reformers to produce many
examples of how educational practice could and should look. However, these same
reformers were unable to produce examples of mass implementation or engagement in
these best practices at the teacher or classroom level, in any large scale organization
designed to deliver instruction to students (p.11).
Even after these failed attempts at school reform and instead of learning from
these teachable moments, the federal government launched large-scale reforms in
27

curriculum throughout the 1950s and 1960s labeled the ―adoption era‖ of reforms. Vast
sums of funding was poured into major curriculum reforms in the content areas of
physical and biological sciences; social sciences; and into organizational innovations
including flexible scheduling and team teaching (Fullan, 2007).
By the early 1970s there was growing evidence that the outcomes of these
reforms were minimal and confined to isolated examples (p.5). Goodlad, Klein, et al
(1970, Sarason (1971), and Gross, Giacquinta, and Bernstein (1971) all corroborate the
absence of change at the classroom level. At this point, the term implementation came
into the vocabulary of reform, and in the first major review of research, Fullan and
Pomfret (1977) documented the massive failure of reform. There was the newfound
realization that transferring the ideas into practice was a far more complex process
(Fullan, 2007).
Little progress has been made since the 1960s, despite renewed interest in the
1980s in large-scale reform focusing on accountability. The pressure for reform has
increased, however; the understanding of real school reform implementation has not
increased at the same pace (p. 6).
One of main dilemmas in large-scale reform is creating a balance between
centralization and decentralization which Fullan labels the ―too tight/too loose‖ problem.
Top-down change does not work because it fails to garner ownership, commitment, or
even clarity about the nature of the reforms and bottom-up change does not produce
success on any scale. He likens the bottom-up approach as allowing a thousand flowers
to bloom except that a thousand flowers do not bloom and those that do are not perennial
28

(p. 11). He indicates that the strategies needed have a ―bias for action‖ and seek this by
reconciling and combining top-down and bottom-up forces for change which results in
strategy capacity building with a focus on results (Fullan, 2005, 2006; Fullan, Hill, &
Crevola, 2006). A similar dilemma was present in the Rowland Unified School District
and this dilemma was a focus of the investigation into its comprehensive reform
implementation efforts.
Based on his research of comprehensive research over a six year period, Fullan
(2007) has concluded that there are ten essential elements of successful change that do
not choose between tightness and looseness but incorporate both (p. 28). The ten essential
factors he cites are listed below.
1. Organizations must define closing the achievement gap as the overarching goal.
This becomes the common organizational goal that is clearly defined. For
effective reform, it is not a matter of being simply aware of the goal, but working
diligently day in and day out, monitoring progress, and taking corrective action on
the non-negotiables. Clark and Estes (2002) also indicate that establishing a
global goal is essential to the implementation of organizational performance
improvement.
2. Reform efforts must initially address the three basics which he defines as math,
literacy, and the social and emotional needs of students. Establishing a targeted
focus in these areas which research has proven to narrow the achievement gap and
is directly linked to the overarching goals and is instrumental in meeting
29

intermediate and performance goals as defined by Estes and Clark (2002) is
essential.
3. Organizations must be driven by the human element of change which includes
making the connection between the work and people‘s dignity and sense of
respect. Dignity and respect are the key to people‘s feelings, both teachers and
students, and, thus, their motivation. The motivation gap is one of the causes of
performance improvement failure (Clark & Estes, 2002). Miller & Rowan (2007)
concluded that enhanced guidance and standardization led to fidelity in
implementation of program-specific teaching strategies without leading to
decreased teacher motivation. This leads one to conclude that guidance and
standardization are not the barriers to implementation and that there could be
other factors related to motivation of teachers in implementing school reform
efforts including input in the process of identifying strategies. Elmore (2002)
states that linkages between professional development and accountability will
succeed to the degree that these linkages engage teachers and administrators in
acquiring knowledge and skills they need to solve problems and meet
expectations for high performance. To the degree the implementation process
involves asking people to perform tasks or implement new strategies they don‘t
know how to perform or for which they have not been asked to engage their own
ideas, values, and energies in the learning process, professional development,
geared toward instructional improvement, shifts from building capacity to
30

demanding compliance which can reduce motivation (Elmore, 2002; Clark &
Estes, 2002).
4. Organizations must ensure that the best people are working on the problem.
Leadership is crucial to this element. According to Kanter (2004), the
fundamental task of leaders is to develop confidence as a means to obtain
additional talent, support, effort, and people‘s best thinking which ultimately
leads to goal attainment. This element ties into Northouse‘s (2007) research on
leadership theories and styles that may be more effective for organizations that are
experiencing change or that require a leadership capacity that will motivate
people to engage in the reform implementation process. Northouse (2007)
indicates that contingency and leader-path theories identify traits within these
leadership styles that research has proven to be effective in organizations
experiencing change.
5. Reform efforts must recognize that all successful strategies are socially-based and
action-oriented. Kanter (2004) identifies collaboration as one of three key
elements to success. The other two are accountability and initiative.
6. Organizations must assume that the lack of capacity is the initial problem and
then work on it continuously. This emphasis on capacity building at the early
stages is key to motivation (Fullan, 2007). Capacity building develops skills,
clarity, and motivation (p.59). Capacity is defined by the degree of successful
interaction of students and teachers around content (Elmore, 2002). Identifying
and defining the link between professional development and capacity requires the
31

organization to understand what capacity is, how to attain it with professional
development, and the resources that are available or needed. If investments into
capacity-building are intended to relate directly to improvement, the definition of
capacity has to be rooted in instruction. Cohen, Raudenbush and Ball (2000)
define capacity, as the knowledge, skill, and material resources that are developed
to directly impact the interactions and linkages among students, teachers and
content. They argue that none of these three elements can be treated in isolation
from each other. For example, an organization cannot enhance teachers‘
knowledge and skill without also building knowledge of what teachers know
about reaching individual students and the adopted curriculum that teachers are
expected to teach and students are expected to learn. Conversely, school leaders
cannot insist on the mastery of rigorous content without also asking whether
teachers have the requisite knowledge and skill to teach it and identifying where
students are in their own learning relative to the level of the content being
launched. Finally, Elmore (2002) indicates that student achievement cannot be
improved without understanding what students bring to the learning process and
what teachers understand about student learning.
7. Organizations must stay the course through continuity of good direction by
leveraging leadership. Fullan (2007) concludes that the mark of a principal at the
end of his or her tenure is not just the impact on student achievement but on how
many good teachers the principal leaves behind who can take the good work to
the next level. There must be stability and continuity of effective leadership to
32

accomplish this and the system must develop leadership succession policies with
this goal in mind (p. 59).
8. Reform efforts must also include the development of internal accountability links
to external accountability. Elmore (2004) defines internal accountability in terms
of situations where individual responsibility, collective expectations, and
accountability data within the school are aligned. However; external
accountability does not work unless it is accompanied by the development of
internal accountability that includes providing professional development that
helps individuals understand student assessment data that leads to clarification of
goals and where each role player is in relation to achieving those goals. This gives
each role player a tool for improvement because it links performance data with
changes in instruction needed to increase achievement (Fullan, 2007, p.60).
9. Organizations must also establish conditions for the evolution of positive
pressure. The evolution of positive pressure means taking all the excuses away.
As districts add resources, new capacities, and provide examples of similar
schools that are experiencing success, and reduce the distractors (unnecessary
paperwork, ineffective procedures, poor labor relations, etc.), being critical,
relative to a situation of persistent low performance is eventually justified and
seen as fair and reasonable (Fullan, 2007, p. 61).
10. Organizations must build public confidence. If all nine of these elements are
present, they will become the catalyst for increased public confidence in the
33

school district both throughout the implementation process and as a result of the
process (p. 61).
As stated earlier, the school reform process is one that cannot be simplified and it
takes coordination between the central office and the school sites and collaboration
between all internal and external stakeholders in order to achieve true and sustainable
reform (Fullan, 2007).
Goal Alignment
Literature indicates that goal alignment is critical to successful implementation of
school reforms. According to Cohen (1983) coordination between goals and content
with performance measures occurs infrequently in schools. By the late 1980s, there was
evidence to suggest that schools that were effective in improving student performance
could be found and there was growing consensus on what effective schools looked like
(Good & Brophy, 1986). Effective schools were distinguished from more typical schools
in that they were better managed, and content and performance goals were coordinated
so that resources were more directed to student achievement than in less effective
schools (Good, Burross, & McCaslin, 2005). Datnow et al. (2002) conclude that many
fundamental school reforms fail to become institutionalized because of such factors as:
(a) flawed beginnings in the implementation of the reform within the district; (b) failure
to build commitment and ownership among teachers; (c) inflexibility of the reform; (d)
resource demands of the reform; (e) high stakes accountability systems; or (f) policy
misalignments (p. 117). The team examined the various initiatives and driving reforms
in Rowland including the Strategic Plan, Instructional Cabinet, and Communities of
34

Practice to develop conclusions as to whether or not there is clarity of the goal, and goal
alignment between these current reform initiatives.
Professional Development and Collaboration
Professional development should not be solely comprised of workshops and
courses, or even meeting high standards and achieving the qualification standard of No
Child Left Behind. If these components are done effectively, these are important
components, however; they represent only a portion of the solution to professional
development and building capacity. Teachers must learn every day, continuously
improving their craft collectively to become effective practitioners (Fullan, 2007).
The agenda for transforming the professional development of educators consists
of two fundamental and interrelated components: revamping the standards, incentives,
and qualification systems through teacher preparation programs in institutions of higher
education and, more importantly, restructuring the context in which teachers deliver
instruction (p. 283). Although collaboration is important, collaboration in and of itself is
not what counts. Collaboration is powerful, which means that people can do powerfully
wrong things together. McLaughlin and Talbert (2001) found that some strong high
school communities reinforced traditional teaching to the detriment of a large proportion
of students. Collaboration makes a positive difference only when it is focused on
academic performance for all students and when it targets innovative practices that can
make improvement happen for previously disengaged students (Fullan, 2007).
One method of establishing regular and consistent meaningful professional
development and collaboration which can lead to breakthroughs in effective teaching is
35

using some form of peer inclusive classroom walk-through process. Corvine & Martinez-
Miller (2008) have established a walk-through protocol linking student learning and
professional practice that is founded on three core beliefs: all students have the ability to
master a rigorous, standards-based curriculum; classroom teachers want to grow as
professionals and constantly improve their craft; and the greatest leverage point for
transformational growth in student achievement exists in the classroom, in the interaction
between the student, the teacher, and the content (p. 14). The walk-through protocol is a
―content-neutral‖ process. It is designed to assist teachers to gain a deeper understanding
of the results of their current practice and implement the types of changes that improve
the teaching practice which results in improved student learning. This protocol is about
providing opportunities for teachers to identify what they need to improve their practice,
rather than acting on a directive from outside the classroom as to what they need. The
walk-through team begins by selecting an area of inquiry and uses this question as a
guide when visiting classrooms in their own schools or sometimes in other schools to
collect evidence of what students are doing or saying in the classroom. The team then
uses this non-evaluative information to share with one another during a debriefing of the
individual observations maintaining anonymity of participants. The team looks for
patterns or themes within the evidence to raise questions about what they have observed.
This reflective discussion leads to identifying a ―better result‖ that sets the stage for the
next steps that may lead to improvement in student understanding. Although the walk-
through in itself does not lead to change, placing it in the cycle of continuous
improvement establishes a process where teachers are challenged to do something
36

different in their classrooms and then provided the opportunity to assess the results on
student learning that brings the teacher, schools, and the district closer to achieving
student achievement goals.
Elmore (2000) states that standards-based reform hits at a critical weakness of the
existing school district structure which is its inability to account for why certain students
master academic content while others do not. He explains that when the core of teaching
is buried in the individual decisions of classroom teachers and buffered from external
scrutiny, outcomes are the results of mysterious processes that no one understands at the
collective district level. Consequently, districts assign causality to whatever the favorite
theory suggests: family structures that are unstable, poverty, language barriers,
discrimination, lack of ability, television, and the list goes on. Using the walkthrough
protocol as a component of the collaborative process in school reform assists individuals,
schools, and the district as a whole in identifying what works and why and what does not
work and why in a continuous manner that is a critical component to district-wide
comprehensive school reform (Corvine & Martinez-Miller, 2008). The inquiry project
team examined the District‘s professional development initiatives including collaboration
as a component of its comprehensive school reform evaluation.
Leadership
Based on the literary work of Fullan (2007); Elmore (2002; Kanter (2004), and
Miller & Rowan (2007), leadership within an organization both at the site- and central
office- levels has an effect on the implementation of school reform. These experts
37

indicate that a leader who can motivate people to engage in the change process is a major
factor in performance improvement.
Northouse (2007) describes two leadership theories that may be effective in
addressing gaps in knowledge/skills, motivation, and organization in a dynamic
environment of school change. The first of these theories is the contingency theory also
known as a leader-match theory (Fiedler & Chemers, 1974). This theory represents an
approach that matches leaders to appropriate situations. It is called contingency because it
suggests that a leader‘s effectiveness depends on how well the leader‘s style fits the
context. In other words, effective leadership is contingent upon aligning a leader‘s style
with the appropriate setting (p.113). Contingency theory is concerned with styles and
situations. It provides the framework for effectively matching the leader and the situation.
Within this framework, leadership styles are described as task motivated or relationship
motivated. Leaders who are task-motivated are concerned primarily with reaching a goal,
whereas relationship-motivated leaders are concerned with developing close interpersonal
relationships. Based on research findings, contingency theory posits that certain styles are
effective in certain situations. Individuals who are task-motivated will be effective in
both very favorable and unfavorable situations, that is, in situations that are going along
very smoothly or ones that are out of control. People who are relationship motivated are
effective in moderately favorable situations, that is, in situations in which there is some
degree of certainty but things are neither completely under their control nor out of their
control (p. 115).
38

Contingency theory has several major strengths: it is supported by a great deal of
empirical research (Peters, Harke, & Pohlman, 1985; Strube & Garcia, 1981); it has
broadened the understanding of leadership by forcing us to consider the impact of
situations on leaders; it is predictive and therefore provides useful information about the
type of leadership that is most likely to be effective in certain contexts; it has
advantageous because it does not require that people be effective in all situations but
instead organizations are able to place leaders in optimal situations that can benefit the
entire organization; and contingency theory provides data on leaders‘ styles that could be
useful to organizations in developing leadership profiles (Northouse, 2007, p. 177).
The second leadership theory is the path-goal theory. The path-goal theory is
about how leaders motivate subordinates to accomplish designated goals. This theory
draws heavily from research on what motivates employees and first appeared in
leadership literature in the early 1970s in the literature of Evans (1970), House (1971),
House and Dessler (1974), and House and Mitchell (1974). The primary goal of this
leadership theory is to enhance employee performance and employee satisfaction by
focusing on employee motivation. The path-goal theory emphasizes the relationship
between the leader‘s style and the characteristics of the subordinates and the work setting
(Northouse, 2007). The strengths of the path goal theory include: 1) it provides a useful
theoretical framework for understanding how various leadership behaviors affect
subordinates‘ satisfaction and work performance; 2) it attempts to integrate the
motivation principles of other two other theories, expectancy and leadership, which
makes the path-goal theory unique because no other leadership approach deals directly
39

with motivation in this manner; and 3) it provides a model that in certain ways is very
practical by underscoring and highlighting the important ways leaders help subordinates.
This theory demands from the leader to clarify the paths to the goals and remove or help
subordinates around the obstacles to the goals. It reminds leaders that the overarching
purpose of leadership is to guide and coach subordinates as they move along the path to
achieve a goal (p. 135). The work of the Rowland Unified School District formal and
informal leadership requires both goal- and motivation-oriented leaders in this climate of
school reform and change to ensure adaptability, commitment, and ownership from all
stakeholders.
Accountability
Elmore (2002) indicates that internal accountability precedes external
accountability and is a precondition for any process of improvement. According to
Elmore, schools do not ―succeed‖ in response to external cues or pressures unless they
have their own internal system for reaching agreement on good practice and for making
that agreement evident in the organization and in its pedagogy. This is has been proven
from the many studies of effective schools, the schools that have the most effective
professional development programs and the schools that accommodate accountability
most successfully. He indicates that the common denominator in these schools is that
they have a clear, strong internal focus on issues of instruction, student learning, and
expectations for teacher and student performance. This strong internal accountability
system has a high degree of alignment among individual teachers about what they can do
and about their responsibility for the improvement of student learning. Schools have
40

shared expectations among teachers, administrators, and students about what constitutes
good work and a set of processes for observing whether these expectations are being met
(Newmann and King, et. al., 2000; Little, 1993; Abelmann and Elmore, et. al, 1999).
Elmore (2002) also indicates that the most direct incentives for improved
performance are those embedded within the work itself. The further away from the work,
the less powerful and predictable is an incentive‘s effect on performance. He posits that
school personnel are more likely to work collaboratively to improve performance if the
work itself is rewarding and if the external rewards support and reinforce work that is
regarded as instrumental to increased quality and performance. Given the atomized
structure of most schools, it seems improbable that external rewards will, in and of
themselves, transform these organizations into coherent, supportive environments for
student and adult learning. It is more likely that teachers and administrators will learn the
value of successful collaboration from experience then make the connection between this
work and external rewards or sanctions. The work itself, then, is the primary motivator
for learning and improvement. If the work is not engaging and if it is not demonstrably
beneficial to student learning, then any incentives are likely to produce weak and
unreliable effects (p.21).
Accountability systems, no matter how well designed, are only as effective as the
capacity of the organization to respond. The purpose of the accountability system is to
focus the resources and capacities of an organization toward a particular end.
Accountability systems cannot mobilize resources that schools do not have.
Accountability systems do not cause schools to improve; they create the conditions in
41

which it is advantageous for schools to work on specific problems, to focus their work in
particular ways, and to develop new knowledge and skills in their students and staff. The
capacity to improve precedes and shapes schools‘ responses to the external demands of
accountability systems (p. 23).
Gap Analysis and Causes: Knowledge; skills, motivation; organizational structure
Clark and Estes (2002) establish the blueprint for the process of identifying
performance issues within an organization and how to complete a study using the gap
analysis model. They also define a process to identify causes for the gaps in the areas of
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization which are the larger umbrellas under
which many of the factors and elements described as essential of successful
implementation or barriers to school reform in earlier literature find a place.
Effective school improvement must begin with clearly understood performance
goals (Bandura, 1997) and an accurate analysis of the cause of the gaps between current
and desired performance (Gilbert 1996; Rummler and Brache, 1995; Locke and Latham,
1990). These performance goals are descriptions of tasks or objectives that individuals
must accomplish in accordance with specific timelines and standards. Effective
performance goals follow the overarching organizational goal or global goal of the
district. The gap between the desired and actual goal must be assessed and closed if
organizational goals are to be achieved. Alignment between the individual or team and
the district begins with compatible goal structure. There are also intermediate goals that
serve as progressive bridges between the performance goal and the overarching goal.
Many organizations fail to make the connection between high-level organizational goals
42

and specific individual goal performance goals. While goal setting may seem a little dry,
it is often the essential but missing component in performance improvement within an
organization. Research indicates that the types of performance goals selected and the way
they are communicated to people are both vital concerns to authentic implementation of
school reforms. The value for the goal by stakeholders is enhanced when the goals are
developed or assigned by a person or teams who meet the following characteristics: they
are a legitimate and trusted authority; they have an inspiring vision that reflects a
convincing rationale for the goal; the person or team expects outstanding performance
from everyone; gives ownership to individuals and teams for specific task and
accomplishments; and expresses confidence in individual team capabilities (Clark &
Estes, 2002).
In addition to the trusted leader, the performance goals with an opportunity for
greater acceptance and therefore; greater positive impact on the organization are those
that are 1) concrete (clear, easily understandable, and measurable; 2) challenging (doable
but very difficult); and 3) current (short-term daily or weekly goals are more motivating
than longer-term monthly or annual goals) (p. 26).
As stated earlier in the introduction portion of this document, the three causes for
performance gaps are individual‘s knowledge and skills; their motivation to achieve the
goal particularly when compared with other work goals they must also achieve; and
organizational barriers such as a lack of necessary equipment and missing or inadequate
work processes or other critical information. These three critical factors were examined
during the analysis process (p. 43).
43

During the analysis, it was important to determine whether individuals within the
District had knowledge of the District goals and priorities and how to achieve their
performance goals related to these overarching goals of the District. According to Clark
and Estes (2002), people are often unaware of their own lack of knowledge and skills or
are reluctant to disclose weaknesses, therefore; the inquiry questions where framed in a
manner that were general in terms, without leading an individual to speak about specific
individuals. The analysis sought to identify gaps in knowledge and skills related to the
District goals and how the current practice, specific to the particular role group, moved
the District toward the goal.
Motivation is a little more complex as it involves internal psychological processes
that create a desire to be involved and participate in the process of achieving the goals.
Motivation can be created by internal and external factors including people‘s own beliefs
and values, and the credibility of the leaders who are leading the change within each
school site. The level of knowledge and skills can also impact the motivation level of the
participant. For example, if a teacher is expected to provide instruction to students with
varying degrees of current ability in a content area or in the English language, however;
the teacher is not trained to provide differentiated instruction, both the teacher and the
students have an increased risk of failure which may result in a decline in motivation
throughout the teaching and learning process and even more if there is constant failure for
both the teacher and the students who may already be underserved. Additionally, if there
is no clear goal or there are too many goals that are not aligned, the individual may feel
44

pulled in too many directions and both the thought and work processes becomes
fragmented (p. 44).
Organizational barriers can be created when there is no goal alignment or policies
and other driving documents including collective bargaining agreements, local
educational agency plans, strategic plans, performance evaluation tools, and governance
priorities are not aligned. Often when knowledge and skill, and motivation barriers are
ruled out as causes of performance gaps, some form of organizational barrier is the
reason. This could be a lack of human or financial capital, flow of communication, or as
mentioned earlier a lack of alignment between global goals and performance goals or
goals that are aligned but are not concrete, challenging, or current.
Evaluating these three factors was the focus of this study using the processes
defined through the Clark & Estes (2002) model for gap analysis. The artifacts gathered
during the inquiry project process and the interviews that were conducted all led to the
conclusions that will be discussed in chapter three.
Methodology
Authored by: Gilda Dixon, Brent Forsee, and Monalisa Hasson
Inquiry
Through collaborative efforts, Rowland Unified School District was chosen for
this project based on, among other criteria, their innovative District-level reform
strategies and commitment to reform with the goal or transforming teaching and learning
in the face of serious budgetary constraints (Gopalankrishna, 2010). In creating this
partnership, the focus of our evaluation at Rowland Unified School District was centered
45

on the RUSD redesign process which incorporates the adoption of Holladay‘s (2009)
―Values-Functions-Structures Model‖, and major structural changes such as the creation
of the Instructional Cabinet, Communities of Practice, and site-based reconfigurations.
The intention of this inquiry-based project was to provide a comprehensive evaluation,
through the framework of Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis model, grounded in a
research-based theoretical perspective, as a consultative evaluation.
Our investigation into the Rowland Unified School District‘s reform
implementation was undertaken through the use of the gap analysis model as presented
by Clark and Estes (2002) which focuses on the identification of performance gaps, in
connection with performance goals in organizations through the examination of root
causes: knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational structure. In evaluating the
implementation process at the Rowland Unified School District, our team sought to gain
insight into the root causes from three different role groups: District personnel, Ball
Foundation partners, administrators and teachers. These role groups were selected based
on the hierarchical nature of school reform and the interrelatedness of processes at
different hierarchical levels within the District.
With this focus, our team adopted a qualitative approach to data collection that
would yield detailed information to inform gaps in the District‘s goal attainment related
to implementation of its reform efforts. Our team believed that conducting the inquiry
project in this manner would allow the team to gain a richer understanding of the
perspectives of individuals within each of the role groups. Understanding the individual
perspectives within each role groups would more broadly inform the team as to the
46

knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational root causes at all levels that may be
barriers to effective reform implementation.
Participants
Initially, our team met with the District superintendent and its leadership staff in
order to gain an overarching sense of the District‘s history, its efforts at school reform, its
financial outlook, and the goals for improved student achievement. Along with these key
pieces of information, District personnel provided information on the District‘s current
strategic plan, goals for the District, possible challenges to meeting its District reform
goals, and District administration‘s response to these challenges. This informational
meeting allowed our team to ask broad questions to gain an understanding of the
District‘s desired focus and it also provided an opportunity to meet key informants.
Key Informants
After gathering other information from available public records as well as those
provided by the District leadership such as strategic plans; demographic information;
financial support; AYP; and API scores for the District, key informants were identified.
Our team met with one of the District‘s assistant superintendents to conduct the first
scanning interview. The assistant superintendent was chosen as the first contact because
the team believed he would be able to provide insight into the history of the RUSD
school reform efforts from a high-level administrative perspective, ease access into the
organization, and provide a global picture of the current District efforts. He would also
be instrumental in providing access to school personnel who would participate in the
interviews required to gain insight into the potential root causes associated with school
47

reform efforts in the District. This key informant became the liaison between our team
and the District and provided the team follow-up contacts for interviews.
Administrators, Teachers, Ball Foundation Partners
Our key informant, RUSD‘s assistant superintendent, selected a combination of
follow up contacts for our initial round of scanning interviews to be representative of the
different levels of implementation within the District (Ball foundation partners,
administrators, and teachers); including two Ball Foundation partners, three principals,
and four teachers. The second round, month-long interviews, had the same informant
composition, incorporating administrators; Ball Foundation partners; and teachers, which
allowed the team to capture in-depth information about the extent of school reform
implementation related to the root causes.
Inquiry Procedures
The main instruments in this investigation were 1) structured scanning, semi-
structured stages of concern, and month-long interviews; 2) strategic plans; 3) district
information meeting; 4) observational data; and 5) Ball Foundation surveys. All
interviewees were assured of their anonymity and were advised that inquiry project
results would be shared in a manner that would not jeopardize the integrity of the process
as it relates to protecting the identity of individual participants. Scanning interviews were
instrumental in understanding how each role group sees the implementation of reform
strategies, perceived successful or unsuccessful strategies, District or individual goals,
awareness/knowledge, and barriers (knowledge/skills, motivation and organizational
culture). Stages of concern interviews were aimed at assessing the concerns at various
48

stages in the reform implementation efforts and how these efforts were perceived and the
feelings associated with this process. Month-long interviews focused on identifying the
interviewees‘ goals for the month (in this case April), the strategies that were used, and
the extent of success achieved. Strategic plans and organizational charts, provided
earlier, assisted the team in understanding how District structures support or hinder
reform efforts. Finally, the District meetings informed the research team on the
integration and role relationship between and within the various groups. The team used
these methods concurrently to triangulate information provided from all sources, such as
Ball questionnaires and observations, to gain a richer understanding of possible root
causes.
Once our research was completed, our team presented a summary of the findings
to the District Executive Cabinet in a collaborative manner to gain perspective on how
the District personnel conceptualized the possible gaps found by our team of researchers.
The information gathered at this meeting became the foundation for prioritizing and
tailoring proposed solutions to the gaps that were found in a way that could be practical
and useful for the District and would have the best likelihood of being implemented
within the work already in progress to strengthen overall District school reform efforts.
Following this initial meeting, a summary of the proposed research-based
solutions (Appendix G) was again presented to the Executive Cabinet members and the
Ball Foundation liaison for consideration along with a comprehensive report of the
team‘s findings (Appendix H). These solutions were tailored to fine-tune the work
already in progress while at the same time the solutions were focused and tied to the
49

decentralization focus of the District and its need to move toward adding a non-
negotiable component in defining and aligning global goals. Results of the team‘s inquiry
project will be shared with the District‘s Governing Board in February 2011, per request
from the District superintendent.
Scanning Interviews
The team designed a set of scanning interview questions (Appendix B) aimed at
gaining knowledge of how different role groups within the school district understand the
historical perspective, the District goals (both informal and formal) for both what the
District was trying to accomplish and what the interviewee was personally trying to
accomplish toward that goal; the goals and future achievement the interviewees identified
and where they would like to see themselves; whether they thought the District reform
had or had not been successful; and the barriers to success that may be present in the
RUSD, as well as knowledge, skills, and motivational factors associated with various
role groups. Finally, the team solicited suggestions for other possible interviewees which
would inform District-level reform implementation.
Stages of Concern Interviews
Stages of concern interviews (Appendix C) were conducted with a second set of
interviewees comprised once again of the various role groups within the District and that
represented the District composition. These interviews aimed to identify different stages
of concern and feelings related to District-level reform. Responses were coded based on
the following stages: awareness (level of awareness of reform), information (level of
information present/or lack thereof), personal (how it affects the interviewee),
50

management (need for managing reform efforts), and consequences (effect of reform
application on students, staff, etc.). This data was analyzed with a focus on gaining an
understanding of the motivational, knowledge, and skill factors and how each factor
affects the implementation of District-level reform within the District.
Month-long Interviews
Next, administrators, teachers, and Ball partners were asked to complete month-
long interviews (Appendix D) at their work sites. The team members selected the month
of April and asked interviewees to elaborate on their goals for that month related to
school reform. They were asked about the strategies they had used, with whom, where
and how they were used, and then to speak about the extent of their success. Probes were
used at each of the levels of questioning to further delve into the root causes as identified
by the interviewees.
Interviews were conducted by each of the individuals in the three-member team,
recorded and transcribed for analysis without identifying the interviewees. Interviews
were coded in a way that allowed our team to evaluate themes related to the root causes
from the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2002): knowledge and skills, motivational,
and organizational culture by each of the role groups. The goal of this analysis was to
inform our study in terms of not only the roots of the problem but to disaggregate and
aggregate data by role group to identify common threads or unique characteristics within
potential barriers to implementation across the role groups. Individual team members
coded their interviews, exchanged their transcript with the other team members, and
51

finally, coded the responses individually. Coding results from each member were then
compared for inter-rater reliability of at least 90 percent.
Strategic Plans
Within the gap analysis model (Clark and Estes, 2002), organizational culture can
encompass both structures and unwritten rules. For RUSD, District-level reform also
involves restructuring efforts and a guided mission and vision for the organization.
Accordingly, our team found it crucial to examine artifacts related to the District‘s
organizational structure. The Ball Foundation effort at RUSD assisted the District in
creating a visual representation of its strategic plan illustrating different ―branches‖, each
representing various aspect of school reform (Appendix E, F). Among those branches
were the creation of several collaborative groups aimed at ―flattening‖ the organizational
structure and increasing communication in and among various role groups. As a result,
Communities of Practice, Instructional Cabinet, and the Executive Cabinet were created.
Action plans were also shared which were initially intended to specifically guide
the implementation of the strategic plans through the different role groups within the
organization that would lead to goal attainment of improved student achievement. The
structure of these action plans indicated some awareness, by those developing the
strategic plans, of the need for clear instruction within the various District role groups as
an important component of an effective implementation process.
Professional Development Meeting
Additional information utilized to facilitate insight into the root causes of our
analysis came from the Leadership Conference in which different role groups convene to
52

discuss the successes of the District reform efforts at the Rowland Unified School
District. This format served as an unstructured way to gather information from members
from each role group in a natural setting. One of the research team members attended the
leadership conference and participated as an interested observer, initially; however, then
found it of value to the research project to follow-up with additional stages of concern
questions to administrators, teachers, and Ball foundation partners present at the meeting.
As with the interview questions presented earlier, data gathered with this format was
coded in response to themes related to root causes from the gap analysis model (2002),
knowledge/skills; motivation; and organizational culture, to assess achievement gaps in
District-level reform implementation.
Ball Foundation Survey
Additional information was gathered through results of a Ball Foundation survey
distributed to role groups working on school reform and involved in the various
collaborative teams in an effort to assess the level of involvement and views on the
school reform strategies being implemented. This survey was used for information
purposes only to add to the already developing themes from data collection through
interviews and other artifacts.
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
53

consultation to the district on these issues. Therefore, this project is not considered as
research and therefore 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‖ (45CFR46.102(d)). As described in the Belmont Report
―...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)
Further clarification is provided in the following section:
54

―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)
Findings
Authored by: Gilda Dixon, Brent Forsee, and Monalisa Hasson
Rowland Unified School District in its partnership with the Ball Foundation is
headed down a path of whole systems change. Evidence from multiple interviews, a Ball
survey, and observational data provided evidence of a desire to expand a shared
leadership model throughout the District. The Ball Foundation has been very forthright
with the goal of increasing literacy through systems change, while the District appears to
have taken substantial steps toward a shared leadership model. Evidence of this finding
is the creation of a District-wide Instructional Cabinet, Communities of Practice, and
increased collaboration time for school-site teams.
The Instructional Cabinet model is not indigenous to RUSD. However the size
and scope of its team reflects the shared leadership model promoted by the Ball
Foundation. It incorporates the executive cabinet as well as principals, labor leaders, and
other school site level instructional leaders. With over 25 members, the Instructional
Cabinet sets the democratized leadership tone for the District. Currently, they are
concentrating on RUSD‘s new status as a Program Improvement district and on District-
wide assessment. Interview data indicates that prior to the current format, the District
was extremely decentralized. School site leaders did what they thought was best with
55

little direction from the central office. In meetings, ―often the person with the loudest
voice won the argument‖ (personal contact Ball Foundation). Numerous interview
subjects pointed to a lack consistency in direction from school to school. Ball and upper-
level management agreed that RUSD was moving toward a democratized sense of
leadership throughout the District and away from a laissez-faire atmosphere.
Communities of Practice (COP) are a communication strategy brought by Ball
and used in its work with RUSD. In theory, COPs may be formed by any member in the
District and may include any level or number of people within the District. COPs are
formed by people that have a similar interests or goals and meet periodically to discuss or
take action toward the group‘s goal. COPs need not be instructionally or educationally-
based. Interviews evidenced the creation of numerous non-work related COPs that met
periodically to pursue recreational interests. When this practice was brought to Ball
foundation representatives‘ attention they seemed to believe this was an important part of
the process. When asked how many COPs were operating within the District, no
respondents could give an accurate count. When asked how COPs benefit students, some
respondents felt that the COP model opened lines of communication for sharing
educational practices.
Collaboration time within RUSD has been almost exclusively funded by Ball.
Upper level management, via interviews, has made it very clear that they do not know
how they will continue to fund the collaboration and professional development time once
the Ball Foundation funding ends. While observing a day-long staff development
culminating activity between RUSD and Ball it seemed hard to determine who was
56

leading. The superintendent receives high marks for her willingness to become a
participant in the activities of the day rather than lead the activities. She served as a
model for the type of leadership she would like to promote District-wide. This
collaboration time produced valuable information for school site teams as they discussed
information gleaned throughout the year. One of the most popular initiatives brought by
Ball was the ―learning walk.‖ This is a practice where school site teams composed of
administrators and teachers observe each other during instructional time. Non-
judgmental feedback is given as the school site teams serve as another set of eyes within
the classroom. These learning walks were just beginning to develop into ―best practices‖
within school sites.
Interviews with Ball members reveal that they feel RUSD is on the correct path
toward systems change, but is not there yet. When asked what will happen when Ball
funding ends and the Foundation leaves Rowland, there was no definitive answer as to
how this transition would look. Seemingly, upper level management is taking a
substantial yet noble risk heading down the path of systems change while under the
pressure that comes from entering program improvement.
One upper-level management participant noted that things did not look good as
―the strategic plan is in shambles.‖ Yet, during the professional development day with
Ball there was a sense of optimism. Participants seemed to communicate freely about
gains made throughout the year. Balancing this with interview data made one wonder
what was being communicated beyond the structured time with Ball. Interviews with site
level administrators and teachers gave pause to the belief that this type of democratic
57

leadership has taken hold. There are school site administrators who remain unaware of
the priorities of the Instructional Cabinet. Many individuals at sites are not sure whether
they should be following the Ball model or attempting to follow a now decimated
strategic plan. A District administrator solidified this sentiment by responding ―We have
so many things going, but nothing is connected. We have Ball, strategic plan, a coming
PI addendum. Which one am I supposed to be working through? I don‘t know what the
Instructional Cabinet is doing or supposed to be doing.‖ (RUSD Interview) Clearly this
indicates a broad gap in the organizational culture of RUSD. Recognizing this, District
leadership is attempting to incorporate the shared leadership model to address this gap.
Unfortunately, this attempt may not be successful unless the knowledge gap of capacity is
bridged as well. When one Ball respondent was asked about the strategic plan he said he
wished Ball partners could have written the plan with the District so that it could be a
living document. When pressed regarding the value of the plan to the District, he
indicated there was little, if any. ―I think our biggest mistake was not being more
involved in the development of the Strategic Plan. I don‘t believe it is a poor plan, I‘m
just not sure if it is easily linked to the work we [Ball] are doing in the District. I believe
there are links, but they are not clear or easily evident.‖ (Ball Interview, 4-15-10)
In sum, there seems to be a sense of accomplishment and optimism amongst those
participants receiving the most assistance and feedback from Ball. However, it does not
take long to find school site personnel who are confused or completely unknowledgeable
of the direction of the District. There is little evidence of alignment of school goals to
District goals, with classroom goals even further distanced. Again, this points to a gap in
58

organizational culture. Interview respondents overwhelmingly addressed the lack of
accountability toward the central office. Based on the information collected by the team,
the organizational culture is such that each principal has the ability to do whatever they
want at their school. Seemingly, RUSD‘s status as a PI district may be rooted in this
organizational gap that lacks direction or sound educational alignment as referenced in
the literature review. The saturation of the Ball influence that was felt during the
professional development day was not evident during the school site visits. There was
little if any observational evidence one could use to support Ball‘s effect at the school site
level. While much was celebrated at the professional development day, there was little
evidence in the form of student achievement data or in feedback from school site
personnel present to support Ball‘s effect at the school site level. One interview
respondent supported this assessment by saying, ―The principals smile and nod at the
meetings and then come back to the school site and do their own thing. If you have a
strong principal then you probably have a strong school, but if you don‘t, there is no
accountability to the D.O. [District Office]. Half the District is PI now so realistically
what is the D.O. going to do?‖ This brings into question whether the capacity exists
within RUSD to solve its problems. Harkening back to a few years ago when people
within the District largely did what they wanted, it would seem difficult to build a
democratic foundation. District leadership supports the desire to remain decentralized
despite the barriers this may cause in developing District-wide continuity. ―Keeping the
COPs [Communities of Practice] in place is a high priority. I believe these will be the
lever through which we will achieve our goals. COPs are aligned with our decentralized
59

nature and will help us develop creative solutions to our problems.‖ (RUSD interview, 6-
12-10) While Ball has certainly sought to build capacity within District employees, it
remains questionable whether it has been in the District long enough or cast its net wide
enough to realize the gains on which both Ball and RUSD are banking. This again points
to a knowledge gap that may not be bridgeable under a shared leadership model. A
question regarding a knowledge gap or capacity may not be readily solved by sharing
leadership amongst those who do not know the direction of the District.
Along with the knowledge gaps in the understanding of the communicated reform
strategies within the administrative role group, there are also knowledge gaps in the
understanding of reform implementation at the teacher level. Several teachers‘
statements during the interviews indicated that despite efforts in collaboration through
Communities of Practice, other than building leadership skills, they did not seem to make
a clear connection between the COP-driven collaboration and classroom instruction to the
extent that when asked about the stated goal of moving out of program improvement,
several informants conceptualized the process as separate from the reform efforts rather
than the reform efforts leading to program improvement. One interviewee stated when
asked about the PI status of the school, ―Oh, yeah. That‘s a whole other situation.‖
Additionally, the superficial aspect of the reform efforts were clearly articulated
with statements related to the need to learn from others, and the idea that the
collaborative structure allowed for more dialogue with other role groups as strategies to
encourage communication between District-level personnel, teachers, administrators, and
executive cabinet members. Substantive information regarding reform and how teachers
60

see this process implemented, resulted in responses such as ―we are learning to be
‗leaderful.‘ We have a chance to learn how to lead by facilitating collaborative groups.‖
It appeared that reform strategies had not been communicated in a concrete way to
teachers with clear action items for implementation.
Compounding the challenges to implementation are the differences in skill level
of the teachers. Informants mentioned the lack of experience of the new teachers as a
deterrent to incorporating reform efforts. They explained that new teachers seem willing
to collaborate with other colleagues but they are overwhelmed with just being able to
master the task of being a new teacher and many times when they go back to the
classroom, they fall back on what is within a particular new teacher‘s personal level of
comfort given the beginning teacher‘s new and developing skills. For veteran teachers,
who also saw themselves as advocates of the reform efforts, lack of implementation was
reported due to the veteran teachers‘ perceived understanding that he or she already
incorporates these new ideas into his or her teaching practice and therefore; no changes
are needed.
Along with knowledge/skills gaps, themes around motivation also surfaced. The
majority of those interviewed endorsed the reform effort as they understood it, again,
mostly in superficial terms. Those interviewed responded, for the most part, with
enthusiasm and willingness to adopt the strategies and participate in the newly created
collaborations. There were a few participants who responded that some colleagues are
not motivated to participate and learn from others. These colleagues were characterized
as ―stuck in their own classrooms‖ and ―wanting to do what they always do because they
61

know what they are doing.‖ Others mentioned their fear of evaluation by an unfriendly
administrator as the reason for wanting to participate in the collaborative effort. Others
who were interviewed shared their belief that they had been teaching for a long time and
they were competent in their teaching craft. Reform efforts to these teachers appear to
threaten their self-concept and hinder motivation needed to actively choose to participate
in the reform strategies, or persist at the task if engaged in it at all. Some expressed that
the administrator would do what she wanted anyway and that this was just a phase that
would soon be gone.
Along with motivational causes, teachers also discussed the organizational culture
in relation to school reform. Many expressed the history of the District as one in which
role groups did not communicate with each other and even within their own role groups.
Teachers mentioned working in isolation in their classroom with little contact in the form
of department meetings. Communication between elementary, middle, and high school
staff was non-existent as reported by the majority of the interviewees. According to
several interviewees, the District-level personnel did not communicate well with site staff
and information was not disseminated or if it was disseminated many times what was
actually happening at the school sites did not necessarily align with what the District
office envisioned. Some teachers, however; did endorse their school as a place where
staff was passionate about student learning and teachers were willing to try new ways to
instruct students. They viewed their school culture as one of experimentation. Other
school sites viewed the school culture as one of appeasing the school administrator and
not really ―making waves.‖
62

Organizational structural changes were readily evident to all the interviewees,
given the newly created collaborative groups within the RUSD and the loss of District-
level personnel that led to restructuring of the roles of the assistant principals now
incorporating District-level responsibilities as learning directors. Other changes cited
included the implementation of the Communities of Practice and the diminished degree
of professional development due to budgetary constraints.
In sum, gaps in goal alignment at various levels within the organization are a
major factor in the difficulties of implementation of District-level reform for RUSD.
This reality is coupled with an unclear understanding by those who need to implement the
reform as to what is to be implemented. The lack of concrete action items is evident in
the varying interpretations by teachers of meaningful reform which results in the adoption
of superficial aspects of reform. Motivational factors also influence fidelity of reform
implementation possibly caused by the perception that reform poses a threat to self-
concept which negatively affects motivation in choice and persistence. Finally,
organizational culture, structure, and capacity are the context in which all of these root
causes take place and different histories, resources, rules, and norms at different sites
impact fidelity as well.
63

Chapter Three
Possible Solutions to the District‘s Reform Efforts
Authored by: Gilda Dixon, Brent Forsee, and Monalisa Hasson
Determining Possible Solutions: Literature Review
Solutions for RUSD are presented as a result of collaboration with District
leadership. Traditional research studies may present solutions derived purely from a
strong literature and research. While recognizing the primary role research must play in
the presentation of solutions, the nature of this project, under a practical problem solving
lens, dictates proposed solutions must fit within the political and systemic boundaries of
the educational entity studied. This solutions piece seeks to meld literature-based
solutions to the political and cultural climate while building upon current strengths and
positive activities within RUSD. As a result, broad solutions requiring extensive
organizational change have been dismissed in favor of solutions that may better fit within
the context of the District‘s current reform initiatives.
RUSD has faced unprecedented budgetary issues due to the economic collapse of
2008. As this collapse was unexpected, the budget shortfall caught many districts
including RUSD off guard and in the middle of numerous reform and restructuring
movements. An additional challenge was created when the District entered program
improvement status in December, 2009.
Over the past three to four years, RUSD has moved to create an eight pillar
strategic plan, a professional development plan, a partnership with the Ball Foundation,
64

and developed a program improvement addendum to its Local Educational Agency
(LEA) plan; all while initiating necessary, yet critical personnel cuts at the District-level.
In response to all the impeding pressures, RUSD has been able to establish a solid
foundation from which to build a strong District-level reform effort to ultimately target
improved student achievement. In doing so, it is obvious that RUSD has considered
research-evidenced practices which have proven essential in school reform success
efforts. McCombs & Quiat (2003) propose that the following criteria is an integral part
of successful reform movements: 1) using research-validated principles and their
corresponding assessment tools; 2) considering both student and teacher perceptions of
instructional practices; and 3) assessing impact on both learners and learning and on both
motivation and multiple achievement measures. Also RUSD‘s work takes into
consideration the need to develop school capacity through: principal leadership;
professional community; program coherence; technical resources; knowledge, skills, and
dispositions of individual teachers; and learning opportunities for teachers (Borko, et al,
2003).
Additionally, incorporation of an outside agency has been described as a means to
effective district level comprehensive school reform (Borman et al, 2003). Programs
such as Success for All and America‘s Choice sustain that this component is crucial.
Outside entities provide districts with a fresh lens and guidance toward solutions that may
not be so readily apparent to those within the organization (Borman, et al, 2003).
For RUSD, this step has been evident in their cooperation with the Ball
Foundation to institute many effective research-based strategies such as creating a
65

partnership with an outside organization (Ball), moving toward a decentralized system to
promote creating solutions and buy-in from those who do the work (administrators,
teachers and support staff), and supporting site-based decision-making, thus, affording
more local control and creating collaborative communities. Although these efforts have
been in place for a limited amount of time, it is obvious that the District is moving toward
the improvement that would be expected given the short time since implementation and
its reform characteristic, one that is an ―exemplar‖ effort rather than one that is measured
based on outcomes. As Borko, et al (2003) states comprehensive school reform takes
time and it is best understood in terms of school capacity rather than outcome.
RUSD leadership has instituted a culture of decentralization in the District and
within this milieu has begun to implement District-level reforms efforts. The movement
toward decentralization has been adopted by many educational agencies since the 1970s.
This movement has been accompanied by highly debated discussion as to how to strike a
balance between decentralization and centralization and how to clearly define what this
means for a particular organization (Meyer, 2006). This debate has resulted in findings
indicating that decentralization can mean different things for different organizations and
that whatever it means to a particular district must be clearly defined. Additionally, the
effectiveness of efforts toward reform rests in a balance between centralization and
decentralization with fluctuation between the two, creating some points which must be
centralized and some that must be left to school-site control (Meyer, 2006; Ostrom,
2009).
66

Given the current research findings on maximizing effectiveness in District-level
reform implementation and the desire of RUSD leadership to work with the ―Essential
Priorities,‖ our team of researchers, analyzing RUSD from the District level, recommend
a simplification or narrowing of solutions to address goal alignment, focusing
performance goals, and clearly defining the ―non-negotiables‖ in a decentralized
organization in order to affect instructional reform at the classroom level. The aim is to
build on the current foundation and fine tune the work already in progress. Elmore
(2002) and Collins (2001) support the honing of goals in an environment of shared
leadership, such as that in RUSD. While the attainment of goals must be shared, the clear
definition of goals and how they are measured must be benchmarked (Dowd, 2005) in a
manner that enables the entire organization to understand the expectations, how, and
when they have been met (Resnick & Hall, 2005).
These proposed solutions take into consideration the limitations of our inquiry:
limited number of interviewees, limited time to conduct interviews, tumultuous timing of
the inquiry process, and lack of representation of all stakeholders in the interview
process. Additionally, the team understands and has taken into account the fact that
reform efforts evolve over time and that findings capture a snapshot of where the District
was at the time of the study.
The team also understands the current budgetary pressures and time constraints
and the need for time-limited progress especially while facing Program Improvement
status. Togneri (2003) suggests documenting paths for districts to move away from
islands of excellence and toward more consistent district-wide reform. Togneri also
67

indicates that traditional district structures do not easily support these new approaches.
She further alliterates the struggles district leaders sometimes have with site-based
personnel. ―District leaders expected school staff to take on multiple roles: to analyze
data and to diagnose student needs, to determine the efficacy of their own practices, to
align their instruction to standards, to research new practices, and to collaborate
frequently with colleagues. Yet district leaders had not created the full complement of
support systems for teachers to meet these new expectations.‖ (Togneri, p. 9) In
numerous ways these are the same expectations placed on staff throughout Rowland
Unified, despite the harsh impact of the budget on resources. As a response, Rowland
has sought to ―flatten‖ its leadership hierarchy via the work with the Ball Foundation to
create leadership capacity throughout the District. This may be a well intentioned and
effective response to the increased demands.
Togneri (2003) offers a solution to this dilemma by suggesting alignment of
professional development opportunities to district goals and emerging themes based on
data. This effort, while somewhat supported through the District‘s use of Communities
of Practice, may be more effective if linked more concretely to developing collective
efficacy throughout the District. A shared belief that the staff has the ability to positively
affect students (Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2004) is a belief of collective efficacy that appears
evident in pockets throughout RUSD. The transformational leadership style employed by
the highest level of leadership within RUSD is one of dedication to fostering the
professional growth of its members and to enhance their commitment to elevate their
goals (Burns, 1978) aligns with the collective efficacy model. DuFour, DuFour, and
68

Eaker (2006) further describe this model as educators committed to working
collaboratively in processes of action research and inquiry in order to produce more
effective results.
Styles of leadership have been explored by Bolman and Deal (2003) in their
Four-Frame Leadership Model.
- Political Frame: The political frame requires that leaders understand the
political climate of their organization. This involves the building and
maintaining of coalitions, negotiating, and finding acceptable compromises.
This frame must be mastered in climates of resource scarcity or conflict over
organizational direction.
- Symbolic Frame: The symbolic frame requires a visionary leadership style
that makes the work of individuals personal within the organization. Cause
and effect relationships become important and are clearly defined.
- Human Resource Frame: The human resource frame values people and the
work they do each day. The focus on people seeks to keep morale high
throughout the organization and can be effective during times of relative calm.
- Structural Frame: This frame requires a clear definition of systems and
practices throughout the organization. In some ways it can be more
bureaucratic, but can be effective when alignment and clarification issues
permeate the organization.
In many ways the culture of RUSD lies heavily within the human resource frame
as evidenced by their decentralized nature and self efficacious beliefs in the capacity of
69

its members. Ball resources clearly believe flattening of the organization will provide
forward movement as teachers become instructional leaders. However, despite the
decentralized culture, a more structural approach may provide a frame for creative
solutions sought through the Communities of Practice. As Bolman & Deal (2003)
indicate, a structural approach allows for clarification and alignment of goals which may
narrow the organizational gap that currently exists within the District. As a solution,
RUSD leadership should develop a structural frame that can highlight, define, and clarify
its ―Essential Priorities.‖ Providing a structure that does not overreach will be essential
for success and can bring clarity to expectations and goals. Collins (2001) explores the
transition of ―good‖ companies to ―great‖ companies as a narrowing of focus.
Companies that narrowed their focus and directed their resources toward that focus far
outgained companies that did not have an organizational focus. RUSD may be able to
make similar gains in an era of declining resources. Rather than deploying multiple
reform strategies, a narrowing of focus, through a negotiated structural frame, may
provide the ―hybrid‖ type solutions acceptable within the decentralized culture of RUSD.
Simply adapting an established model to such a culture seems counterintuitive for
success.
Nevertheless, there are several areas which present an opportunity for refinement.
One area has to do with goal alignment. Guhn (2008) indicates that along with District
support, an important process that facilitated goal implementation was goal alignment.
While global and intermediate goals for RUSD have been developed, goal
implementation at the performance level was found to be inconsistent. Clark & Estes
70

(2002) indicate there is solid research-based evidence that work motivation depends
largely on the availability and quality of performance (work) goals. According to Clark
and Estes, the best work goals are C
3
goals that are: 1) concrete – clear, can be easily
understood and measured, 2) challenging – difficult but can be accomplished, and 3)
current – short term goals (daily, weekly) which tend to be more motivating than long-
term goals. In some instances, lack of clarity of the performance goals in Rowland may
be the culprit. One solution to mitigate this problem rests in creating C
3
performance
(work) goals.
Lack of clarity and specificity of performance (work) goals can be frustrating for
those on the ―front-lines‖ (teaching staff) as evidenced by interviewees‘ responses
indicating that reform strategies were not clearly articulated at the classroom level. These
findings are commensurate with other organizational research which indicates that in a
decentralized organization for which bottom-up solutions and creativity are highly
valued, those on the ―front-lines‖ such as teaching staff, may feel confused and
experience a sense of chaos while attempting to create solutions to meet instructional and
curricular mandates (Meyer, 2006). Such confusion, although more pronounced in the
initial stages of implementation, may need to be addressed as increased pressures and
time constraints may not afford extended time for development without intervention;
sustained engagement from those involved may wane without increased pressures or
incentives (Meyer, 2006).
One recommendation to expedite and possibly create a sense of direction, while
still allowing for site autonomy, would be for the executive leadership to identify and
71

clarify which reform efforts are non-negotiable and become more centralized in these
particular areas. It is recommended that the District leadership team decide which
instructional needs or expectations they consider to be ―non-negotiable‖ throughout the
District. As RUSD values the creativity stemming from the decentralized culture
embraced throughout the District, the leadership team can honor this by making concrete
decisions regarding the non-negotiables, while leaving the pathway to addressing these
non-negotiables open to local school site determination.
Much of the current efforts have been carried out within a collaborative and
supportive structure involving RUSD and the Ball Foundation. Research indicates issues
with professional development in school systems generally arise when trying to get such
practices rooted into the very systems the professional development is designed to affect
(Elmore, 2002). According to Elmore (2002), the dilemma that surfaces is the district‘s
ability to connect the ideal prescriptions of the consensus model with real problems of
large-scale improvement and accountability. RUSD has embarked on the challenge of
instituting a more enlightened, less prescriptive, professional development strategy
centered on shared leadership and accountability. However, research again indicates this
approach ―requires more explicit guidance and attention to the practice of improvement.‖
(Elmore, 2002)
O‘Day (2002) discusses the use of a focus, or targets, as being a motivation for
change. RUSD‘s status as a program improvement district indicates it has not met
proficiency mandates under the federal accountability measure. Theorists (Levitt &
March, 1988) indicate organizations generally orient themselves toward a target while
72

reacting to feedback. This outcome-based feedback can be problematic as student
proficiency scores become available only once a year. However; the theory of orienting
toward a target may be effective for RUSD if the target is defined as a non-negotiable
within the District as it relates to instructional practice. As Elmore (2002) explains,
everything must lead back to instructional practice. Establishing a district-wide goal or
focus, known as a non-negotiable, may allow for more usable and consistent feedback
than an annual exam.
Along with a balance between centralization and decentralization or
recentralization is the need for an accountability structure to ensure system-wide success
(Wong, 2000). Organizations with outcome-based accountability systems in place tend
to demonstrate better implementation of reform efforts when leadership has the capacity
to implement such systems (Wong, 2000). Accountability structures therefore assist in
providing for a system of evaluation and use of data for decision-making both at the
District and site level to measure performance.
Since the pathway to achievement will remain a school site determinant at RUSD,
the District-level staff should also require some form of accountability system from each
school site which takes into account the established non-negotiables. As stated
previously, the decentralized nature of RUSD can be of tremendous value if sites are
required to address District determined non-negotiables and expected outcomes in their
own creative ways. This structure will assist in the alignment of District-level goals with
the school site goals, continuing on through classroom instruction and student
performance goals.
73

Given that one of the key limitations of decentralization is that organizational
change at the school level is not a sufficient condition for academic improvement
throughout the system (Wong, 2000), one recommendation of a non-negotiable, as
determined by RUSD literature, is the use of efficacious instruction to drive the reform
movement into the classroom. This term appears to be of significance throughout RUSD
as evidenced by its placement as an ―Essential Priority‖. Clearly defining this term as a
District, requiring each site to provide examples of how they deliver efficacious
instruction will further unite the District without becoming prescriptive. Clearly defining
what efficacious instruction looks like at each level within the District can provide clarity
in expectations for teachers, thus providing more effective use of their chosen model of
staff collaboration which exists in the Communities of Practice. These examples of
efficacious instruction may then link to the professional development opportunities
hosted by Ball as ―best practices‖ to be shared throughout the District.
In order for professional development to be most effective it must move away
from one-time workshops for individuals and toward the linking of development through
many levels within the organization. These ―principles‖ for professional development
use research-based methods to guide practice. These include connecting site leadership
training with teacher training based on District goals and student needs (Togneri, 2003).
RUSD‘s chosen professional development approach, through the Ball Foundation, has
touched on some of these processes, but falls short on others. Connecting principals with
teachers through site instructional teams can be further strengthened with guidance via
clearly stated District goals. The ―Essential Priorities‖ document provides an excellent
74

opportunity to fill this void. However, it must be clearly set forth, supreme to all other
reform documents currently in place and should align with the District‘s Local
Educational Agency (LEA) plan and its program improvement addendum.
The Ball principles and driving documents may serve as an excellent vehicle by
which to arrive at successful implementation of the ―Essential Priorities.‖
Communication must occur throughout the District to define Ball as a professional
development facilitator as opposed to a professional development destination in order for
the ―Essential Priorities‖ and the Ball Foundation initiatives to work effectively toward a
common goal. Interview data and Ball survey results indicate confusion amongst staff as
to the Ball Foundation‘s purpose within the District. ―I know Ball is here to assist the
District, but I don‘t know exactly what they [District] want me to do. Sometimes I wish
they [District] would just tell me what they [District] want and what I am supposed to do
with Ball.‖ (RUSD Interview, 5-7-10). Leithwood et al (2002), describe successful
professional development as a situation where the teacher is respected as a professional.
Leadership can provide opportunities for teachers to come together as a community to
share in decision making and best practices. This in turn may increase teacher motivation
to participate in such forums.
In sharing of instructional practices, collaborative efforts can be more clearly
focused so that performance goals are derived from the global and intermediate goals.
Focused and directed collaboration through professional development can drive program
implementation success through the use of best practices as the focus of collaborative
75

efforts. Such structure creates a foundation which will still allow for creative solutions at
the school site level.
Summary of Proposed Solutions
The inquiry project process identified three proposed solutions to effectively
implement the comprehensive reform efforts currently in place in the District. The three
proposed solutions are to 1) strengthen the understanding of the goals of the four
initiatives currently in place in the District; 2) align or clarify the goals of the four current
initiatives; and 3) strengthen the accountability component to include those expectations
that are non-negotiable (Essential Priorities for Teaching and Learning). It is essential to
the effective implementation of the reforms to align or clarify goals and roles of district
structures: executive cabinet, instructional cabinet, and communities of practice. Based
on the literature review conducted, the team believes that these three solutions will
maximize the District‘s ability to effectively implement its current Comprehensive
School Reform initiatives.
Effective performance improvement must begin with clearly understood
performance goals (Bandura, 1997) and an understanding of the gaps between current
and desired performance (Gilbert, 1996; Rummler and Brache, 1995; and Locke and
Latham, 1990). According to Clark and Estes (2002), many organizations fail to make
the connection between global organizational goals and specific performance or work
goals. Without clear and specific goals, people within the organization tend to focus on
tasks that are not conducive to assisting the organization achieve its goals. The
performance goals should be concrete defined as clear, easily understandable, and
76

measurable; challenging in a manner that is difficult but attainable; and current defined as
short-term. Daily or weekly goals are more motivating than long term monthly or annual
goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). Clarification of the roles and the goals of the four reform
initiatives, the Strategic Plan, the Ball Foundation work, Program Improvement, and the
Three Essential Priorities, and how they are related is the overarching solution to the
systemic issues identified during the inquiry process. Clarification and simplification of
multiple reform strategies and/or policies can reduce teacher overload and increase
capacity for reform implementation. Visual representations can assist key players
understand their role within the reform movement, as well as strategize prospective
interaction that could drive implementation (Meyer, 2006; Ghun, 2008; and Johnston,
2002).
Collaboration between the District and its school-site personnel begins with
compatible goal structures (Clark & Estes, 2002). In absence of this component, all other
attempts to improve performance are like sailing at sea without a compass. The ultimate
objective for performance improvement is that it must support the larger goals of the
organization. Every member of the organization should have a clear and concise
description of their performance goals and know how they align with the District global
goals. There is a lack of goal alignment across the District, especially at the site level.
The team recommends goal alignment to support goal implementation. Activities such as
priority-setting to provide authority to the reform initiatives should be designed. The
team suggests that the Three Essential Priorities which are to strengthen first, best
instruction, EL instruction and RTI (squared); implement district-wide agreements about
77

efficacious instruction and support for teaching and learning; and build cultural
proficiency across the system to improve teaching and learning serve as the global
District goals that will be aligned with the strategic plan, program improvement, and the
Ball Foundation initiatives. The alignment of these goals with an aligned accountability
component will drive effective implementation from the District-level to classroom
instruction and student performance goals.
Continuing with the theme of alignment, the roles and goals of District structures
should be more clearly communicated. The role of the newly developed Instructional
Cabinet should be clear in its interactions with the Executive Cabinet. Furthermore, the
diverse interests of the Communities of Practice groups could be further defined and
standardized within the District. How these smaller groups influence instruction within
the District and the Instructional Cabinet could be clarified by identifying tangible
instructional priorities within RUSD, such as The Essential Priorities for Teaching and
Learning.
Last but most important is the need to identify the non-negotiables in a
decentralized organizational culture, define efficacious instruction, and develop an
effective accountability system to monitor all levels of school reform implementation.
Benchmarks and standards related to the reform serve as resources that allow a school
site to track its progress, evaluate fidelity of implementation, and develop the capacity to
self-monitor (Elmore, 2002; O‘Day, 2002; Meyer, 2006; Ostrom, 2009; Wong, 2002;
Johnson, 2002).
78

A reduction or narrowing of District reform initiatives has a higher probability of
greater success in attaining reform goals. Foley (2001) believes government mandates
create a reform bureaucracy forcing organizations to take on too many reforms. This
seems evident in RUSD as interview data indicates confusion over, ―which reform are we
on now?‖ (RUSD Interview, 5-9-10). As the multiple reforms receive superficial
implementation, they become less and less effective. This effort is further hampered by a
lack of effective feedback throughout the organization. Timely and specific feedback can
increase understanding, therefore; increasing the speed and effectiveness of the reform
(Mayer, 2008). Furthermore, the use of a multitude of reform movements can have the
unintended effect of dispersing scarce resources. As the budgetary woes of RUSD and
the state as a whole persist, the incorporation of multiple reform movements within a
district can lead to an unintended, but tangible consequence of draining valuable
resources whether it is time or money (Au & Valencia, 2010). Studies indicate a narrow
and consistent focus is maintained at schools that demonstrate success in raising student
achievement levels (Cambone, 1995) (Lipson, Mosenthal, Mekkelson, & Russ, 2004).
The aim is to build on the current foundation while fine tuning the work already
in progress. These proposed solutions take into consideration the limitations of our
inquiry: limited number of interviewees, limited time to conduct interviews, tumultuous
timing of the inquiry process, and lack of representation of all stakeholders in the
interview process. Additionally, the team understands and has taken into account the fact
that reform efforts evolve over time and that current findings capture a snapshot of where
the District is at this particular moment. The team also understands the current budgetary
79

pressures and time constraints and the need for time-limited progress especially while
facing program improvement status.
In conclusion, clearly defining non-negotiables within RUSD, while respecting
the decentralized nature of school-site reform implementation, may support the alignment
of RUSD goals without mandating prescriptive solutions. This structure is conducive to
garnering support from school-site personnel as sites will have autonomy in determining
their pathway to address the District non-negotiables in a manner that will meet
accountability standards of progress toward the goals. Furthermore, the practice of
efficacious instruction seems to be a priority within RUSD, yet remains undefined in
practice. Clearly defining this term as a District, while requiring sites to determine
concrete examples of how their instruction addresses the definition can assist in forming
deeper connections to the work the Ball Foundation is currently performing in the
Rowland Unified School District.

80

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Berends, M. B. (2002). Looking Back over the Decade of Whole-School reform: The
Experience of New American Schools. The Phi Delta Kappan , 84 (2), 168-175.
Boan, D. (2006). Cognitive-Behavioral Modification and Organizational Culture.
Consulting Psychology Journal, 58(1) 51.
Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (2003) Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and
Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008.

Borman, G. D. (2009). National Efforts to Bring Reform to Scale in America's High-
Poverty Elementary and Secondary Schools: Outcomes and Implications.
Washington, D.C.: Center of Education Policy.
Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive
school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 73, 125- 230.
Borko, H., Wolf, S. A., Simone, G. & Uchiyama, K. P. (2003). Schools in Transition:
Reform Efforts and School Capacity in Washington State. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25 (2), 171-201.
Brownell, Mary T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., & Waldron, N. (2006). Learning From
Collaboration: The Role of Teacher Qualities. Exceptional Children, 72 (2), 169-
185.

California Department of Education (CDE). Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest on December 1, 2010.

Cambone, J. (1995). Time for teachers in school restructuring. Teachers College Record,
96(3): 511-540.

Camburn, E. R. (2003). Distributed Leadership in Schools: The Case of Elementary
Schools Adopting Comprehensive School Reform Models. Education Evaluation
and Policy Analysis , 25 (4), 347-373.
Cerone, L. & Martinez-Miller, P. (2008). Breaking through to effective teaching: A
walkthrough protocol linking student learning and professional practice. Lanham.
MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

81

Childress, S., Elmore, R., Grossman, A. (2006). How to Manage Urban School Districts.
Harvard Business Review, Nov.

Clark, R. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Coburn, C. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading
policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 23 (2), 145-170.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies make The Leap…and Others
Don’t. Harper Business.

Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending reform: From one school to
many. New York: Routledge.
Desimone, L. (2002). How Can Comprehensive School Reform Models Be Successfully
Implemented? Review of Educational Research , 72 (3), 433-479.
Dowd, A. (2005). Data don‘t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to
assess community college performance. Lumina Foundation for Education
Research Report, University of Massachusetts.

DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work. Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

DuFour, R., DuFour R., & Eaker, R. (2006). Professional learning communities at work
Plan book. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
DuFour, R., DuFour R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2010). Raising The Bar and Closing
The Gap. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Elmore, Richard F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement.
Albert Shanker Institute. 10-20.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Gopalakrishnan, S. C. (2010). Embracing the "Gift Story". OD Practitioner , 42 (1), 1-9.
Gordon, T. (2003) A Nation Reformed: American Education 20 Years After A Nation at
Risk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

82

Guhn, M. (2009). Insights from successful and unsuccessful implementations of school
Reform programs. Journal of Education Change , 10, 337-363.
Guskey, T. R. (1989). Attitude and perceptual change in teachers. International Journal
of Educational Research, 13(4), 444.

Hamilton, L.S., Mccaffrey, D. F., Stecher, B.M., Klein, S. P., Robyn, A., Bugliari, D.
(2003). Studying Large-Scale Reforms of Instructional Practices: An Example
from Mathematics and Science. Educational Evaluation and Policy, 25 (1), 1-20.

Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state
standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289-318.

Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry
and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Retrieved September, 5, 2010 from
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/2.html.
Johnston, B. J. (2002). Absent from school: Educational policy and comprehensive
reform. The Urban Review, 34(3), 205-230.
Levin, B. (2003). There is Another Way: A Different Approach to Education Reform. Phi
Delta Kappan , 84 (2), 658-664.

Lin, A. (2000). Reform in the making: The implementation of social policy in prison.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lipson, M.L., Mosenthal, J. H., Mekkelsen, J., & Russ, B. (2004). Building
knowledge and fashioning success one school at a time. The Reading Teacher,
57 (6) 534-542.

Mayer, R. (2008). Learning and Instruction, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Merrill
Prentice Hall.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., McNulty, B. (2005). School Leadership that works: from
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and
Development.

McCombs, Barbara L.; Quait, Linda. (2002). What makes a comprehensive school reform
model learner centered? Urban Education, 3(4), 476-496.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Improving education through standards-based reform.
Stanford, CA.: National Academy of Education.
Meyer, H.D. (2006, February 27). Saying what we mean, and meaning what we say –
83

unpacking the contingencies of decentralization, 223-224. New York, New York,
Albany.

Miller, R. & Rowan, P. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional
change: Implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive
school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 252 –
297.
Moessinger, P. (2000). The paradox of social order: Linking psychology and sociology.
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2001). Retrieved February 5, 2010, from http://www.
nclb.gov.

Northouse, P.G. (2007). Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage
Publications.

O'Day, Jennifer. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard
Educational Review. 72 (3) 293-313.

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.

Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.

Pintrich, P.R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology,
4, 667-686.

Resnick, L. & Hall, M. (2005). Principles of learning for effort-based education. Institute
for Learning: Learning Research and Development Center, University of
Pittsburgh (pp. 20-26).

Santrock, J. W. (2009) Lifespan development, 12th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

Shiefele, U., Krapp, A. & Winteler, A. (1992) In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp,
The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 183-212).

84

Sipple, J. W. (2004). Adoption and Adpatation: School District Responses to State
Imposed Learning and Graudation Requirements. Education Evaluation and
Policy Analysis , 3 (2), 143-168.

Spillane, J. R. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policy-makers and
the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141-179.

Spillane, J. R. (2002). Policy Implementation and Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing
Implementation Research. Review of Educational Research , 72 (3), 387-431.

Togneri, W., (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: what districts can do to improve
instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington D.C: The Learning First
Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tushnet, N. C. (2004). Longitudinal Assessment of Comprehensive School Reform
Program Implementation and Outcomes: First-Year Report. Los Alamitos, CA:
WestEd.

Wenger, E. & Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier.
Harvard Business Review (Jan-Feb) 139-145.

Wolf, S., Borko, H., Elliott, R., & Melver, M. (2000). ―That dog won‘t hurt!‖ Exemplary
school change efforts within the Kentucky reform. American Educational
Research Journal, 3(2), 349-393.

Wong, K. K. (2000). Big change questions: Chicago school reform: from centralization to
integrated governance. Journal of Educational Change , 97-105.

Zembylas, M. (2002). Constructing genealogies of teachers‘ emotions in science
teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 79-103.

85

Appendix A

Inquiry Project Proposal

COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM:
Addressing the Achievement Gap in the
Rowland Unified School District
Presenters: Gilda Dixon, Brent Forsee, and Monalisa Hasson
Date: March 1, 2010
USC Rossier School of Education

Introduction to the Project
 Overview of the Project
 Introduction to the Rowland Unified School District
 Background
 Problem and Significance of Study
 Literature Review
 The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Model
 Rationale
 Clark and Estes Model as a Consultative Model
 Proposal
 Methodology – Qualitative Approach
 Collaborative Goal

86

The Rowland Unified School District
 Preschool through Adult Education District located in San Gabriel Valley in
Los Angeles County
 21 schools (13 elementary schools; two K-8 schools; three middle schools;
two comprehensive high schools; and one alternative education high school)
 Approximately 16,000 Students (K-12)
Ethnicity %
American Indian 00.1%
Asian 20.8%
Pacific Islander 00.3%
Filipino 08.3%
Hispanic 60.8%
African American 02.4%
White 03.7%
Multiple or No Response 03.6%

Rowland Unified School District
 District boundary of attendance includes the
unincorporated area of Rowland Heights; portions
of La Puente, Walnut, and West Covina
 Four National Blue Ribbon Schools and16 California
Distinguished Schools
 Guided by its mission to provide an academic
program distinguished by rigorous academics,
innovative use of technology, creative exploration,
and nurturing learning experiences that empower
students

87

Background
 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has placed an
emphasis on student achievement across all
subgroups
 Rowland has taken steps to address the needs of all
students
 Collaborative relationships with all stakeholders
 Research-Based Professional Development
 External Partnerships
 Instructional Cabinet
 Family Resource Center

Problem
 Proficiency levels in English and Language Arts (ELA) are below
the target of 45% for Hispanic, Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged (SES), English learners (EL), and Students with
Disabilities (SWD) subgroups based on 2009 data
 Students with Disabilities did not meet the Math proficiency
target of 45.5; Hispanic, SES, and EL subgroups were just
above the target of 45.5
 Six elementary schools were placed in program improvement
status in 2009 for a total of 11 schools or more than half of
its 21 schools
 The target will increase to 56% and 56.4% respectively in ELA
and Math in 2010

88

Significance of Study
 The investigation and analysis of the District will
provide new data to assist in identifying strategies
to improve student learning
 No action, may mean loss of funding that could lead
to loss of local control and loss of students to other
districts and/or charter schools.
 The overarching significance is to provide a
comprehensive school reform model that may be
emulated by other districts experiencing similar
challenges

Overview of Literature Review
 Elements of Comprehensive School Reform
Greater specification of curriculum standards
and outcomes.
More assessment, increased opportunities for
parents, research based instructional
methods, and coordination of resources.
What are instructional expectations?
What are the performance expectations?

89

Overview of Literature Review
 Clearly defined goals with professional
development and training components
attached to goals.
 Focus statements for districts and schools.
 Fidelity in implementation of programs supporting goal
achievement (professional development).
 Review of literature by Ball Foundation.

Overview of Literature Review
 Systematic Approach
 Long term process requiring commitment from all
stakeholders.
 District, site, and community must communicate.
 Implementation factors must be addressed before
connecting reform to student outcomes.
 Further investigation of barriers to multi-level
commitment will be helpful.

90

Overview of Literature Review
 Echoing a need for a systematic approach
includes the realization that comprehensive
reform can be slow and challenging.
 Review of popular reform models such as
Success for All.
 Review of Gap Analysis model as a tool for
understanding goals and identifying root
causes of gaps.

Overview of Literature Review
 Review of the three reasons for performance
gaps, motivation, knowledge, and culture.
 Thorough examination of causes and possible
solutions, through the literature, for all three.

91

Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis
Framework as a Consultative Model for RUSD
 Goals
 Gaps
 Root Causes
 Knowledge/skills
 Motivation
 Organizational Culture
 Solutions
 Outcomes

Proposal
 Investigate and clarify the goal(s) RUSD propose
they would like to achieve
 Clarify gaps in meeting proposed goal(s)
 Gather evidence for current status of RUSD’s reform
strategies
 Uncover and rule-out root causes of gaps
 Propose solutions
 Evaluate outcomes

92

Methodology-Qualitative Approach
 Conduct interviews (structured interview
questionnaires, observations, focus groups, etc.)
With different stakeholders and at different levels
 Triangulate with artifacts (test scores, state and
federal data, documents, reports, etc.)
 Synthesize data under conceptual framework and
theoretical approaches
 Propose solutions based on data analysis and best
practices

Collaborative Goal
Qualitative, systematic approach to data collection
and analysis utilizing the Clark and Estes (2002)
framework in assisting RUSD in generating real
world solutions to current challenges in goal
attainment:
Improved Student Achievement

93

Appendix B

Scanning Interview Questions

1. Please give me an overview of (topic)?
 What is the current situation?
o What is being done about it?
o Is the situation a ―problem‖—in what sense?

2. Now, I‘d like to get some historical perspective on this situation.
1. Over the past 5 or 10 years, what has changed regarding (topic)?
2. Has the district tried to address the (topic) in specific ways? Please
describe.
3. Was there any success with these efforts?
4. Do they continue to this day—or what happened to the efforts?

3. Regarding the (topic), are there any formal or informal goals for what you or the
district are trying to accomplish?
 What is the goal(s) of this effort?
 What do you aspire to? In what time frame?
 How will you/the district know if it is successful?
 Do different role groups have different goals for this effort? (Get details)
 How big is the gap between where you are now and where you aspire to
be?

4. Let‘s talk some more about the gap between where you are now and perfect
success on this topic. I‘d like your perspective here. What is keeping the district
from achieving perfect success on (topic)? Is the problem linked to many role
groups or one? Is the problem one of lack of knowledge/skill, of motivation, of
culture, of politics or what?
1. Probe using knowledge/skill, motivation, organizational culture/structure
2. Probe by role group

5. Finally, we hope you can help us by suggesting what our team could do to better
understand the (topic) here in the district—any suggestions?

94

Appendix C

Stages of Concern Questionnaire (about RUSD‘s Reform Strategies)

Name (optional)______________________________ ID#____(please leave blank)
Note: Identifying data is confidential and will not be shared as part of this inquiry project.

The purpose of the attached questionnaire is to determine what people who are
implementing or thinking about implementing RUSD‘s District reform strategies are
concerned about at various times during the innovation adoption process. Some of the
items on this questionnaire may appear to be of little relevance or irrelevant to you at this
time. For completely irrelevant items, please circle ―0‖ on the scale. Other items will
represent those concerns you do have, in varying degrees of intensity and should be
marked higher on the scale.
For example:
This statement is very true of me at this time 01234567
This statement is somewhat true of me now 01234567
This statement is not at all true of me at this time. 01234567
This statement seems irrelevant to me 01234567
Please respond to the items in terms of your present concerns, or how you feel about your
involvement or potential involvement with RUSD‘s reform strategies. We do not hold
any one definition or this innovation, so please think in terms of your own perceptions of
what it involves. Remember to respond to each item in terms of your present concerns
about your involvement or potential involvement in the reform strategies.

Thank you for taking time to complete this task. The questionnaire is attached to this
cover sheet.

95

RUSD District Level School Reform

Concerns Questionnaire about RUSD School Reform Strategies

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Irrelevant Not true of me Now Somewhat True of Me Now Very True of Me Now

Question Rating
1. I am very interested in knowing other teacher‘s
attitudes about District School Reform.

2. I now know of some other approaches that might work
better than current reform strategies

3. I don‘t even know what RUSD‘s reform strategies are
4. I am concerned that I don‘t have enough time to
organize myself each day (in relation to reform
strategies)

5. I would like to help other colleagues in my use of
reform strategies

6. I have very limited knowledge about reform strategies
7. I would like to know the effect of reform strategies on
my professional status.

8. I am concerned about conflict between my interests
and responsibilities in relation to reform strategies.

9. I am concerned about revising my use of reform
strategies

10. I would like to develop working relationships with
others colleagues using reform strategies

11. I am concerned how reform strategies are helping
students

12. I am concerned about how reform strategies are
helping teachers

13. I am not concerned about reform strategies
14. I would like to know who will make decisions about
reform strategies

15. I would like to know what resources are available to
assist in implementing reform strategies.

96

Appendix D

One Month Interview Questions
1. Since our last meeting about one month ago, how have RUSD reform strategies
impacted your work in the last month?
2. What are the pros and cons of implementing or not implementing reforms
strategies?
3. How do you see sustaining reform efforts after Ball Foundation funding ends?

97

Appendix E

Strategic Plan

98

Appendix F

Ball Foundation Partnership Graphic

99

Appendix G

Comprehensive School Reform – Solutions Summary Chart

General Issue Recommendations Rationale Evidence/Literature
Some lack of
clarity of
overall
District goals
Clarify the roles of
the four reform
initiatives and how
they relate to each
other.

 Clarification and
simplification of
multiple reform
strategies/policies can
create ―teacher
overload‖ reducing
the capacity for
reform
implementation
 Visual representations
can help key players
understand their role
within the reform
movement, as well as
strategize prospective
interactions that could
drive implementation.

 Meyer (2006)

 Ghun (2008)

 Johnston (2002)

Some lack of
goal alignment
across the
District,
especially at
the site level.
 Cleary defining
―non-
negotiables‖
within a
decentralized
structure and
ensure buy-in
from all
stakeholders.
 Create
accountability
structures at site
level to ensure
system-wide
success

 Goal alignment to
support goal
implementation –
activities such as
priority-setting to
provide authority to
the reform
 Drive instructional
reform at classroom
level
 Benchmarks and
standards related to
the reform effort
allow sites to track
their progress,
evaluate faithfulness
of implementation and
develop the capacity
to self-monitor.

 Elmore (2002)

 O‘Day (2002)

 Meyer (2006)

 Ostrom (2009)

 Wong (2002)

 Johnston (2002)

100

Appendix H

Presentation to Rowland Unified School District

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

Appendix I

Proposed Solutions Chart

Tier I Solutions
Immediate issues

Type of Root
Cause
Area of Growth K/S Mot Org Proposed Solution(s)
Site-level staff did not seem to
understand the direct relationship
between the reform strategies and
the eight pillars of the strategic
plan and their site/classrooms.
x x
-Cross-strand connections
-Systems to capture and
link learning
- Clearly define how each
pillar relates to classroom
instruction
Although most teachers felt they
were doing the work necessary to
meet the organizational goal of
moving out of PI status, they
could not articulate the alignment
to the intermediate level goals.

x

-Cross-strand connections
-Drive indicators toward
efficacious instruction
toward
classroom
-Include examples of what
efficacious instruction
looks like.
Executive Cabinet, Instructional
Cabinet, and Communities of
Practice‘s goals not clearly
defined at the site level. x
-Schedule P.D. time with
Ball for top level
management.
-Negotiating bottom up and
top
down to create a coherent
system
There is the belief that district-
level reform efforts are non-
enduring resulting in lack of
commitment to implementation.
x
-Plan for sustaining
structures/
functions and communicate
to
all role groups
-Value collaborative
professional
learning
-Lean on ―Essential
Priorities for Teaching and
Learning‖. Use this as a
119

Type of Root
Cause
Area of Growth K/S Mot Org Proposed Solution(s)
structure or lens for all
other reforms.
Decentralization efforts have
given way to decreased
accountability and
communication of best practices
at the site level.
x x x
-Create accountability
mechanism
-Communicate to all
participants
and non-participants
-Executive leaders owning
initiatives
-Decide on and clearly
communicate ―non-
negotiables." Suggest using
Essential Priorities as a
start for this discussion.

Tier II Solutions
Issues to be addressed within the next 1-2 years

Type of Root Cause

Area of Growth K/S Mot Org Proposed Solution(s)
The pervasiveness of the reform
effort tended to differ based on
the stakeholder level – higher
with district and administrative
staff and lesser within teaching
staff.

x x
-Systems to capture and
link
learning
-Cross-cultural strand
connections
-Clarify what is expected
and identify ―non-
negotiables.‖
Teachers not directly involved
with the district-wide reform
efforts could not identify the
work that led to achievement of
performance goals. They
understood efforts were aimed at
improving student achievement
and moving out of PI status, but
were not sure how their own work
related to these tenets.
x
-Systems to capture and
link
Learning
-Communication to all
participants and non-
participants
-Cross-cultural strand
connections
-Define efficacious
instruction for RUSD
120

Type of Root Cause

Area of Growth K/S Mot Org Proposed Solution(s)
Not all teachers are engaged in
the reform efforts nor are they
knowledgeable of the strategic
plan, its pillars, and how it is
directly linked to the work they
are doing in the classroom. Some
teachers have even elected not to
participate.

x x
-Systems to capture and
link
Learning
-Communication to all
participants and non-
participants
-Cross-cultural strand
connections
-Value professional
collaboration
Across the organization, the
feedback loop is not consistent
with regard to implementation of
reform efforts at the site and
classroom level.
 Lack of consistent monitoring by
district personnel and
administrators to ensure changes
to instructional practices.
 Lack of specific feedback to
teachers from administrators on
how to modify their instruction
based on the knowledge and skills
they received in training.
x
-Systems to capture and
link
Learning
-Communicate to all role
groups
-Sustainability of
functions, not
Structures
-Deepen definition of
rigor
-Simplify loop and
reform efforts. Use
Essential Priorities as
lens through which
everything else must pass
through. This will help
staff see reform as
unified rather than piece
meal.

121

Tier III Solutions
Issues to address within the next 3-5 years

Type of Root Cause

Area of Growth K/S Mot Org Proposed Solution(s)
Comments such as ―we were
doing what we know‖ and ―this
too shall pass‖, made by a several
teachers gave a sense of lack of
interest.

x
-Cross-strand
connections
-Support functions
-Accountability
mechanism
-Deepen definition of
rigor
-Commitment to
Essential Priorities
demonstrates a
commitment to practice
rather than a reform
―program‖. This will
create ―buy in‖ for
sustainable change.
Because of the anxiety created by
the perceived lack of resources
and need to do ―more with less‖
some teachers do not attribute
task value to the reform efforts.
x
-Value collaborative
professional
Learning
-Mechanisms for
capturing and
Sharing learning from
different
strands

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Over the last decade, districts throughout the nation have been challenged with the goal of improving student achievement with the ultimate target of attaining 100% proficiency in the core subject areas across all student subgroups. This is an ambitious endeavor that most would agree should be the ultimate goal regardless of socioeconomic status, primary language, or ethnicity of the students which a district serves. The dilemma schools face is in the implementation of comprehensive school reforms that will move districts toward this goal.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Comprehensive school reform implementation: A gap analysis inquiry project for Rowland Unified School District

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective

PDF

Utilizing gap analysis to examine the effectiveness of high school reform strategies in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

A gap analysis inquiry project on district-level reform implementation for Rowland Unified School District

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

An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model

PDF

An alternative capstone project: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district

PDF

An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school

PDF

Using the gap analysis to examine Focus on Results districtwide reform implementation in Glendale USD: an alternative capstone project

PDF

Improving college participation success in Glendale Unified School District: An application of the gap analysis model

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

An application of Clark and Estes' (2002) gap analysis model: closing knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District students from accessing four-yea...

PDF

Increasing college matriculation rate for minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged students by utilizing a gap analysis model

PDF

Districtwide instructional improvement: a case study of a high school in the Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

A case study in reform: implementation strategies of one urban superintendent

PDF

How urban school superintendents effectively use data-driven decision making to improve student achievement

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district

Asset Metadata

Creator Hasson, Monalisa (author)

Core Title Comprehensive school reform: Effective implementation

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/19/2011

Defense Date 01/19/2011

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

Tag comprehensive school reform,decentralization,gap analysis,goal alignment,OAI-PMH Harvest,program improvement

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties), school districts: Rowland Unified School District (geographic subject), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rueda, Robert S. (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), Marsh, David D. (committee member)

Creator Email hasson62@sbcglobal.net,monalish@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3758

Unique identifier UC1337979

Identifier etd-Hasson-4529 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-468941 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3758 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Hasson-4529.pdf

Dmrecord 468941

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hasson, Monalisa

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