University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Evidence-based study of resource usage in California’s program improvement schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Evidence-based study of resource usage in California’s program improvement schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

EVIDENCE- BASED STUDY OF RESOURCE USAGE IN
CALIFORNIA’S PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT SCHOOLS

by
Raymond Ivey, II

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 2010

Copyright 2010 Raymond Ivey, II

ii

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to the tireless efforts of those that
have helped me along the way. To my mother and father, Rachel and
Raymond Ivey Sr. for all of their encouragement, love and support. Then
to my friends, Joshua Holmes, Amber Morgan, Elizabeth Witaker, and
the countless others who have worked as my personal editors, confidants
and cheerleaders. Finally, this dissertation is dedicated to Nichole Woods
who has been the greatest help of all. I am grateful to you all, and will
never be able to thank you enough.

iii

Acknowledgments

This study would like to acknowledge the participation of the principals who
volunteered to be apart of this program, and the Partnership with Los Angeles
Schools. In addition, this study received tremendous support from Dr. Larry Picus,
Dr. Kennon Mitchel, and Dr. Shaun Harper. Without their enthusiastic
encouragement and support this study would never have been completed.

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Problem of School Finance Adequacy 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review 15
Chapter 3: Methodology 51
Chapter 4: Results of the Study 62
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations 101
References 112
Appendices:
Appendix A: Open ended interview protocol 117
Appendix B: Data Collection Protocol 119
Appendix C: Gage Middle School Case study 123
Introduction 123
School Demographics 123
Instructional Improvement Strategies 128
Lesson Learned 143
Appendix D: Halley Middle School Case Study 150
Introduction 150
School Demographics 150
Instructional Improvement Strategies 158
Lesson Learned 178
Appendix E: Ludington Middle School Case Study 180
Introduction 180
School Demographics 181
Instructional Improvement Strategies 190
Lessons Learned 204

v

Appendix F: Ladera Elementary School Case Study 209
Introduction 209
School Demographics 210
Instructional Improvement Strategies 216
Lessons Learned 226
Appendix G: 3rd Street Elementary School Case Study 229
Introduction 229
School Demographics 230
Instructional Improvement Strategies 236
Lessons Learned 248

vi
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Percent Distribution of Expenditures by Object, 1969-1980 37
Table 2.2 Percent Distribution of Expenditures by Function, 1990-2005 38
Table 4.1 Factors for compensating for student population differences 80
Table 4.2 Changes in API Comparison 81

Table 4.3 Core course FTE and teacher-to-student ratios 82

Table 4.4 Intervention and Summer School Programs 85
Table 4.5 Administrators, Instructional Coaches & Pupil Support Staff 91

Table 4.6 Professional Development 91

Table 4.7 Additional resources (technology, assessments, library materials) 94

Table 4.8 CST Growth in Proficient and Advance Scores 96

Table C-1 Gage School Achievement Data 126

Table C-2 Suggestions for Additional Steps 138

Table C-3 Gage’s Evidence Based Model 140

Table D-1 Halley’s Evidence Based Model 165

Table E-1 Instructional Intervention 197

Table E-2 Ludington’s Evidence Based Model 199

Table E-3 Characteristics for Doubling Student Achievement 205
Table F-1 Weights for CST Content Area’s 212
Table F-2 Ladera’s Evidence Based Model 222
Table F-3 Characteristics for Doubling Student Achievement 227
Table G-1 Weights for CST Content Area’s 232
Table G-2 3
rd
Street’s Evidence Based Model 243
Table G-3 Characteristics of Doubling Student Achievement 249

vii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Education expenditures in billions of current dollars 35
Figure C-1 API Growth 1999-2007 128
Figure C-2 Model for Cyclical Improvement 135
Figure D-1 Halley’s API Changes 1999-2007 154
Figure D-2 Halley’s API Growth 1999-2007 154
Figure D-3 Halley Middle School’s Mathematics AYP Data 155
Figure D-4 Halley Middle School’s Language Arts AYP Data 156
Figure D-5 Grade Level CST Scores for Language Art and Mathematics 157
Figure E-1 Ludington Middle School’s API Changes 183
Figure E-2 Ludington API Growth 185
Figure E-3 English Language Arts CST Performance 187
Figure E-4 CST Mathematics Performance 187
Figure E-5 Model for Cyclical Improvement 191
Figure F-1 Annual Progress Index for Ladera Elementary 213
Figure F-2 Ladera’s API Growth 214
Figure F-3 Ladera Elementary’s Report Card 215
Figure F-4 Model for Cyclical Improvement 217
Figure G-1 3
rd
Street’s API Growth 234
Figure G- 2 3
rd
Street API Changes 1999-2007 235
Figure G-3 3
rd
Street’s Report Card 236
Figure G-4 Model for Cyclical Improvement 238

viii

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between resource
allocation and student achievement in several Program Improvement (PI) schools
receiving additional resources and services to increase student achievement. These
resources and services include funding teacher positions, student support services,
intervention programs, professional developments for staff members, and general
equipment and supplies for the school. After analyzing interview and resource usage
data, this study compares allocation patterns between five schools and the Evidence
Based model constructed by Odden and Picus (2003).

1

CHAPTER 1
Introduction to the Problem

Improving California’s public schools has been the goal of educational
finance reform efforts for numerous years. Its most important job has been fairly
securing the educational opportunities for all students, especially those demonstrating
the greatest need. Yet, the challenge of creating lasting changes inside of school
districts through comprehensive reform efforts has yet to reach the standard at which
districts, especially those in the inner city, would hope or expect to accomplish. At
this point, educational policy makers must ask the questions of why these efforts are
not working, or more importantly why has increased investments in educational
resources failed to produce more favorable dividends in student achievement.
Examining this through the public policy perspective, we must continually assess not
only the amount of resources but also the means of effectively using educational
resources in the attempts of attaining adequate anticipated outcomes.
The focus of research has shifted away from attempting to establish equality
within the distribution of educational resources, to determining the inputs necessary
to elevate student achievement to an adequate level. Paul McGowan and John Miller
(2001) explain;

2
School change is not a simple addition, subtraction, or multiplication problem.
Rather, it is a perplexing equation permeated with variables such as higher
expectations, common standards, parent involvement, technology, integrated
curricula, assessment, professional development, funding, teaching
methodologies, and facilities. Each of these variables is influenced by
legislative mandates, national reports, educational research, state departments
of education and professional education associations.

In an effort to bring about the more favorable results, these factors must be organized,
prioritized, and executed by an influential force to ensure that efforts promote school
improvement.
In schools with histories of failing to meet set accountability standards, this
notion of efficient use of resources becomes even more important. In the wake of No
Child Left Behind’s (2002) accountability standards, schools failing to reach set
objectives are labeled Program Improvement (PI). Attempt to assist schools serving
student populations with histories of low performance, policies have now mandated
that PI schools site-based management is restructured to provide schools with greater
autonomy in resource allocation decisions, recognizing that school site administrators
and staff have first hand knowledge of its needs and barriers to increasing student
success. Through this restructuring, student performance is expected to improve. In
this fashion, schools create goals and action plans for justifying resource use to
address means of increasing student achievement. Meaning, this restructuring strategy
attempts to create a performance-based accountability, where schools and districts
continually evaluate their effectiveness of resource use in the effort to improve their
ability to reach students.
This notion logically follows Eric Hanushek’s (2007) argument, that
performance-based accountability would provide two benefits. First, it would place a

3
link between how and what resources are used to what students are learning.
Secondly, it would motivate educators and those making allocating decision to focus
on eliminating programs that are ineffective and adopting for more effective means of
increasing student performance. This is particularly important as district leaders
reform practices in ways that better serve historically low-performing student groups
with the greatest need (Roza, 2008).
Addressing the issues of low-performing schools from a different perspective,
the research of William Duncombe, and John Yinger (2007), points out that while
efficiency is a critical concern in improving California’s public schools with histories
of low-performance, it also must be pointed out that this still does not address the
inequity of resources. Duncombe and Yinger (2007) explain, “school districts cannot
be expected to meet performance standards unless they have sufficient funds.” In
their research, Duncombe and Yinger (2007) point out to curtail this problem in
California the state’s Department of Education (DOE) has attempted to use
categorical funds, in the attempts to ensure resources reach students with the greatest
needs. At the same time, they conclude, “that further restricting local control will do
little to address the main fairness problems in California. That problem is that districts
with a relatively high concentration of disadvantaged students and those that operate
in a relatively high wage environment do not currently receive enough state support
to reach even modest student-performance targets, such as the state’s current goal of
800 on the API” (Duncombe & Yinger, 2007). Meaning that schools with high levels
of low-performing students, aid in the form of funds restricted for very specific

4
functions limit schools ability to address specific needs of students and use creativity
to rearrange resources to improve student performance.
In the wake of current lacks of funding due to budget shortfalls of the state, if
current finance reform encompasses the motivation of providing adequate educations
for all students, then the policy perspective must continue to improve the efficiency
that school districts utilize their resources. While exploring the notions of whether or
not real change is occurring, policy makers must examine the most efficient means of
utilizing educational funds. In other words, if educational finance reform has been
changed to investing in the educational resources necessary to ensure students reach a
set standard of academic achievement, then researchers must begin focusing on site-
based management’s, functions in implementing these programs to ensure the
allocation of resources produce more favorable results for all students, and especially
those with the greatest need.

Background of the Problem

As far back as 1954 and the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, 347 U.S.
483 (1954), school reform, and more specifically school finance reform, has been a
topic of national concern (Reyes and Rodriguez, 2004). Through this case, policy
makers were given the responsibility of assuring that state school districts provide
equality in terms of educational opportunities for all students. Up until this time,
schools, specifically those of the south, were segregated by race, under the argument
that these schools were equal. Showing that it was impossible to provide equal

5
opportunities for students in these separate schools, the Brown case set precedence for
opening all schools to all students. In other words, according to the rulings that
follow this landmark case, states must provide fair and equal funding, resources, and
support for every student enrolled in public schools throughout the state (Harvey and
Harvey, 2004). Meaning, no matter the students’ race, religion, ethnic background, or
sex, every student received access to the same educational opportunities as all other
students residing in the state, guaranteed by the Constitution.
In the proceeding years, the concept of public school finance reform efforts
focused on the notions of attempting to secure equal educational resources and
educational opportunities for all students. In the hopes of improving access to future
opportunities to all students, researchers and educational policy makers attempt to
first provide entrance into any school, and then shifts to focusing on efforts of
equalizing resources in every school. Unfortunately, due to the fact that most school
districts funding was based on local property taxes the attempts to equalize scholastic
resources in every school was thwarted by the disproportionate distribution of
property wealth in each state. Meaning to equalize funding, schools in the poorer
districts would tax themselves at a higher rate to raise the same amounts as their more
affluent neighbors.
Exposing these inequities in abilities to raise funding for education, in 1968
Arthur Wise argued “education was a fundamental right, and that the equal protection
clause required that education must be provided equally across all school districts”
(Odden and Picus, 2004). While courts failed to uphold arguments based on Wise’s
notion of educational needs John Coons, William Clune, and Stephan Sugarman in

6
1970 established means of opening litigation into arguing for fiscally neutral school-
financing systems. They argued that school-financing systems “could not be
dependent on local wealth, but only on the wealth of the state as a whole” (Odden and
Picus, 2004). Meaning that through later cases, such as Serrano v. Priest (and its
subsequent appeals) which held that, “the resources available for a child’s education
should depend not on the wealth of the child’s local community but on the wealth of
the state as a whole” (Addonizio, 2003).
While a promising step in the attempt to provide access to equal educational
resources, the next wave of educational reform came in the form of attempts to better
define not just how much money would be invested in public schools systems, but
more so how to supply the level of funding that provides for the “adequate education”
of every student. This wave comes as “courts and legislatures interpreting educational
clauses of state constitutions to require that the school finance system provide each
district, school and student an “adequate level of resources” (Odden, Goetz, and
Picus, 2008). These new adequate educational mandates sought to “link finance
reforms with school improvement by trying to determine the ingredients, or inputs, of
an adequate education and their costs” (Addonizio, 2003). It is through these efforts
that educational policy makers are capable of examining how educational adequacy
infers that by focusing on the educational inputs, we can begin to move towards
directly expecting academic outcomes (Reyes and Rodriguez, 2004).
As a result, of these changes in public school finance reform, two major
questions have developed. First, are students, enrolled in schools that provide
adequate educational resources, exhibiting advantages over students enrolled in

7
schools with fewer resources? Second, if schools are currently funded at levels agreed
to be adequate, while students are still not performing at desired levels, then is there a
means for more efficiently allocating resources that would ensure student are more
successful? In other words, are current school and resource use patterns reflective of
the goals and objectives of school-sites and districts efforts to improve student
achievement? This study starts with this argument and explores, what can be learned
by examining schools’ and districts’ use of educational resources in their efforts to
provide adequate educational opportunities for all students. More specifically, this
dissertation will examine how changes in PI schools’ governance and fiscal allocation
management addresses finance reforms litigation objective of improving low-
performing schools.

Statement of the Problem

While continual efforts to improve education have moved to increase access
and opportunities for all students, it must also be noted that if additional resources are
invested in assuring schools that need additional help, these resources will be diverted
into schools that have needed them for years. This means schools with histories of
low-test scores, poor graduation rates, and years of failing to meet standards will
receive additional educational resources. With the importance of expanding
opportunities to all students, policy makers must identify barriers to effectively using
educational resources in the wake of growing pressures of accountability standards.

8
The problem is not that further investments will be made in schools that have
never received additional educational resources with the aim of raising student
achievement, rather it is how do we justify additional investments in schools that have
been incapable of closing achievement gaps when given more in the past. As Eric
Hanushek (2003) explains, “spending by itself is not the answer. As a graphic
example, Texas, with a similar mix of disadvantaged students, spends just a
few hundred dollars more per student than California, and gets dramatically
better performance in both math and reading, regardless of race or economic
background.” Therefore, it is critical that as the motivation behind investing
educational resources changes to encompass the attainment of adequate educations
for all students, policy makers must give greater attention to the implementation,
prioritizing, and reallocation of resources in the attempts to ensure increases in
student performance.

Purpose of the Study

This study emphasizes educational leadership’s role in the process of using
educational resource more efficiently to produce educational gains. It is the goal of
this dissertation to explore linkages between the ability to reallocated resources
effectively and increases in student performance, for schools with a history of low
achievement. In the attempts to fulfill this purpose this dissertation will attempt to
examine and answer the following research questions:

9
1. What are the current instructional improvement strategies at the
school-level?
2. How are the actual resource patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies that are used in the Evidence-
Based Model?
3. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement strategies? (instructional vision, plan, goals, etc.)
4. How does the availability of resources effect the development and
implementation of the strategic plan?

Importance of the Study

In the same fashion that it may not be prudent to throw flammable material on
a fire in the hopes of extinguishing the blaze, there is a growing fear that simply
investing more resources into failing schools will have the same results. Therefore, it
is imperative that while educational finance reform is in the stage of moving towards
defining the educational standard that all students should reach, and the resources
needed to elevate students to that level, research must continue to identify the best
means for delivering these resources with the aims of preventing waste.

Sample
A purposeful sample of five schools that fit the following three characteristics
will be chosen. First, each school will be in Program Improvement status in

10
accordance with CDE’s accountability standards. Meaning these, schools were
specifically chosen because they have failed to meet annual yearly progress (AYP)
goals for at least two consecutive years. Secondly, each school will have created both
a Single Plan for Student Achievement SPSA) and picked a restructuring plan in
accordance to accountability mandates of NCLB (2002). In accordance to NCLB, this
would also entail that all ten schools will be located within communities with large
populations of Numerically Significant Subgroups (NSS). These NSS include schools
with more than 100 students with subgroups that make up at least 15 percent. These
groups would include:
• African American of Black (not including of Hispanic Origin)
• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Asian
• Filipino
• Hispanic or Latino
• Pacific Islander
• White (not of Hispanic Origin)
• Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
• English Learners
• Students with Disabilities
Lastly, the schools all will utilize additional resources supplemented from either
governmental, private business, or community organizations.
The purpose of this sample criterion is to assist researcher in accessing the
extent to which mandated changes in site-based governance affects resource

11
utilization and planning for additional resources in the attempts of improving
achievement for students with histories of low-performance. Specifically, this sample
was chosen to examine possible benefits and barriers to improving student
achievement at schools with histories of low-achievement, while schools restructure
how school’s educational inputs influence student outcomes.

Limitations

Limited by the accuracy and truthfulness of those interviewed in the process
of conducting this research. While all subjects interviewed and examined are
expected to provide clear and complete depictions of how effective schools are in
their efforts to improve student performance, it is understood that data collected will
be the objective opinions, to the best of their knowledge. Therefore, to a certain
degree the objectivity and unbiased perspectives that data and interviews from each
school produces limits this study.

Delimitations

In this study, the researcher chooses to limit the number of schools to visit due
to the amount of time and resources provided to conduct this study. While it would be
ideal to examine more schools that fit the sample criterion in an effort to generate
more strength to support any conclusions, this study is limited by the time frame set

12
by the time frame in its expected completion. In an effort to appease the limitation
that this causes, this study is apart of a collective of a larger study that will examine
approximately 100 schools in measuring the adequacy in which California public
schools provide educations for all students.
In addition, because these studies are only occurring in California, they are
limited in their generalizability for schools across the nation. Due to the political
history and property wealth profile supporting California’s public school finance
system, undoubtedly conclusions generated by this study may not be applicable to all
schools.

13
Definitions
Adequate Level of Achievement - This term will refer to California’s defining of 800
API scores as a goal for public schools. According to CDE, schools with an API score
of 800 are successful in ensuring all students are learning established educational
standards.
Data Collection Protocol - This is the evidence-based framework process of
generating resource use patterns for each school. This protocol uses full-time
equivalent (FTE) measurements of school functions to determine details of school
resource use. The protocol is located in appendix D.
Educational Resources – These are all the funds, programs, and supplies involved in
supporting the education and maintenance of public school facilities. Each of these is
categorized and listed in the data-collection protocol in appendix D
Evidence-Based Model - This term refers to the framework originally used by Allan
Odden and Larry Picus (2006) in their studies of Arkansas, Alabama, Wyoming, and
Washington. This model encompasses the use of research-based strategies for
improving student achievement in a prototypical school then comparing that to the
resource use patterns of other schools to measure adequacy.

Full-Time Equivalent - This measurement uses percentages to decipher the amount of
time each individual uses during a day in an educational function. For example a core
English Language Arts teacher that spends a quarter of his day teaching an elective
and the rest of the time teaching 9
th
grade English would be denoted as .75 9
th
grade

14
teacher and .25. These measurements are used in the data-collection protocol to
generate a quantified description of each schools resource use.
Instructional Improvement Strategies - These strategies refer to school-sites’ self-
identified means of increasing student achievement. These strategies include the
allocation of school resources, professional development, pedagogical practices,
attendance policies, discipline procedures, and all other school functions that affect
student achievement. California Department of Education sometimes distinguishes
this strategy as the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA).
Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol – This data collection process is the second
part of the evidence-based research data. This refers to a set of interview questions
used to clarify motivations for resource use strategies and implementation of
resources. This protocol is spelled out in appendix C.
Program Improvement (PI) This is a status designated by NCLB’s (2002) for schools
failing to meet Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) measures for two consecutive years in
the same content areas (English Language Arts and Mathematics)
Site-Based Management - In this study, this term refers to the adopted governance
style adopted by each school in accordance to mandates for schools falling into PI
status according to the California Departments of Education Mandates (2006)

15

Chapter 2

Literature Review

This literature review connects three areas of concern in the adaptation and
application of educational finance reforms. The first section fiscal federalism and the
history of public school finance reform, provides a context for defining the history of
changes in fiscal systems for education. In this section, the literature review explores
the different stages or paradigm shifts brought about by court-mandated reform in
public school finance from a policy perspective. While educational finance reforms
have historically, insisted that school resources are fairly distributed to ensure equal
opportunities for all students, these court cases have continued to respond and
challenge the shortcomings and inabilities of school finance systems’ to ensure
equality. Therefore, it is critical that this literature review explore the changes in
educational finance that have emerged through research and that continues to
influence policy makers in their efforts to increase all student achievement, and
especially those students with the greatest need.
The second section, Educational Resource Use, explores the general funding
patterns of public school finance at the state, district, and school site level. This part
of the review looks at both the relative amounts of funding and patterns in which
resources are used nationally and here in California. This resource use section
examines how, “the traditional focus on equitable distribution of resources is giving
way or expanding to a new focus: ensuring that school finance policy can facilitate

16
the goal of teaching students to higher standards” (Odden, 1998). Through an analysis
of policy shifts as they pertain to resource use, this segment exposes how “careful
thought to resource allocation is particularly important as districts leaders reform
practices in ways that better serve historically low-performing student groups” (Roza,
2008). Which entails the possibility of examining fund allocation as a means of
addressing the problems of improving schools that serve students populations with
high needs.
The last section, Measuring Resource Allocation, examines the research in
assessing the adequate use of public school resources. This section focuses on t
researchers’ attempts to connect both resource use and efforts to increase student
achievement in California’s public schools. Throughout this section, this literature
review will examine alternative methods for estimating the adequacy of current
finance systems, offering conclusions about California’s public school system, and
suggesting areas of study that still need to be addressed.

Fiscal Federalism and the History of Public School Finance Reform

As James Banks (1997) explains, “a fundamental premise of a democratic
society is that citizens will participate in the governing of the nation and that the
nation-state will reflect the hopes, dreams, and possibilities of its people. People are
not born democrats. Consequently, an important goal of the schools in a democratic
society is to help students acquire the knowledge, values, and skills necessary to
participate effectively in public communities.” In a society that subscribes to the

17
idealistic notion of Democracy, it is necessary to promote the educated participation
of its citizens. In other words, to function as a Democracy the population must be able
to make informed decisions based on their understanding of the rules and regulations
set forth by that particular society, and possess the ability to communicate and engage
in debates aimed at that society through a majority rule.
While this idealistic goal is more of a theoretical notion that educators and
policy makers cling to, it sets the stage for examining the question of how a country
prepares its citizens to fully participate in a democratic society. Central to
materializing this concept is the reality that the nation and its states must create means
of building, supporting and funding education. Odden and Picus (2004) explain that
the idea of School Finance “concerns the distribution and use of money for the
purpose of providing educational services and producing student achievement.” The
policy perspective, transforms this ideal notion as it relates to education into
legislation that generates school finance systems, structures, and support for public
schools. Through this literature review this study will examine the history and the
transformation of both school finance policies and reforms. Thereby, this dissertation
proposes strategies to improve finance systems that move schools in the United
States, particularly those in California, closer to realizing the democratic idealism of
adequately preparing all citizens for productive participation.
Before examining school finance reforms, first we must foreshadow the
changes of public school finance by exploring the concept of Fiscal Federalism.
Examining public schools from the policy perspective, meaning through the role a
centralized government plays in creating, sustaining and supporting public education,

18
the concept of fiscal federalism becomes important because it provides a means of
justifying ideals of promoting an educated population. In Wallace E. Oates (1999)
essay on Fiscal Federalism, he explains “at the most general level, this theory
contends that the central government should have the basic responsibility for
macroeconomic stabilization functions and for income redistribution in the form of
assistance to the poor.” Odden and Picus (2004) further elaborate that this economic
concept presents four critical benefits in creating a system of education that aids all
students because:
• The state, and only the state, can equalize the fiscal capacity of its local
school districts
• The states can create mandates or provide financial assistance to school
districts to promote equity in service distribution.
• Operating through a centralizing system promotes more economically
efficient provision of the governmental services
• Lastly, decentralized decision-making provides individual choices in
selecting the mix of public services that match the personal preferences.

While all of these advantages promote the use of fiscal federalism or fiscal
decentralization, this theory has two downsides. First, similar to the previously
mentioned Democratic idealistic goal for education, fiscal federalism is a theory.
Meaning that most states aim to have their districts operate in such a fashion but none
are productive enough in achieving the level of student performance that school
districts would hope. These factors point out the fact that fiscal federalism is more of

19
a destination that reform efforts are attempting to reach, rather than an agreed
standard for improving education. Said another way, the adoption of fiscal federalism
in state finance systems represents how states have attempted to share the burdens to
provide educational opportunities in the poorest school districts with all the state’s
taxpayers.
Secondly, while fiscal federalism aims to promote the greater good of the
nation, it does so assuming the majority of citizens will voluntarily pay into an
educational system that is viewed to be continually underperforming or that they
receive no direct benefit from. As Oates (1999) explains, the drawback of fiscal
federalism and of simply increasing investments in education is that “local program
for the support of low-income households is likely to induce an influx of the poor and
encourage an exodus of those with higher income who must bear the tax burden.”
With this burden, the pressure of increased accountability has become more apparent
in the wake of fears of higher wealth districts that wasting their tax revenues, by
investing in poorer public school districts.
While plagued with the aforementioned difficulty, through examining the
history of public school finance and its stages of reform, one can conclude that from
the policy perspective that each reform has moved public education closer to the
theoretical model of fiscal federalism, and ever closer to living up to the ideal
educational system demanded by a democratic society. Meaning that as this literature
review examines the changes that educational finance policies have undertaken, it
becomes apparent that these systems have never lived up to the idealistic grand
notions but continue to move in that direction.

20
Exemplifying this shortcomings, a study by Timar and Roza (2008) explain
that “state (and federal) programs, intended to boost spending at high needs schools
above and beyond what’s spent on low needs schools are not working… The high
poverty schools do receive the compensation education funds and other categoricals,
but they are shortchanged their share of the unrestricted funds. The effect is that
despite targeted funds amounting to over $1,000 per pupil, the high poverty schools
end up with only $13 per pupil more than the low poverty schools.” In other words, as
states attempt to shift the burden of funding the lowest-achieving districts through
state and federal prescriptive programs such as Title I, or Targeted Instructional
Improvement Grants, states have lowered the amounts of general use funds and
thereby lessened schools autonomy when making resource allocation decisions. But
before we explore national and state educational resource use patterns, first this
literature review will examine the history of public school finance reform, to clarify
the motivations behind such distribution practices.

History of Fiscal Reform Litigation

In exploring the history of public school finance reform in America, the first
question to ask, is what have been the different goals of education finance? Second,
what events have motivated these changes in strategies and goals for public school
finance? Examining the past 50 years of public school finance reform through the
public policy perspective, according to Odden and Picus (2008) there have been three

21
distinctive periods in education finance reform; equity, adequacy and productivity
which involves the reallocation of resources. Spurred by litigation brought through
the court system beginning in the last 60’s, mid 80’s and early 2000’s respectfully,
these three eras of school finance reform have altered the goals, standards, and
expectations for education in America. Emerging from the United States
Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and state’s Educational clauses these key
cases and their arguments creates a clear picture of the shifts in goals for education
finance.
The first wave of litigation stems from cases arguing for individuals’ equal
protection under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
constitution. This clause states that no State can “deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Since the states also have their own
equal protection clauses in their constitution, most early cases attempted to argue for
reforming public school finance systems by arguing that - every individual is
guaranteed the same or equitable educational opportunities. In this argument, litigants
attempted to prove that states were responsible for providing all students with the
same educational resources in every school district in that state. While local property
taxes funded most schools during this era, following the Brown v. Topeka Board of
Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) this was a critical argument in the beginning of
educational finance reform. As explained through the following cases, when property
wealth is tied closely to resources raised and used by school districts, large disparages
became more and more prevalent between property wealthy and poor districts.

22
This reality points out the first goal for educational finance reform, and the
attempts to attain equity amongst schools. As Arthur Wise (1968) points out in his
book Rich Schools, Poor Schools, the differences in educational opportunities are
largely due to the property tax wealth of the tax base in each community, and that the
quality of a child’s educational opportunity is directly related to which community
that that child lives. In essence, by not making educational funding based on the
property wealth of the state rather than on the local districts, funding systems subject
students to unequal schools, staff, supplies and the possible opportunities education
provides. It is here, that the differences in funding variation per-student become the
focus of the equity arguments for court cases challenging state school finance
program (McDonald, Kaplow, & Chapman 2006; Biddle and Berliner, 2002; Odden
2003).

Equity: Equal protection under the law

The first legal challenge to school finance systems came in the form of
arguing that state school finance systems were not equally distributing funds
according to the educational need of the school districts. This argument contended
that, “the systems were unconstitutional because education was a fundamental right
and the wide differences in expenditures or revenues per pupil across were not related
to the ‘educational need’” (Odden & Picus, 2004). During the late sixties, there were
three case brought forward in reference to this argument; Detroit Public School Board
v. the State of Michigan; McInnis v. Shapiro in Illinois; and Burruss v. Wilkerson in

23
Virginia. While all of them “claimed that the states’ system to finance education was
inequitable in that it allowed great discrepancies in expenditures per student and did
not distribute funds based on the educational needs of the districts, each case was
dismissed” (McDonald, 2006). These dismissals were due to the fact, that a “need
standard is impossible for judicial measurement or implementation due to the lack of
manageable standards” (Lamorte, 1996). In light of these dismissals, subsequent
cases arguing under the equal protection clause did so through creating “standards for
courts to use to measure if governmental actions were treating individuals differently”
(Lamorte, 1996). In essence, this measure supported a means for courts to judge if
governmental system was impeding on fundamental rights.
In the attempts of creating standards for examining whether a state’s actions
violate rights protected under the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment or individual State Constitutions, courts have begun to use one of three
tests. The first is the Rational Test, which attempts to, determine whether or not there
is a justifiable reason why a state would want to treat individuals differently under the
law. This would come into play when considering the justifiable different treatment
of individuals, licensed or unlicensed to work in a specific field. In areas such as
teaching, medicine, or in skill trade such as construction, plumbing, welding…etc., it
is expected that individuals would be granted different authorities in their fields over
those who are unlicensed.
The second test is the Intermediate tests, which tests, “whether the practice or
policy advances some substantial governmental interest” (Odden & Picus, 2004). This
test usually pertains to policies that differentiate based on gender differences. This

24
test has worked to overthrow a number of policies and practices that attempted to
argue that women were incapable of performing similar tasks than their male
counterparts.
The third test is the Strict Judicial Scrutiny, which tests if a policy affects two
specific circumstances. First, it is invoked to determine if the state or governmental
action affects a “fundamental right” of individuals. Then it also aims to test if through
some action or policy the government somehow subjugates a suspect classification of
individuals. Through Rational, Intermediate, and Strict Judicial Scrutiny tests, now
public school finance reform litigation had a means of measuring the extent to which
state finance systems could provide equitable opportunities for students. More
specifically, the tests provided the blueprints to understanding how school finance
litigation could force states to change their finance systems.
With precedence established by the court cases and the three test, to prove
whether a state had violated equal protection clauses, the works of Wise (1968) and
that of the combined efforts of Coons, Clune and Sugarman (1970) collectively
provide a strategy for arguing for fiscal neutrality. Wise (1968) explained that,
“education was a fundamental right, and that the equal protection clause required that
education must be provided equally across all school districts.” Shortly after Wise
makes his argument, Coons, Clune, and Sugarman (1970) explain in their book,
Private Wealth and Public Education, that inevitably states were responsible for
creating suspect classifications through education finance systems that were solely
determined by the property wealth of the differing school districts. Therefore, “local
school districts were the creation of the state governments and that by making school

25
financing heavily dependent on local finances, states gave school districts unequal
opportunities to raise educational revenues because of property value per child varied
widely across school district” (Odden & Picus, 2004). As a result, a newer precedent
was set and argued that the new goals of educational finance reform were to create
fiscally neutral systems, or more specifically ensure that the funding of each district
in the state should be dependent on the wealth of the state not based on the property
wealth or lack thereof of that district.
Examining the litigation that followed publication of these arguments
demonstrates both how education finance reform litigation has incorporated these
strategies to strengthen equal protection clause cases, but also have uncovered counter
arguments in the attempts to overhaul state finance systems. The first case to use
Coons, Clune, and Sugarman’s strategy was the Serrano v. Priest (1971) in
California. After being dismissed in 1968 on the basis of the McInnis and Burruss,
the appeal in 1971 concluded that the California school finance system was
nonjusticiable. In the landmark case of 1971, the plaintiffs “demonstrated that the
system of financing in California allowed great disparities in funding from district to
district. The plaintiffs also produced evidence that in many of the high expenditure
districts, property owners were paying lower tax rates that the taxpayers in the poor
districts, yet, realizing greater school revenues” (Silard, 1973). Based on the opinion
of the California Supreme Court in 1971, Odden and Picus (2004) conclude three
significant factors:
• The case was justiciable, using the fiscal neutrality standard;

26
• Education was a fundamental right and property wealth per pupil was a
suspect class; and
• The California school finance system was unconstitutional.
Following on the heels of the Serrano opinion, the Rodriguez v. San Antonio
School District (1972) was heard by a three-judge panel court panel in Texas, and
then appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the district courts findings, they
concluded “education to be a fundamental right, and property wealth per pupil to be a
suspect classification. The decision held that the Texas school finance system violated
the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and ordered the legislature to
devise a constitutional system” (Odden & Picus, 2004). Immediately appealing the
case to the Supreme Court in March of 1973, the state of Texas won by a 5-4
decision. In the rendered opinion, the Supreme Court “struck down the notion that
education is a fundamental right and concluded that the Texas system of school
finance did not operate to the disadvantage of a suspect class (McDonald, 2006).
This conclusion, exposes the fact that because the U.S. Constitution does not
explicitly mention education, that fiscal reform litigation was no longer going to be
argued on the bases of using the equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution on the federal level. Contrary to this, the first Rodriguez
decision cast light onto the fact that since most state constitutions mention the
formation of “thorough,” “efficient,” “uniform,” or “high quality” educations,
educational finance reform litigation still had the ability bring cases to the state level.

27
Adequacy; Thorough, uniform and high quality

Following the Rodriguez case, there were several cases that were critical not
only because they were central in ushering in changes in the finance systems of their
states, but more importantly because they bring about a paradigm shift in the
established goals for achieving school finance reform. More specifically they alter the
argument by shifting from attempting to change state finance systems based on equal
protection under U.S. Constitutions, to the fundamental right to adequate educational
opportunities guaranteed by the educational clauses of state constitutions.
The first of these cases was, Robinson v. Cahill 1973, which was the first
education case to reach the state supreme court in New Jersey. In this case, similar to
the Rodriguez opinion, the courts found that although education is mentioned in the
New Jersey constitution, its mere mention did not guarantee it as a fundamental right
that the state was obligated to protect under equal protection clauses. In addition, the
court also rendered the opinion that although there were definite disparages between
the schools in property rich and poor districts, the property wealth was not a suspect
class (Odden & Picus, 2004). While this appeared to be another major blow to school
finance reform litigation arguments, the courts still found that the state school finance
system, was still unconstitutional. As described by Odden and Picus (2004) “the court
held that a school finance structure that allowed for wide disparities in spending per
pupil that were strongly linked to property wealth per pupil was not a “thorough and
efficient system, and sent the case to the state legislature to design a new system.”
This conclusion illustrated the change in litigation’s attempts to argue using the U.S.

28
Constitution’s 14
th
Amendment and the beginning of arguing State’s educational
clause.
After the overturning of Rodriguez, with the verdict from the Robinson case,
public school finance reform had proven that arguing for reform through citing
individual state constitutional education clauses was a successful means to compel
states to change their finance systems. “During the remainder of the 1970s and into
the 1980s, 17 states challenged the constitutionality of school finance systems. In this
fashions, courts mandated unconstitutional systems to change their financing
structure. These states were Arkansas, California, Connecticut, New Jersey,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming” (McDonald, 2006). While the remaining
ten states, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio,
Oregon, and Pennsylvania, were upheld as constitutional by the highest courts
(Hunter, 2005; Swanson & King, 1991).
The next case to bring about such significant change was Rose v. the Council of
Better Education, Inc. (1989) in Kentucky. While presenting a fiscal neutrality
argument to the Kentucky Supreme Court, the court’s decision represents the fact that
it became an adequacy case. Here in their conclusion, the court held that “the school
finance equity required that all students should have access to an adequate education
programs” (Odden & Picus, 2004).
It is crystal clear that the General Assembly has fallen short of its duty to
enact legislation to provide for an efficient system of common schools
through the state. In a word, the present system of common schools in
Kentucky is not an “efficient” one in our view of the clear mandate of
Section 183. The common school system in Kentucky is constitutionally
deficient (Rose v. The Council of Better Education, 1989).

29
In the summary of their conclusion, the court defined an adequate education program
as including (Rose v. The Council of Better Education, 1989):
1. Sufficient oral and written communication skills to enable students to
function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization;
2. Sufficient knowledge of economic, social, and political systems to enable
the student to make informed choices;
3. Sufficient understanding of governmental processes to enable the student
to understand the issues that affect his or her community, state, and nation;
4. Sufficient self-knowledge and knowledge of his or her mental and
physical wellness;
5. Sufficient grounding in the arts to enable each student to appreciate his or
her cultural and historical heritage;
6. Sufficient training or preparation for advanced training in either academic
or vocational fields so as to enable each child to choose and pursue life
work intelligently; and
7. Sufficient levels of academic or vocational skills to enable public school
students to compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding
states, in the academic, or in the job market.

This decision, not only directly caused the reform of the education finance system,
management, governance, and curriculum programs in Kentucky, but also has been
the catalyst for bringing about change in numerous other states. It has done this
through three means. First, its decision explicitly shifts the focus of reform form the

30
notion of measuring educational resources invested in the system, to focusing on
setting higher standards or goals for the expected levels of students’ achievements.
By doing so, this decision shifts the paradigm of the argument for ensuring every
student receive the same or equal opportunity to attain an education, to that of making
sure that the educational system take responsibility for ensuring all students reach an
adequate level of achievement throughout the state. This argument of ensuring
adequate educations for all students subsequently was used to overturn the school
finance systems of Alabama, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Arizona, Ohio, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
Secondly, this decision has greater ramification in further defining the states
role in the wake of the standards-based reform movement. Born out of the efforts of
the National Commission on Excellence in Education’s (1983) A Nation at Risk, and
its critical commentary of how the financial stability and economic competitiveness
of the nation is linked to the nations ability to educate its citizens. The Standards-
Based movement which is credited as having been defined by Diane Ravitch (1995),
who explains that just as Americans “expect strict standards to govern construction of
building, bridges, highways, and tunnels; shoddy work would put lives at risk. They
expect stringent standards to protect their drinking water, the food they eat, and their
air they breathe…Standards can improvement achievement by clearly defining what
is to be taught and what kind of performance is expected.”
The Kentucky court ordered mandate motivates the state to directly set
educational standards for all students and presses the state to ensure that they were
paying for it. In addition, following this decision, cases such as Campbell County

31
School District, State of Wyoming, et al., v. State of Wyoming (1995) which
demanded that “the legislature must first design the best educational system by
identifying the proper education package each Wyoming student is entitled to have.
The cost of that education package must then be determined and the legislature must
then take the necessary action to fund the package.” In essence the Rose case directly
influences the restructuring of financial systems in other states.
The third significant change that is brought about by the Kentucky case is that
the actions of the state foreshadow the third paradigm shift for educational finance
reform, which is productivity. This notion of productivity in educational finance
reform is not only the focus of this dissertation, but it frames the current movement of
exploring how efficiently policy makers link investments in educational resources to
student achievement. After creating an educational system that aims to ensure
students receive an adequate education, it also set in place measures to equalize
spending within the goals of funding these changes. These changes bring attention,
just as in the Wyoming (1995) case, to the process of not only examining what
knowledge, skills, and understandings that students should leave school possessing
but more importantly defining what does it cost. This is critical because, despite
disparities or any other shortcomings of current state education finance systems,
finance reformers contend that the foremost finance problem is the low levels of
system performance and student achievement produce (Odden & Picus, 2004;
Hanushek and Associates, 1994).

32
Productivity; Thorough and Efficient Education

Further defining this notion of adequacy and expectation of productivity, the
next wave of court cases to hold significance amongst educational finance system
reform were the Abbot v. Burke trials in New Jersey. Arguing the Thorough and
Efficient (T & E) clause of the states constitution, from the first case in 1981, through
its several appeals, and still pertinently debated in the New Jersey Supreme Court,
this litigation moved the state into creating, “curriculum content standards, student
performance standards in six different subject areas, and a new state testing system
that would measure performance to those standards” (Odden & Picus, 2004). In
addition, to support this standards based system, that state legislature passed the
Comprehensive Education Improvement Finance Act (CEIFA). CEIFA was originally
intended to provide a means of defining the cost for funding such programs through
determining the minimum cost for staffing and supporting such a system that would
bring student achievement to set standards.
Important to the reform movement, in Abbott v. Burke IV (1997), the courts
ruled that the CEIFA was unconstitutional. Through analysis of models that failed to
address the needs of low-income and diverse minority student demographics, the New
Jersey Supreme Court concluded that the CEIFA was unconstitutional. “The court
ruled that the only effective schooling model they knew of was that of the highest
spending districts, which were successful in teaching their students to high standards.
So the court used that model as a de facto standard and mandated the state to raise the
spending in each of the special-needs districts to the average level of the most

33
advantaged district” (Odden & Picus, 2004). This is critical in examining the
questions of both what are the educational inputs are necessary to provide an
adequate education, and more importantly clarifying what standards are used to
define adequacy.
This decision in the Abbot case, sets precedent for court mandated adequacy
finance reform in several ways. First, this case is critical in school finance reform
because, through the redesigning of the school funding system, the state creates a
parity standard. In doing so, the state funding system equalized those school districts
with the lowest property value (greatest need) to levels that reflect the standards and
expectations of the districts with greater property wealth. In addition, they also put
supplemental programs to ensure that students with the greatest need were given
every opportunity to achieve at higher levels. Lastly, it gives greater support to the
movement for productivity, by further defining what educational standards were
expected and designing programs to ensure that educational resources were invested
in programs that supported student achievement in all districts.
Still in the current discussion of finance reforms in education, the T & E
argument
continues to be prevalent in the discussion of improving public schools. As Ed Trust
(2005) points out, today it is “undeniable that in the aggregate poor children have
fewer opportunities in public schools in most states because they have fewer
resources.” Even in the wake of this reality, still finance reformers have learned that
“school resources are inert unless and until they are transformed into high quality
instructional practices. So for…resources to have more than just marginal impacts on

34
student learning, schools need to use the dollars to purchase and implement effective
curriculum programs in all content areas” (Odden, Picus, Archibald, Goetz, Mangan,
Aportela, 2007; Cohen, Raudenbush, and Ball, 2002). At this current position in
fiscal reform, the debate is now shifting from not only examining what educational
resources are necessary to ensure students receive an adequate education, but rather
how can these educational resources be reallocated to ensure their effective
promotion and increase of student achievement (Odden, 2000). Therefore, the next
section of this literature review will move from discussing the changes in public
school finance reform to what inputs and resources that are acquired in the efforts to
improve student achievement.

Educational Resource Use

While the shifts in the public school finance reform movement have primarily
concerned educational expenditures at the district and even the state level, this
dissertation aims to bring that discussion down to the site base level. In this fashion
while discussing the notion of how educational resources are invested, this literature
review examine the recommendations of the works of Odden, Picus, Archibald,
Mangan, and Aportela (2007) in analyzing the resources shown to double student
performance. In doing so, this will justify the use of an Evidence-Based approach to
determining the adequacy and efficiency of resources use at the school site level in
California’s public schools.

35
Before examining the intricacies of current public schools resource allocation,
first we must examine how much money is spent in education and the history of how
it has been invested in the classrooms. According to the National Center for
Educational Statistics (NCES) (2008) website in the 2007-2008 school year it is
projected that $489.4 billion was spent on approximately 49.6 million students. This
means that the national average of per pupil spending would have approximately been
$9,969 (NCES, 2008). While this is a decrease from the previous years, overall if we
examine the expenditures for public school education over the last 50 years the total
amount of funding is increasing while student enrollment has tended to stay constant.
This is evident by the increase both in elementary and secondary spending in addition
to post-secondary spending illustrated in graph 1 furnished by the NCES (2002).
Figure 2.1 Education expenditures in billions of current dollars

Source: National Center of Educational Statistics (2008)

36
While there have been continuous increases in the total amount of funding, the
spending practices for educational expenditures have still been similar to what they
were 50 years ago. According to NCES since 1970, the averages of school
expenditures divided by function have stayed somewhat constant. During that year of
the entire budget of approximately $50 billion dollars, approximately 4% was spent
on administration, 54% was spent on instruction, and 6.9% was spent on operation. In
a review of table 2.1, while the actual amounts of expenditures increase, school
districts are following patterns of using resources in the same ways year after year
when the expenditures were divided by objects. Similar to spending trends 40 years
ago, table 2.2 shows that when divided by expenditure function school districts
continue to exhibit similar patterns of resource use decade after decade. If these
practices hold true at the district and school site level, this evidence begs for further
discussion of how policy makers can hope to expect different results when resources
are allocated in the same manner year after year.

37
Table 2.1 Percent Distribution of Expenditures by Object, 1969-1980

42

Table 2.1 Percent Distribution of Expenditures by Object, 1969-1980

Years
Expenditure Function
1969-
1970 1979-80 1989-90

Total Expenditure 100 100 100

Current expenditure for
public elementary and
secondary education….
84.1 90.6 88.5

Administration 3.9 4.4 7.7
Instruction 57.2 55.2 53.4
Plant Operation 6.2 10.2 9.5
Plant Maintenance 2.4 n/a
Fixed Charges 8 12.3 17.9
Other School Services 6.3 8.3 1.4

other current expenditures 1.6
---
- ----
Summer School 0.3
---
-
-----
-
Adult Education 0.3
---
-
---
-
Community college 0.3
---
-
---
-
Community Services 0.6 0.6
---
-

Capital outlays 11.5 6.8 8.4
Interest on School dept 2.9 2 1.8

Table 2.2 Percent Distribution of Expenditures by Function, 1990-2005

38
Table 2.2 Percent Distribution of Expenditures by Function, 1990-2005

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data
When we begin to examine the resource levels and use in California, in comparison to
the nation, issues begin to become clearer why California still has failed to live up to

43
Expenditures
[in constant
2006–07
dollars]

Percentage
distribution of
current
expenditures

Function and sub
function 1989–90 1996–97 2004–05
1989–
90
1996–
97 2004–05

Current
expenditures $7,464 $7,609 $9,266 100 100 100
Instruction 4,503 4,708 5,666 60 62 61
Salaries 3,345 3,413 3,902 45 45 42
Employee
benefits 821 901 1,200 11 12 13
Purchased
services 101 121 196 1 2 2
Supplies 170 201 265 2 3 3
Tuition and
other 66 72 103 1 1 1
Administration 648 608 713 9 8 8
Salaries 428 413 462 6 5 5
Employee
benefits 113 112 144 2 1 2
Purchased
services 65 58 77 1 1 1
Supplies 14 13 14 # # #
Tuition and
other 28 12 15 # # #
Student and staff
support1 835 890 1,235 11 12 13
Salaries 544 564 736 7 7 8
Employee
benefits 145 154 229 2 2 2
Purchased
services 70 95 170 1 1 2
Supplies 49 49 66 1 1 1
Tuition and
other 27 27 32 # # #
Operation and
maintenance 803 756 892 11 10 10
Transportation 318 310 381 4 4 4

39
expected equity or adequacy measures. Examining the data from NCES state profiles
(2006), it is evident that expectantly the state spent relatively more than the national
average in actual dollars raised because California boosted the largest population,
with approximately 35 million residents and 6.4 million students in 2006. With a total
revenue of approximately $69 billion that California spends more than the national
average, which is around $10 billion, but when considering the spending per students
as of 2005, California ranked 34
th
(Mockler, 2007). Therefore, California’s total
amount of educational revenue raised shields the fact that taxpayers invest less than
the national average per pupil. Examining table 2.4, this study concludes that the low
levels of resources invested into the educational system, has translated into the
practice of teaching students with less teachers, principals, guidance counselors, and
librarians. As explained by, Loeb (2006), “California school districts spend
significantly less and receive fewer revenues than do districts in other states.”
Meaning, while California raises more actual dollars because of its large population,
according to table 2.4, it ranks in the bottom deciles of states in all the
aforementioned categories.
Educational finance reformers explain that the cause of lower per pupil spending and
revenues in California is due to the Serrano court cases and Proposition 13. As
previously mentioned, the Serrano cases were concerned with ensuring that the public
school finance system equalized school revenues by limiting the direct connection of
property wealth of a district to the revenues that district was able to raise. “For many
years previously, school boards has set a tax rate and levied taxes on the assessed
value of property within the district. Due to the variation of both property tax rates

40
and property wealth, districts were spending very different amounts of money”
(EdSource, 2000). In the conclusion of the case, the Supreme Court rendered a
decision that “the provision of basic state aid and the permissibility of overrides
created inequities in educational opportunities, since two school districts levying the
same tax rate but with different taxable wealth per pupil would have different per
pupil spending” (Downes, 1992). Meaning, the system was unconstitutional because
the state’s finance system failed to equalize educational opportunities for all students
in California.
In the wake of such variations and in advance to the California Supreme
Courts decision of the Serrano case, in an effort to solve the inequalities in school
revenues, exposed by the court case, the California legislation passed Proposition 13
in 1978. Proposition 13 mandated the creation of a statewide system of assessing
property value and setting a maximum property tax of 1% for every homeowner, in
an effort to eliminate inequities between varying school districts (EdSource, 2006;
Dowes, 1992). “The implicit (and sometimes explicit) assumption behind these
efforts is that a more equal distribution of fiscal resources will lead to increased
equity in educational opportunities and educational outcomes” (Reschovsky &
Imazeki, 1997). While equity was originally viewed as the goal for finance reform,
the limitations of Proposition 13’s passing is still reflective in California’s inability to
increase funding by raising taxes over the maximum 1% property tax rate.
These factors have had lasting affects on school finance that are still evident
today. Three important factors have been exposed, in the wake of Proposition 13.
First, while the measure has equalized spending throughout the state’s districts,

41
limitations on the amount of revenue that can be raised through local taxes ranked
California’s spending lower than Texas, New York, Florida and the rest of the
country (Loeb, 2007). Secondly, the transition to equalizing funds through the
authority of the state has shifted the dependency of every school district from the
local property value of the area to the state’s budget. In light of this fact, “each year
the education community faces uncertainty about how much money will be allocated
for revenue limits and for special programs” (EdSource, 2006). Due to the states
current financial deficits, David Long (2008), the California Secretary of Education,
the educational budget is expected to be cut by $865.1 million dollars for the 2008-09
school year.
Lastly, individuals that have studied the effects of equalization have
concluded that, “equalization of funding should not be expected to be an effective
policy of promoting greater equality of outcomes” (Downes, 1992; Hanushek, 1986).
In addition, “revenue limits do not address the issue of variations in educational costs
based on student characteristics” (Duncombe, & Yinger, 2007). Meaning, the
equalization of resources fails to address the fact that different students need different
supports to reach similar levels of achievement. As previously mentioned, while
categorical programs have sought to mediate this dilemma of addressing student with
the greatest needs, studies have shown that while these programs have increased
restricted funds and they have decreased unrestricted resources (Timar and Roza,
2008; Loeb, Gissom, & Strunk, 2008). In support, Timar and Roza (2008) have
argued that that their research illustrates that high need districts may have higher
overall revenues, but this difference is almost exclusively in restricted revenues. This

42
points to the fact that policies aimed to address low-performing schools have done so
primarily using very prescriptive programs, Title I and categorical grants.
These circumstances are critical, in the evolution of finance reform here in
California. Just as the national concern for educational equity has shifted to
educational adequacy and productivity, so have these concerns shifted here in
California. “Despite the financial pressure, attention has shifted from finance to
performance --- increasing student and school accountability; reducing dropouts;
granting more parental choice of schools; improving the teaching force; and focusing
on the achievement gap between minority, non-English speaking and/or low-income
pupils and their classmates” (EdSource, 2006).
In the wake of NCLB (2002) legislation, this shift has indicated that schools
failing to reach AYP standards are being placed in Program Improvement status.
With such accountability standards, the California Department of Education (CDE)
(2006) has mandated that schools in PI status both develop Single Plans for Student
Achievement (SPSA) and chose alternative site-based governance programs. This
SPSA is a document outlining the barriers and plans for action in increasing student
achievement. Meaning, this SPSA serves as an instructional strategy for increasing
the schools ability to provide adequate educational opportunities for its students, by
linking resource use to student outcomes. The alternative governance programs have
developed in these schools in the form of School Site Councils (SSC). These SSC’s
consist of teachers, administrators, parents, uncertified staff, and students who
function as a board for making resource allocation decisions for the school. In

43
essence, these SSC’s operate as decentralized managing entities for school oversight.
Their most critical function is creating and implementing the SPSA.
In light of these changes, it is imperative to ensure the most effective use of
educational resources that policy makers assess how affective these mandates are
taking hold in the PI schools. In addition to the aforementioned factors, it is possible
that providing greater autonomy in resource allocation at the school site level could
further increase student achievement at the PI schools based on the research of Timar
and Roza (2008). Said another way, if the adoption of these new school site
governance were to give greater autonomy for schools to use resource in more
creative ways, possibly PI schools could be moved closer to expected levels of
achievement.
While provided further analysis to determine what these patterns mean at the
school site level, this dissertation used the instructional, non-instructional categories
and functions to determine exactly how resources are being used (Odden, Archibald,
Fermanich, and Gross (2003). Following the evidence-based frameworks tracking
strategy of Odden and Picus (2008) the instructional category is defined as the costs
of; core teachers and instructions, special and elective teachers, extra support staff,
such as teachers and non-resource room aids, professional development staff &
financial resources, instructional materials and equipment, and student support staff.
The non-instructional categories were defined as the cost of administration, operation
and maintenance. By engaging in an analysis that immerses and explores decisions
and planning strategies for allocation of these instructional and non-instructional
resources, this dissertation aims to decipher how well low performing schools

44
purposefully manage educational investments in the aim of improving educational
opportunities for all students.

Measuring Progress in Resource Allocation

There are four different methods in practice used for measuring the progress
and the adequacy of public school finance systems. These methods determine how
effective a system is operating taking into account the managed success of al school
using the following models, the successful school, cost-function (econometrics),
professional judgment (Budget Simulations), and evidence-based approaches. After
discussing the results of using these differing methods to measure the adequacy of
California’s financial system, this section will conclude with making a case for the
use of the evidence-based model to assess adequacy at the school-site level.
First, in the successful schools model, sets of successful schools are chosen as
models for reform. Typically, these schools are chosen for their ability to use
resources in such a manner that provides evidence of raising student achievement in
specific performance areas. Once identified, the average spending per pupil in this set
of schools becomes the standard for what resource levels should be at schools failing
to reach such performance goals. Maria Perez and Tom Parish (2007) conducted a
study in California examining the relationship between the use of resources, the
regulatory environment and student performance. In their study, Perez and Parish
(2007) identified schools that compared the resource use of 96 Beating The Odds
(BTO) schools, to that of 113 low-performing schools. In this study, BTO schools

45
consisted of schools that for four years continuously out performed the predicted level
of student achievement that their students were expected to reach. For this study,
researchers used students’ 2004-05 California Standards Test (CST) scores, and
financial data from 2004-05 Standardized Account Code Structures (SACS).
In Perez and Socia’s findings, they conclude;
• Statistical analysis shows no difference in the number of personnel, but
some variations by type of qualifications are related to school
performance.
• Data acquired in this fashion, reveals no relationships between school
resources and academic success.
• Interviews of stakeholders reveal some factors of high-quality teachers
and implementation of standards, and coherent instruction are related to
student success, but that there are no magical formulas.
While this approach does an adequate job of averaging the costs of schools
that are successful, little research has shown that this method “systematically makes
any effort to adjust for variations in the cost of adequacy due to characteristics of
individual school districts and their students” (Reschovky & Imazeki, 2000).
Therefore, it provides a picture of what happened in schools that were able to reach
performance goals, but fails to give instructions for how these methods can be
transferred into schools that fail to reach such levels of success.
In the cost-function approach, measures of per-pupil school expenditures,
student performance and various characteristics of school districts are taken within a
state. This is an econometric method of approximating the amount of educational

46
resources necessary to ensure students reach a given outcome. Using regression
techniques, researchers generate estimated equations that best fit the available data
where dollars per pupil represent the dependent variable and resources needed to
ensure student success represents the independent variables. In other words, this
econometric technique attempts to generate equations to represent unexplained
variation in dollars per pupil, as they correspond to achieving expected student
outcomes. Using these equations researchers calculate the cost necessary to increase
student achievement, to determine the total level of funding needed to provide
adequate educations for all students. With these equations, researchers expect to be
able to directly quantify the relationship between outcomes and cost within districts
with a variety of factors (Imazeki, 2008).
In Imazeki (2008) cost function analysis of adequacy for California’s public
schools she determines an equation that “takes the specific log-linear form and fits a
cost function using data for all K-12 districts in California.” Including a sample of
937 school districts, “the dependent variable is the general fund per pupil
expenditures for 2004-05, excluding spending on transportation, food services, and
juvenile court schools” (Imazeki, 2008). Using ordinary least squares regression,
Imazeki concludes that if the outcome goal of adequacy is for every school to reach
or maintain an Annual Progress Index score of 800, each school would have to
average approximately $8,268 per pupil, or a total of 45.1 billion for the system.
The disadvantage to this process is that cost functions, just as the successful
school model, “are black boxes that do not illuminate how districts should organize
their resources. Furthermore, both the cost function and the successful schools

47
approach derive their cost estimates from observed data under the preexisting system;
the resulting estimate thus implicitly assumes no structural change in the instructional
structure of the [finance] system” (Imazeki, 2006). While the econometric approach
provides an objective means of quantifying the relationship between resource use and
expected outcomes, its inverse equation, the production function, is used to determine
bias of the cost function. After employing this function, Imazeki (2008) explains that
“in California, total estimated cost from the production function is $1.5 trillion.”
Drastically different, Imazeki (2008) explains that this suggest “the estimates are
indeed biased, but much more work needs to identify the exact nature of the bias.”
Therefore, the conclusion needing $45.1 billion to fund California’s public school
system is at best a “low estimate of base cost” for California Public schools.
In the third method, professional judgment, panels of “educators are brought
together to design an instructional program that would achieve a specific objective”
(Taylor, Baker, and Vedlitz, 2005; Sonstelle, 2008). This method enlists the efforts
and prior knowledge of a group of individuals who work directly with or in schools,
to decipher how resources should best be used.
In a new approach to this method, budget simulations, Jon Sonstelle (2008)
used similar panels but established restrictions on the total amount of funding that
was available and the cost for each educational resource to estimate cost for adequacy
in California. Through this study, Sonstelle (2008) aimed to “learn what resources
teachers, principals, and superintendents believe their schools need to achieve the
state’s goal and to communicate those beliefs to policy makers.” In Sonstelle’s
research, budget simulations were administered by having participants complete excel

48
documents, in which participants used cost constraints to determine their priority of
resource purchases. In the conclusion, Sonstelle (2008) suggests that across the 950
districts, adequacy in California would cost “$60.5 billion or $9,912 per pupil.” While
these same districts were reported to have spent $43 billion in the 2003-04 school
year, Sonstelle (2008) explains, that even with this 40% increase in revenue, half of
these schools would still fail to reach the states goal of an Academic Progress Index
score of 800.
While this method provides a closer examination of what educators feel is
needed in the classroom and at the school site, this method has two drawbacks. First,
while educators, specifically teachers and some principals, may have the best
intentions of increasing student achievement, they receive relatively no training in
allocating budgets (Sonstelle, 2008). Second, since the decisions are rooted in the
opinions of individuals working in specific school sites, it is difficult to transfer
changes into others schools that may have different factors influencing the providing
of adequate educations for their student populations.
In the evidence-based approach, “school-based programs and educational
strategies that research has shown to improve student learning” are identified, to
create a comprehensive framework of how resources could be reallocated to increase
student performance (Odden, Goetz, and Picus, 2007). In doing so, both the cost of
effective strategies and programs are analyzed, with adjustments for student
demographic characteristics, to determine an approximate cost for educating all
students to adequate levels. Through this framework, researchers are able to examine
both how schools are currently using their resources and, how reallocating resources

49
by employing evidence based strategies could improve student achievement.
Combining the benefits of the successful schools, and cost-function models, this
method ultimately has the ability to provide a clearer understanding of what is and
should be occurring at the school site level.
Through the examination of the goals and priorities of resource allocation at
the site levels through the evidence-based framework, measures of both adequacy and
proficiency can be derived for that specific site. These goals can be achieved first by
deciphering the current resource use at the site enabling, researchers to determine
how closely the spending practices match to the objectives of the school. Through this
means, researchers would be able to expose how thorough and effective school sites
utilize their resources in accomplishing their goals. Secondly, by comparing these
measures to the evidence-based model, researchers would be able to provide insight
into the costs for ensuring the school system adequately provides educational
opportunities for students. As a result, this would peer into the black box the
successful school and cost-function model, in giving blueprints to the areas and extent
of reallocations that could occur to improve student performance at any school site.
Examining the history of educational finance reform and the patterns of
resource use, provides an understanding of how schools with histories of low
achievement have evolved into their current circumstance. Purposefully choosing
samples of schools that fall into this category, this dissertation will explore how
changes in site-based management of resources are contributing to schools abilities to
provide adequate educations for all students. This dissertation uses the evidence-
based model to created Oden, et. al. (2003) as a framework for comparing how

50
successful schools are using resources most efficiently in low performing schools. In
doing so, this dissertation attempts to add to the wealth of knowledge of education
finance reforms and their effects at the school site level for all schools.

51

Chapter 3

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to access the extent to which low-performing
schools are utilizing their resources, in the efforts to improve student achievement.
This study is attempting to explore how mandated changes in compliance with No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, have affected school resource allocations.
Particularly for the numerous schools that fall into NCLB’s Program Improvement
(PI) status, this study aims to examine how changes in site-based management and
how Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) have altered the priorities and
utilization of educational resources at the school level. In doing so, this dissertation
examines how effective PI schools fair in both utilizing resources to address the
objectives of their school improvement plans and in providing adequate educational
opportunities for their students. In the attempts to accomplish this goal, the following
four research questions guide this dissertation:
1. What are the current instructional improvement strategies at the
school-level?
2. How are the actual resource patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies that are used in the Evidence-
Based Model?
3. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement strategies? (instructional vision, plan, goals, etc.)

52
4. How does the availability of resources effect the development and
implementation of the strategic plan?

Through using these four guiding research questions, this study aims at
delving deeper into the affects changes in site-based management are having on both
resource use and in the effort of improving student performance. To accomplish this
lofty goal, this study employees the use of an evidence-based model, also used to
measure the adequacy of public schools in Arkansas, Arizona, Wyoming, and
Washington (Odden, Picus, and Fermanich 2003; Odden, Picus, Fermanich & Goetz,
2004; Odden, Picus, Goetz, Fermanich, Seder, Glenn, & Nelli, 2005; and Odden,
Picus, Goetz, Mangan, and Fermanich, 2006). As explained earlier in this
dissertation, an evidence-based research method “relies on current educational
research to identify the resources needed for a prototypical school to meet a state’s
student performance benchmarks. Once identified, those specifications are subject to
the professional judgment of officials in that state to validate the research-based
recommendations. Thus modified, the cost of the prototypical school designs are
estimated and applied to the actual schools in the state. Adjustments are made for
children with disabilities, from low-income families, or with limited English
proficiency” (Picus, 2004). Said another way, this study aims to compare the efforts
of improving California’s lowest achieving urban public schools to research based
strategies for increasing student performance. In essence, this study is comparing the
cost and types of programs proven to be effective to the expenditure use of schools

53
with histories of low-achievement once resource allocation decisions are
decentralized to the school site.
Based on data generated at the school-site level, this dissertation will compare
both qualitative data through open-ended data collecting protocols, interviewing
individuals in charge of resource allocation at the schools, and evaluate quantitative
data of school resource use thorough a data collecting protocol. Efforts to improve
student achievement will be compared to current research on effective strategies
providing adequate educational opportunities for all students. Data collected will
reflect the three areas identified by the California’s State Department of Education
(2006) (CDE) as affecting schools ability to address the problems of low
achievement:
1. Strategies, policies, and practices that utilize scientifically-based research and
have the greatest likelihood of ensuring that all groups of students will meet
the state’s achievement targets
2. High quality professional development for school staff that will lead to
removing the school from PI status
3. Strategies to promote effective parental involvement in the school

More specifically this data will consist of student test scores, staffing assignments,
professional development budgets, and instructional improvement processes. With
this, interviews will be conducted with school stakeholders in the attempts of
clarifying the motivations behind the previous resource uses strategies and possible
barriers to improving student success. In addition, these interviews will expose the

54
school’s background, its evolution in changing management styles used, and
explanations of priorities in making decisions concerning resource use. Through these
methods, this study aims to add to the wealth of literature concerning both measuring
adequacy in California public schools, but also in examining methods of increasing
student performance at schools in Program Improvement status.

Sample and Population

In this study, a purposeful sample of five schools were chosen to specifically
measure the efforts of urban low-performing schools attempts to provide adequate
educational opportunities for all students. Selected to examine how effective NCLB
accountability policies works, this sample was chosen in an effort to ensure the
progress of students that have historically tested on the lower side of the achievement
gap. These primarily are schools serving populations of students that state finance
systems have created modifications to adjust for students’ socioeconomic status,
language barriers, and physical/mental disabilities. In an effort to determine how
effectively these modifications provide adequate educational opportunities for
students, this study will compare each schools’ data to the programs supported by
research-based strategies of increasing student achievement.
As explained in the first chapter the schools chosen for this sample share three
specific characteristics. First, all schools were categorized as PI schools, after not
meeting API goals for the previous years. Secondly, each school will have created

55
both a Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) and selected restructuring plan in
accordance to accountability mandates of NCLB (2002) and California Department of
Education (CDE) mandates (2006). In accordance to NCLB this would also entail that
all five schools will be located within communities that have large populations of
Numerically Significant Subgroups (NSS). These NSS include schools with more
than 100 students with subgroups that make up at least 15 percent. These groups
would include:
• African American of Black (not including of Hispanic Origin)
• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Asian
• Filipino
• Hispanic or Latino
• Pacific Islander
• White (not of Hispanic Origin)
• Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
• English Learners
• Students with Disabilities
Lastly, the schools will utilize additional resources supplemented from either
governmental, private business, or community organizations. Meaning that all five
schools are willingly participating in programs separate from the their respective
school districts, that are bringing additional resources and programs to the school.
Using this criterion, similarities in student populations and school demographic
became apparent in several ways. First, all the schools have an average class size of

56
approximately 30 students. In all of the schools, 78% or more students participate in
free and reduced lunch programs. The API scores of the schools range from the
highest of 593 to the lowest of 486 which are all well below the states goal of 800.
While each school is slightly different when looking at student make-up, the majority
of the student populations are African American, and Latino. While the percentage of
ELL students and students with disabilities are consistent with the averages of similar
student groups throughout the same urban districts.

Instrumentation and Data Collection Instruments

In an effort to answer the preceding guiding questions, this study follows the
research protocol of evidence-based framework used in previous adequacy studies
headed by Allan Odden and Lawrence Picus in Arkansas, Alabama, Wyoming, and
Washington. In collaboration with a research group, chaired by Lawrence Picus,
modifications were made to this evidence-based framework to ensure that it more
accurately addressed California’s diverse student demographic. While the research
group aims to examine adequacy of education throughout California’s public schools,
this dissertation narrows its focus on determining the efforts to improve urban schools
with histories of low-achievement. Guided by the research questions, this study
focuses on revealing the extent to which low-performing urban schools are providing
adequate educational opportunities for the students they serve.

57

What are the current instructional improvement strategies at the school-level?

The first research question concerns how schools prioritize resource allocation.
In other words, the purpose of this question is generate an understanding of the
school’s process of planning and implementing of educational funds in the attempts
of improving student achievement. The evidence-based framework addresses this
question in two ways. First, the SPSA will be collected as data describing resource
use. Each school’s SPSA diagrams the site’s agreed upon areas of weakness in
improving student performance and detail courses of actions the school plans to take
throughout the year to overcome such barriers. Said another way, the SPSA’s spell
out each school’s plans for professional development, teacher retention and
development, the safety and wellbeing of the school community, discipline,
attendance, instruction, dress codes and any other areas that affect student
achievement. Due to the fact that the SPSA gathers the input of the entire school
community, this document will be used to define the schools’ collectively agree upon
instructional improvement strategy.
Secondly, the evidence-based framework examines this question through open-
ended data collecting protocols with individuals in charge of resource allocation. Due
to CDE’s mandated restructuring and alternative governance plans, this would mean
these individuals would include the principal and possibly the head of the school-site
council. Through these interviews, this study aims to decipher both the motivation for
choices in SPSA but also how thoroughly are the goals and objectives communicated

58
by these leaders. In other words, this protocol focuses on clarifying what are the
strategies in place, how the school holds itself accountable for the implementation of
those strategies, and what barriers are affecting the outcomes.

How are the actual resource patterns at the school sites aligned with or different
from the resource use strategies that are used in the Evidence-Based Model?

Through collecting each school’s SPSA and interview data, this study can then
summarize the schools’ resource use strategies. With this knowledge, the framework
then uses a data collection protocol to compare how resource use patterns align with
each school’s concluded strategy. This protocol compares data from school resource
indicators to each school’s educational expenditures. Here the school resource
indicators would include each schools’ enrollment, student learning specific
demographic (numbers of At-Risk, Free- and Reduced- Price lunch, ELL, Special
education, etc.) and a school time allotments (measuring the length of school day,
length of instructional day, and length of core classes).
In this study, the educational expenditures are all of the factors of school
functions equated to the Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) of what each will cost. In other
words, the educational expenditures are the cost for core academic teachers, specialist
and elective teachers, library staff, supplemental teaching staff, special-education
teaching staff, professional development, student services, and administration, broken
down by the number of FTE used in each position. In this manner, the evidence-based
framework measures how employees time is used servicing in each position. For

59
example, if a core math teacher spends a quarter of her day teaching an elective and
the rest teaching math, in the data collecting protocol she would be denoted as a .75
math teacher and .25 teacher of a given elective. With these measurements, the
evidence-based model is able to quantify detailed resources use in an effort to
accurately track the resource use patterns for the school. After calculating these
factors, the data will be compared to the evidence-based models for ideal resource use
in a prototypical school. Through this evaluation, this study aims to conclude how
effective the school is providing adequate educational opportunities for its students,
and possible means of improving efficiency in the use of educational resources.

How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
strategies? (instructional vision, plan, goals, etc.)

In the same fashion that the information generated from the evidence-based
data collection protocol, allows for comparison to researched strategies and programs,
this same information can be used to compare how effective schools are in simply
following their own SPSA or plan for instructional improvement. Through this
method, the resources used can be tracked to identify how they are/are not justified by
the areas of improvement identified by each schools’ SPSA. Thereby, this contrast of
plans of action and actual steps taken provides even greater evidence of the schools
ability to use resources to improve student achievement.

60
How does the availability of resources effect the development and
implementation of the strategic plan?

The evidence-based framework addresses this final question of availability of
resources in two ways. First, the evidence-based open-ended data collection protocol
will generate clues from site-based leadership to how the availability of resources has
effected the development and implementation of their SPSA. Assessing the changes
to the SPSA or alterations that resource allocation decision makers sense would
further improve school achievement, will give greater evidence to possible issues of
availability of resources hindering the development and implementation of the SPSA.
Secondly, by comparing the research based strategies of the evidence-based
model’s prototypical school, to each SPSA this study will be able to shed light on the
cost and resource differences in providing adequacy in schools with histories of low-
achievement. In essence, through the evidence-based framework of quantifying cost
and adjustments for higher need students, comparisons with each school spending
patterns and that of the prototypical schools will generate differences in the actual
availability of resources supporting the school. These disparages will have the ability
to provide researched based evidence for the possible increase or reallocation of
school resources in the endeavor of improving levels student achievement.
After collecting field data, through both the data collection protocol and the
open-ended data collection protocol, all information will be compiled to generate case
studies for each school. In addition to the aforementioned data, these case studies will
also include each school’s:

61
• Longitudinal API scores (1999-2000 through 2007-2008)
• Longitudinal standardized assessment scores (2000-2008)
• Other information from School Accountability Report Cards
• Program Improvement Status
• AYP Status/progress
• Descriptions of supplemental programs that the school is participating in
and evaluative results

These case studies will not only allow for comparison between each school and the
prototypical school, but also will give this study a means of attempting to make
generalizations about schools that fit the characteristics of this sample.
In summary, while there are four previously mentioned methods of assessing
the adequacy of education in public schools, in addressing these four research
questions the evidence-based models logically appears to be best suited. This sample
of schools represents a population of students that has historically scored low in
comparison to their peers, but also a group of students that are continually placed in
schools that have been struggling to support their progress. Using this evidence-based
model to examine the effectiveness of the efforts of public schools serving these
populations, this study aims to be able to provide further clarity for realizing the goal
of providing adequate educational opportunities for these and all students.

62

Chapter 4

Results of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between resource
allocation and student achievement in several Program Improvement (PI) schools
receiving additional resources and services to increase student achievement. These
resources and services include funding teacher positions, student support services,
intervention programs, professional developments for staff members, and general
equipment and supplies for the school. After analyzing interview and resource usage
data, this study compares allocation patterns between five schools and the Evidence
Based model constructed by Odden and Picus (2003). This chapter will examine the
results of these comparisons: (1) restating the research questions, (2) providing
description of each of the schools, (3) presenting a quantitative analysis of resource
allocation patterns and interview data supporting such patterns, and (4) presenting a
summary of how this analysis answers the research questions of this dissertation.

Restatement of Research Questions

This study emphasizes the role of educational leadership in the process of
using educational resources more efficiently to produce educational gains. It is the
goal of this dissertation to explore linkages between a schools’ improvement and its

63
ability to allocate resources effectively and increase student performance. In the
attempts to fulfill this purpose this dissertation will examine and answer the following
research questions:
1. What are the current instructional improvement strategies at the
school-level?
2. How are the actual resource patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies that are used in the Evidence-
Based Model?
3. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement strategies? (instructional vision, plan, goals, etc.)
4. How does the availability of resources effect the development and
implementation of the strategic plan?
After briefly describing each of the five participating schools, this chapter will
summarize the findings and answer these research questions.

The Sample Schools
A purposeful sample of three middle and two elementary schools that fit the
following three characteristics were chosen. First, each school was in Program
Improvement status in accordance with CDE’s accountability standards. Meaning
these, schools were specifically chosen because they have failed to meet annual
yearly progress (AYP) goals for at least two consecutive years. Secondly, each school
has created both a Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) and picked a
restructuring plan in accordance to accountability mandates of NCLB (2002). In

64
accordance with NCLB, this would also entail that the schools will be located within
communities with large populations of Numerically Significant Subgroups (NSS).
These NSS include schools with more than 100 students with subgroups that make up
at least 15 percent. These subgroups would include:
• African American of Black (not of Hispanic Origin)
• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Asian
• Filipino
• Hispanic or Latino
• Pacific Islander
• White (not of Hispanic Origin)
• The Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
• English Learners
• Students with Disabilities
Lastly, the schools all will utilize additional resources supplemented from the
government, community and private organizations. For this dissertation, these
supplemental resources originate from the Los Angeles Mayor’s Partnership for Los
Angeles Schools (PLAS). With these services, the PLAS program hopes that greater
emphasis on investing greater resources in poorer schools will provide greater
educational and future outcomes for students in economically distressed
neighborhoods.
The purpose of this sample criterion is to assist researchers in accessing the
extent to which mandated changes in site-based governance affects resource

65
utilization and planning for additional resources in the attempts to improve
achievement for students with histories of low-performance. Specifically, this sample
was chosen to examine the possible benefits and barriers to altering educational
resources to improve student achievement at schools with histories of low-
achievement. Utilizing the managerial expertise and political influence of the Los
Angeles Mayor’s office, these schools receive additional professional development
and services to increase student achievement. With additional assistance from
government and private entities, grants, and programs, schools are provided with
greater autonomy and support in making staffing choices to better serve their student
populations. In this dissertation, case studies are used to describe how additional
resources are utilized to improve instructional strategies and increase student
achievement.
In each case study, data was gathered from interviews with the principal, who
serves as a site-based instructional leader, and student assessment scores were
attained from the California Department of Education’s (CDE) website. This data
includes resource usage, staffing patterns, California Standards Tests (CST) scores,
Academic Performance Index (API), and student demographics. In addition, the
principals’ interview-data is used to provide further descriptions of the schools and
rationale for resource allocations. In the summaries of the case studies below, data
from each school is highlighted to provide context for the results discussed in the
final sections.

66

Case Study School Description: Gage Middle School

Gage Middle School is a sixth-through-eighth grade Program Improvement
(PI) school serving 1,626 high-need students. Located in the center of a heavily gang
active area in Los Angeles County, Gage is one of the 442 schools in the school
district with an enrollment of more than 359,000 students grades kindergarten through
twelfth. Unique from any other school in the district, 62% of the enrolled students
currently live in either group-homes, foster care, or with guardians other than their
birth parents. Unsuccessful at overcoming all the issues associated with such a large
high-needs population, the school has been in Program Improvement (PI) stages for
the last ten years.
Living in this urban area exposed to extreme violence, poverty, and families
with unsuccessful experiences in public schools, students come into the classroom
with multiple distractions, and low expectations. Faced with these awesome barriers,
according to data from the CDE, Gage has been able to show positive signs of
improving instructional efforts in reaching this demographic of student. While the
school has yet to meet the states targeted API level of 800, the school has continually
increased student achievement levels over the past ten years, improving over 200
points from 1999 to 2009. In addition, over the last decade of assessments, the
school’s CST scores have increased at a rate faster than both state and district
averages. With a current API score of 561, the school is still categorized as a first
deciles or lowest performing schools in the state. Scoring at the same level as the

67
lowest 10% of schools in the state, Gage qualifies for additional funding and program
aimed at increasing student achievement. Through three specific programs the school
has refocused its curriculum and instructional strategies to met the expectations
connected to the additional resources provided to the school.
While several programs have been enacted over the years, to address the
barriers faced by high-need students, Gage currently utilizes the resources of the Title
1 program, Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) grant, and Partnership for Los
Angeles Schools (PLAS). Through both the Title 1 program and QEIA grant the
school receives additional funding to assist the school in raising student achievement
and providing resources for underprivileged students. Through the Title 1 program
resources are used to address issues associated with high-need students, in addition
the program also mandates that the school identify current barriers to student
achievement and programs to overcome such obstacles. This process of
distinguishing possible instructional programs to address student success rates,
becomes the school’s Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA). Through this
SPSA the school creates its vision and mission for teaching and instruction.
Differing from the Title 1 funds the QEIA grant provides the school the
autonomy to decide how to allocate resources in funding positions deemed necessary
to adequately educate all students. With $1.1 million dollars in additional resources
the QEIA program mandates that Gage labor to reach five specific goals by 2011:
• Reduce student-to-teacher ratios to 25:1, or to 5 less than 2005-2006 levels

• Bring student-to-counselor ratio down to no more than 300 to 1
• Staff the school with fully qualified teachers in accordance with NCLB

68
• Assure that the average experience of classroom teachers in the school is
equal to or exceeds the district average
• And finally that the school meets or exceeds its API growth target averaged
over the first three full years of funding
With these goals it is expected that the schools instructional strategies and staffing
choices will necessarily need to be adjusted to facilitate reform efforts. To assist with
these changes the school has elected to enlist the assistance of PLAS, the third
program, for assistance in staffing, professional development, and additional
resources. Similar to the QEIA program, PLAS provides Gage with additional funds
and managerial support to assure the school reaches targeted goals. According to the
PLAS’s Executive Summary (2007), in the attempts of bettering the school’s ability
to meet its targets for student success the partnership has set four specific measurable
outcomes:
1. The school will Increase API scores by 30 points or by approximately 5%.
2. The school will raise the percentage of students scoring “proficient” and
“advance” levels on CST scores in English/Language Arts by 5% over 2007-
2008 scores.
3. The school will raise the percentage of students scoring “proficient and
“advance” levels on CST scores in Mathematics by 5% over 2007-2008
scores.
4. Lastly, PLAS will work to assist the school in showing increases in
stakeholders’ efficacy through annual surveys for parents, teachers, and other
school staff.

69
While the school has already shown signs of improvement in its API scores, reaching
these objectives would move the school out of the low performing categories and PI
status.
As explained in the PLAS Executive summary (2007), to accomplish these
objectives, the PLAS plans on implementing five strategies of:
• Improving leadership development for principals and assistant principals
for all schools
• Accelerate student performance through implementing strategic plans for
developing instructional coaching, targeted interventions, and building a
culture of data-driven instructional decision making
• Creating positive learning environments with emphasis on promoting the
idea of going to college as an expected norm for all students.
• Increasing family and community involvement through increasing parent
participation and volunteerism by establishing parent centers and clearer
communication with the surrounding community.
• Streamlining and improving school operations through working to
redesign the district’s ability to support schools with high needs.
Through the implementation of PLAS measures, Gage has adopted research-based
instructional interventions to increase student achievement. These interventions have
included, sixth grade summer institute, Saturday school classes, and a Bound for
College Academy. Trough these programs the school attempts to address the
shortcomings of low-achieving students and inspire successful students with
enrichment courses. These steps appear to all support the goals and objectives of Title

70
1, PLAS and QEIA grant programs, of increasing student achievement.

Case Study School Description: Halley Middle School

Similar to Gage and Ludington, Halley Middle School is a Title 1 school
currently serving a high-needs population of 2,100 students. With a school
demographic of 2% African American and 98% Latino, it is not surprising that 843
(40%) of the students are English Language Learners (ELL). In addition, the school
also bolsters a sub-group of 252 (12%) special education students who are assisted by
special resource teachers and special education specialist. While this demographic is
consistent with the Evidence Based Model (EBM), the school is unique in the fact
that all of the students are categorized as socio-economically disadvantaged. With
such a large community of high-need students, the school receives additional funding
and resources to assist in addressing barriers to student success. Comparable to Gage,
Halley Middle School receives similar funds from the Title 1 program, QEIA grant,
and PLAS program. These programs have provided the resources necessary to
support several instructional intervention programs. These programs include:
• Revising the school SPSA to address barriers for student success.
• Utilizing Pierson Learning Teams’ seven cycles of professional
development, to better align curriculum more closely to state
learning objectives and standards.

71
• Increased parental involvement and presence at the school through
offering high interest courses such as salsa dancing, cooking, and
parenting.
• Fully staffing the school with highly qualified teachers before the
state of the school year.
• Implementing reading intervention courses with 18:1 student-to-
teacher ratios.

Using these programs to increase student achievement, Halley has been able to show
continual progress in closing achievement gaps between the school and the state.
Faced with the challenges associated with high-needs students, the school has been
able to increase its API score by approximately 200 points over the last ten years.
While still clarifying its improvement strategies, it is evident that the cyclical process
of evaluating barriers to student success and creating programs to address them is
assisting the school in providing better educational opportunities for students each
year.

Case Study School Description: Ludington Middle School

While the most unique of all the schools studied in this dissertation,
Ludington has suffered from the political and public relations nightmare of having its
previous principal dismissed after being accused of inappropriate contact with a
student. This unfortunate situation has caused a great deal of mistrust to develop

72
between the school’s instructional staff and administration. Due to this lack of
confidence, the school’s current administration has begun to alter to its approaches to
gaining the trust of the school’s stakeholders and surrounding community. For the
1,575 high-need students the school has begun to invite the families and community
members into the school to discuss their concerns and gain an understanding of the
schools current instructional strategies. Through this process of opening lines of
communication with school stakeholders, the administration has been able to foster
greater support and parental involvement.
Like the other schools in this study, Ludington Middle School serves a
sizeable at-risk population of students. To compensate for barriers to student
achievement, the school receives the same federal, state, and local resources as the
schools above, in the form of Title 1 funds, QEIA grants and PLAS guidance.
Through these programs the school has instituted several instructional plans to
increase student achievement. These programs include:
• Realigning curriculum to standardized tests and state content objectives.
• Ensuring the school was fully staffed with certified teachers before the
beginning of the school year.
• Assigning of intervention programs to accompany and support student
development and progress throughout core classroom instruction.
• Reducing of class size in core courses (ELA and Mathematics) to 25:1.
• Instituting of mandatory intervention for all students unless parents opt out
of the program.

73
• Increasing parental involvement, through providing greater positive
communication with student homes.
• Focusing professional development on improving instruction to high-need
students, and classroom management.
Through these measures the school has embraced the opportunity of gaining greater
autonomy that is provided by the QEIA grant and support from the PLAS to ensure
that pupils receive greater attention and support. With these steps in place the school
has moved closer to the suggested resource usage patterns of the EBM and anticipates
further increases in student achievement.

Case Study School Description: 3
rd
Street Elementary School

With a grade span of kindergarten through fifth grade, 3
rd
Street Elementary
School has a current enrollment of 550 students. Located on the south central section
of Los Angeles, the majority (95%) of the students are labeled high-needs or low
socio-economic status. In addition to the barriers associated with these labels, 38% of
the students are English Language Learners (ELL) and 10% of the students are
labeled special education students. With these current demographics the school is
continually attempting to battle with both the pressures of students dealing with
problems associated with being labeled high-needs and at-risk. These challenges
stems from students having to contend with the reality of being surrounded by
violence in their community, substance abuse, gang activity, and family members
with unsuccessful educational experiences.

74
Similar to the other schools in this study, 3
rd
Street utilizes federal and local
programs to contend with the challenges associated with high-needs and at-risk
student populations. These programs include the federal Title 1 program and the
voluntary participation with the PLAS program. In the same fashion as the sample for
this dissertation, 3
rd
Street is expected to follow mandates of these federal and state
programs as they attempt to improve student achievement. Following these
stipulations 3rd Street has implemented several measures which include:
• Realigning and improving classroom curriculum and assessments to
show evidence of higher expectations than state standards.
• Creating greater buy-in with school staff in adopting an attitude of
higher expectations for all students.
• Reducing teacher to student ratios for k-3 classes to 20:1.
• Ensuring the school was fully staffed with certified teachers before the
beginning of the school year.
• Adjusting professional developments to focus specifically on
improving teacher time on task in core courses such as ELA and
mathematics.
• In addition, the school has also created intervention programs for
mathematics and ELA, which are purposefully staffed with its
strongest instructors to ensure greater student success.
Through these advances the school has begun to show signs of continual
improvement, but has yet to reach state mandated expectations. According to the
schools API data over the past ten years the schools has been able to increase its API

75
251 points from 415 in 1999 to 666 in 2009. In doing so, the school’s average growth
of 25.1 points per year has continued to exhibit to out perform both the states 14.2
and districts of 22.3 increases in API per year. While the 3
rd
street has yet to reach the
states mandated goal of 800 API score it is clear from both the student test data and
principal interview that the school is making progress in closing the achievement gap.

Case Study School Description: Ladera Elementary School

Serving students in pre-kindergarten classrooms through fifth grade, Ladera
Elementary School has an enrollment of 554 students. Located on the south central
section of Los Angeles, the entire school population is labeled as high-needs or low
socio-economic status. In addition to the barriers associated with these labels, 45% of
the students are English Language Learners (ELL) and 12% of the students are
labeled special needs. With this population the school is faced with the awesome task
dealing with barriers associated with high-needs students, which includes low-
achievement. These challenges stems from students having to contend with the reality
of being exposed to the distractions of violence in their community, of substance
abuse, of gang activity, and of families with unsuccessful school experiences.
Similar to other schools in this sample, the school adopts both federal Title 1
and PLAS support to address the barriers of increasing student achievement.
Examining these programs and how they have shaped instructional improvement
strategies for improving student success, the schools resource usage patterns were

76
evaluated against student achievement data. While taking advantage of both federal
and local resources the school has implemented the following programs:
• Reducing teacher to student ratios down to 20:1 for K-3 classes.
• Revising the school vision and mission statement to address an
increase in expectations for success.
• Ensuring the school is fully staffed with certified teacher before the
beginning of the school year.
• Creating a strong emphasis on professional developments that focus on
clear and agreed upon pedagogical practices that best address the
needs of at-risk students.
• Using formative assessments to target student populations for
intervention programs.
• Utilizing staff members in multiple capacity to fully serve student
populations, allowing the school to conserve and better utilize
resources through hiring additional special education instructors.
• Realigning curriculum and classroom assessments to exceed
expectations of state standards.
Through these steps the school has been able to improve its student API scores the
greatest of all the schools included in this sample. Here the school has miraculously
improved API scores 322 points over the past 10 years, increased from 377 in 1999 to
699 in 2008. With this significant change, the gap of between the State’s average
elementary school and Ladera has decreased by180 points.

77
The closing of this gap between the State and Ladera provides evidence that
while following a resource usage pattern that more closely resembles that of Odden
and Picus (2007) Evidence-Based Model, Ladera is showing greater gains than
schools with resources less similar to the model. In the next section differences in
student achievement data is compared to resource usage patterns to produce
conclusions of a possible relationship between schools following the EBM and
increasing student achievement.

Description Summary
As stated previously the five schools of this sample were chosen for all
meeting three criterion of historical low student performance, currently revised plans
for improving student achievement, and additional resources from a Partnership with
the city government’s office. In addition to these factors, all five of the schools share
several commonalities that set this subset of schools apart from others in the State and
from the EBM’s ideal elementary and middle school. Before discussing how these
differences are compensated for in the comparison to the EBM first we must
acknowledge the shared features that make this sample of schools unique.
Understanding their uniqueness provides further justification for examining the
struggles, barriers, and successes in attempting to improve urban schools with
historical low-achievement levels.
While it is imperative that research continues to follow the efficiency to which
schools are capable of utilizing their resources, it is also important to note that while
LAUSD, the second-largest school district in America, manages over $20 billion

78
dollars annually, 1/3 of all students fail to complete high school. Although the
district’s drop-out rate is high amongst all racial demographics, according to the CDE
(2009) for 34.5% of Latino and 40% of African-American students in LAUSD will
fail to finish the twelfth grade. This point is particularly critical to the fact that the
schools in this sample all share demographics that are most likely to fall into this
staggering number of students that will most likely drop-out of school before
graduating. These schools’ populations are 98% Latino and African-American, and
boast a staggering demographic of majority high-needs/at-risk students.
As stated previously, these students are labeled high-needs and at-risk because
the majority of the students at Gage, Halley, Ludington, 3rd Street and Ladera all
qualify for free and reduced lunch programs (FRL). As stipulated by the FRL
program, these students are only eligible to receive these special services by living in
households at or below poverty level. Living in households and neighborhoods of
such low-socioeconomic standing, these students exhibit greater transient rates due to
the fact that parents and caregivers do not maintain stable employment. This job
instability additionally lends to parents having less time to assist students with
schoolwork or helping student to better prepare for school.
Due to these factors, the schools in this sample are granted additional funding
through either the federal Title1 program, the California’s QEIA program or both.
These programs are aimed at providing funding to compensate for the challenges
associated with high-needs and at-risk student populations. More specifically, these
funds are used to lower core class-size, hire fully certified teachers, and provide
additional programs to address deficits associated with high-needs students. Each

79
school’s resource usage strategy for these funds are spelled out in the case studies for
each school (appendix e-i). With additional funds these schools are given the
autonomy of allocating resources to adjust staffing choices to address the needs of
their student populations. To assist with these improvement efforts, each of the
schools in this sample have elected the PLAS program to provide research, support
and additional funding for creating effective strategies. The remainder of this chapter
will evaluate the effectiveness of schools in this sample, with the assistance of the
PLAS program, in increasing student achievement through efficient resource usage.
In the next section of this chapter, the resource usage patterns are compared to
the suggestions of the EBM and students’ CST results in the attempts of creating a
recommendation for improving schools similar to those in this sample. As explained
in the previous chapters, the EBM suggest the school set resource usage levels for
specific categories to attain greater school achievement. Due to the drastic differences
in student populations from the schools in this sample to the ideal or model schools of
the EBM, each school is given factors to adjust for such discrepancies. These factors
of population size and student poverty demographics are illustrated in table 4.1. Using
these factors the suggested full-time equivalent (FTE) for each category of the EBM
are adjusted to compensate for such differences. With these measures in place,
efficient usage of resources is determined through evaluating the difference between
the schools’ actual patterns and suggestions of EBM.

80
Table 4.1 Factors for compensating for student population differences
Source: Principal interviews

Examining the data from table 4.1, it is important to note that while the
schools in this sample differ in size and socio-economical status of its student
population, these schools all similarly represent the numerous schools around the
country, having large numbers of high-needs students and issues of historical low
student achievement. It is clear that all five of the schools in this sample bolster
higher student enrollment and service a significantly less economically diverse
student population. With the majority (95% at 3
rd
Street Elementary) if not the entire
student populations (Gage, Halley, Ludington and Ladera) living near, in or below the
poverty line, schools in this sample serve populations of high-needs students almost
three times larger than the EBM’s prototypical schools. Recognizing that these
schools have had similar socio-economical demographics for the past ten years its, by
no surprise these schools’ student tests scores have been the lowest of the State and
district. In table 4.2 below, the actual and average annual changes in student
achievement data for each school is compared to the district and State over the past
ten years.
Sample Schools Enrollment Population Factor % of FRL students FRL factor
EBM Middle School 450 1 36.3% 1
Gage Middle School 1626 3.6 x larger than the EBM 100% 2.7 x larger than EBM
Halley Middle School 2100 4.6 x larger than the EBM 100% 2.7 X larger than
EBM
Ludington Middle School 1575 2.8 x larger than the EBM 100% 2.7 x larger than EBM
EBM Elementary School 432 1 36.3%
3rd Street Elementary School 550 1.27 x larger than the EBM 95% 2.9 x larger than EBM
Ladera Elementary 554 1.28 x larger than the EBM 100% 2.9 x larger than EBM

81

Table 4.2 Changes in API Comparison
Source: Principal interviews

Evaluating the average annual growth in table 4.2 two points become very
clear. First, despite the overwhelming odds, over the past ten years the average annual
API growth for these schools have out paced the state and district’s growth rate. This
a testament to the fact that while these schools face tremendous hurdles while serving
such large populations of high-need students, they have been able to produce progress
that rarely reported or celebrated. This is a result of the tremendous amount of effort
and work put on by the teachers, administrative staff, parents, students and
stakeholders who have tirelessly pushed to improve these schools ability to provide
educational opportunities.
As impressive as that last fact is, table 4.2 also points out that while the
schools are clearly closing the achievement gaps between both the district and the
state, even at its current pace it took most of these schools eight years to match the
state’s average API scores taken in 1999. This difference in API scores denotes the
CA
MS
Average
LAUSD
MS
Average
Gage
MS
Halley
MS
Ludington
MS
CA
Elem.

LAUSD
Elem.
3rd
Street
Ladera
API
2008
733 647 561 594 541 772 746 666 699
API
1999
631 507 361 394 385 630 523 415 377
Change
in API
(1999-
2008)
102 140 200 200 156 142 223 251 322
Average
growth
per year
10.2 14 20 20 15.6 14.2 22.3 25.1 32.2

82
fact, that while the schools are continuing to make progress there is still more work to
be done. After ten years these students are still not on par to be as successful as their
counterparts around the city or in the state. Meaning, that while the schools in the
sample are improving, the students still will not have access to the same opportunities
for employment or participation in society because of where they live. In the next
section, the core class teacher-to-student ratios will be compared to that of the
suggestion of the EBM. In doing so, the resource usage patterns of the schools in this
sample can explain the growth and further improvement of student achievement.

Table 4.3 Core course FTE and teacher-to-student ratios
Source: Principal interviews

While determining the efficiency to which the schools in the sample use their
resources, the EBM examines the number of teachers teaching core courses and the
number of students taking them. Because these courses are most directly related to
materials used to test student competence and performance, it is imperative that
schools continually examine how their resources are used to support student success
in these core classes. According to the research on Wyoming Evidence Base Model
study (2005), “the most effective strategy for having all students perform to
proficiency on state standards, to be ready for college and the world of work in the
EBM
Middle
Gage Halley Ludington EBM
Elem.
3rd
Street
Ladera
Suggested #
of FTE
18 60 83 63 24 30 30
Actual FTE 18 64.8 72 42 22 23
Difference 0 +4.8 -9 -21 -8 -7
Teacher-to-
student
ratio
1:25
18:450
1:27 1:30 1:37

k-3: 15
4-5: 25
k-3:20
4-5:30
k-3:20
4-5:30

83
21st century, and to close the achievement gap between minorities and non-minorities
is for high schools to offer a strong set of core academic courses in mathematics,
science, language arts, history/social science, and foreign language and require all
students to take the bulk of their courses from this core” (Odden, Picus, Goetz,
Fermanich, Seder, Glenn & Neil). This concept is inline with other researchers
(Clune & White, 1992; Lee, Croninger, & Smith 1997; Madigan, 1997; Public
Agenda 1997; Seinberg, 1997), which conclude that schools successful in increasing
student achievement, focus on ensuring that students receive core instruction from
certified and competent teachers in small classes. In table 4.3 the sample schools’
number of core teachers is compared to the suggested number of FTE of the EBM.
Using the factors for population differences, the EBM’s suggested number of teachers
are calculated for each school site.
In addition, table 4.3 also compares class size or teacher-to-student ratios for
these same core courses in the EBM and the schools in this sample. Utilizing the
support of numerous researchers (Achilles, 1999; Gerber, Finn & Boyd-Saharias,
2001; Grissmer, 1999, Mishel & Rothstein, 2002; Molnar, 1999 Nye, Hedge &
Konstatopolus, 2002) the EBM concludes that to improve student achievement small
class size is imperative, suggesting 1:15 teacher-to-student ratios for core courses in
K-3 classes. While there is little data concerning most efficient teacher-to-student
ratios for secondary schools, the EBM suggest that 25:1 is an agreed upon class size
that has demonstrated success. Additionally “researchers have also concluded that the
impact of small class size is even larger for students from low-income and minority
backgrounds” (Odden, Picus, Goetz, Fermanich, Seder, Glenn & Neil, 2005).

84
Using the factors discussed in the previous section to compensate for the
population differences, the suggested core teaching staff is attained by multiplying
each school’s factor by the number of teachers in a prototypical school to attain a
product of the number of teachers a school efficiently using its resources would be
expected to employ. Examining how the schools shifted their staff to compensate for
the populations that they serve it is evident that in table 4.3 that four of the five
schools employ less teachers than suggested by the EBM. After discussing this aspect
with the principal of each school, all of the principals gave a similar reasoning that
while research suggest that less students per class would be preferable, the school
district sets the ratio to which a school can employ teachers at a given school. Gage,
which is the only school to exceed the EBM suggestion, is only able to do so by
employing several teachers who serve multiple functions to accomplish the school’s
goals of improving student achievement. Additionally, with the help of PLAS, the
school was able to empower a group of teachers to actively recruit and hire teachers
to fill positions well before the beginning of the school year. In doing so, the schools
creatively utilized QEIA grant funding to support the employment of more teachers in
multiple roles such as a Language Arts teacher who also coordinates reading
intervention instruction. Utilizing grants in alternative ways to fund teaching
positions the school is able to hire more teachers and reduce class size for English and
Mathematics courses.
Not receiving the same grant funds as Gage, the other schools in this sample
utilize resources in other ways to compensate for their desire to improve student
achievement. While the schools may not focus on having smaller class sizes in the

85
core courses, all of the schools in this sample employ alternative programs that allow
them to offer additional classes to support student success in mathematics, reading
and writing. All of the schools have mathematics and language arts intervention
courses to supplement the deficits exhibited by formative testing data. While the
principals do not have the ability to decrease class size due to district mandated
teacher-to-student ratios, each attempts to compensate with tutoring, after school and
Saturday school programs.
Table 4.4 Intervention and Summer School Programs
Source: Principal interviews

EBM Gage Halley Ludington 3rd Ladera
EB
M
Actu
al
EB
M
Actua
l
EB
M
Actu
al
EB
M
Actu
al
EB
M
Actu
al
Tutors 1 per 100
At Risk
Students
16 0 21 0 15 0 5 0 5 0.75
Extended
Day
Instructors
1 per 15
Eligible
Students
(Staffing
based on
50% of
Free &
Reduced
Price
Lunch
Students)

54 28 70 n/a 52 29 2 0 13 10
Number
of
students
participati
ng
800 250-
300
105
0
300-
350
750 400-
450
250 200 250 200
ELL
teachers
1 per 100
ELL
Students
6 12 6 0 8 7 2 0 3 7
Summer
School
Instructors
1 per 15
Students
(Staffing
based on
50% of
Free and
Reduced
Price
Lunch
Students)

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Non
e

86
Examining the attempts to provide intervention measures for students labeled
as high or at-risk, the EBM suggest that each school provide tutoring, alternative
school day instruction and summer school programs to improve students’ ability to
succeed. In the attempts of improving student tests scores the EBM suggest that these
efforts are imperative for three reasons.
1. Tutoring intervenes immediately when a student is trying to learn.
2. Intervention can be explicitly tied to the specific learning problems of
individual students.
3. When provided by a certified teacher, tutoring provides precise and
appropriate substantive help that students need to overcome learning
challenges.
These efforts are even more effective when students who must work harder and need
more assistance to achieve proficiency, are placed in small group structured tutoring
programs that directly address student-learning deficits (Odden, Picus, Goetz,
Fermanich, Seder, Glenn, & Nelli, 2005; Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982). Following
these suggestions, the EBM sets targets for in school tutoring, alternative school day
classes and summer school programs. Through evaluating the differences between the
suggested targeted amounts of the EBM to that of each school, the degree to which
schools efficiently utilize its resources in improving students test scores can be
determined.
While each school differs in how it delivers intervention programs the EBM
suggest, that schools should have one certified teacher allocated for every 100 at-risk
students for one-on-one or small group tutoring, and ELL instruction. In addition, the

87
EBM suggest that schools provide one teacher for every fifteen students based on half
the school’s population of free-reduced lunch students, for summer and alternative
classroom instruction. In table 4.4, these suggested levels are compared to each
school’s actual numbers of tutors, and alternative school instructors.
Using the EBM definition of tutoring having one-on-one or extremely small
student-to-teacher ratios the schools have very few or no tutors funded through school
budgets. To overcome the obstacle of instructing so many high-need students the
schools in this sample employ several different strategies in the hopes of
compensating for not having enough funds to hire credential teachers to tutor and
mentor students. While the schools may not pay teachers directly to tutor students all
three of the middle schools report having teachers that volunteer to stay after school
or at lunch to tutor students on a one-to-one or small group bases. In addition, all the
schools in the sample utilize volunteers from local colleges to community
organizations to assist students through tutoring and mentoring. Lastly, the two
elementary schools in this sample utilize teacher aids and Title 1 aids to provide one-
on-one tutoring and pullout programs to assist students identified by formative test
data. Again, while the schools are unable to afford to pay certified teachers to tutor
students in small group settings, they all use creative means of ensuring students
receive additional attention in core subjects.
While funding is not shifted to assist with EBM style small group tutoring
programs (except for special education students), each principal made a note of
explaining that Title 1, QEIA grants and outside organizations are utilized to fund a
school-day, after-school, and Saturday school classes. Differing from the one-on-one

88
format suggested by EBM the schools in this sample all allocate resources to fund
enrichment courses during the school day. These courses include mathematics and
language arts intervention courses, to ensure students receive additional opportunities
for remediation and enhancement in subjects heavily weighted on API scoring.
Using formative data, from quarterly assessments and CST scores, schools
identify students who need additional assistance reaching proficient levels by also
providing Saturday school classes and pullout programs. These programs provide
added time for instruction after school and during the weekends to assist students
with homework, and to academic standards. Comparing the numbers of FTE positions
suggested by the EBM to that of the sample schools, none of the schools provide
enough teachers to support the number of students that would benefit from additional
attention and extra instruction. While this is true, all of the principals explained that
they are currently trying to expand these programs to include more students, with
current class sizes averaging less than 25 students the schools are attracting less
students than the model proposes. Suggesting the fact that the schools are able to
utilize educational resources in such a manner that they provide additional
educational opportunities for their students, but not to the same degree as that of the
EBM’s recommendations.
In contrast to these factors in table 4.4, its is clear that while all of the schools
follow similar resource usage patterns in terms of funding school day, after school
and alternative school programs, they differ drastically in regards to their ELL
strategies. In table 4.4 it is evident that the schools all allocate less resources than
what would be suggested by the EBM for such intervention programs. While the

89
principals all note that these decisions are significantly affected by the district
mandates and lack of additional funding, when compared to ELL programs it appears
all of the schools are consistent in their resource usage patterns. Examining the ELL
programs of each of the schools, it appears as if designating resources and strategies
for addressing language barriers that principals and school communities have greater
autonomy in choosing how funds are allocated. This is apparent in the fact that, Gage
and Ladera both fund twice as many positions as the EBM would suggest, while
Halley and 3rd Street fund no ELL teaching positions. Meaning that while Gage and
Ladera both have Spanish speaking classrooms to assist student better emerge into
speaking and learning in English, other schools have dropped emersion programs and
have adopted an alternative approach to matriculating English Language Learners
into more traditional courses. These decisions appear to be based on the collective
opinions of what strategies the stakeholders at each school felt is more successful
with their student populations.
In the last section of table 4.4 summer school programs were not funded this
year through district budgets due to severe budget cuts. Therefore at the time of the
interviews the principals were still unsure of funding levels for the following year.
While this is significant in the fact that each of the schools serves such a high-needs
populations, these budget cuts were felt across the district, and were unable to be
averted. Due to these facts the schools were unable to sponsor summer school
programs during this past school year.
In the next table, resource allocation for administration personnel is compared
to the EBM projected numbers of principals, assistant principals, directors,

90
coordinators and pupil social and academic support staffs. Contrasting the resource
usage patterns for pupil supports and teacher staffing to the funding utilized for site-
based administration, it is evident that the schools all appear to spend greater amounts
than the EBM would suggest on administration. With the exception of Instructional
coaches, each school exceeds the suggested number of FTE for administration,
academic pupil support and social welfare pupil support staff. When asked about the
motivation for these choices, one of the principals explained that this is most
significantly due to the fact that with additional funding and district adopted whole
school programs such at Title 1, QEIA, AVID, ELL, and Special Education all
require site-based personnel to ensure the school continues to stay in compliance with
each programs regulations and compulsory paper work. In light of these necessities,
each of the schools hires coordinators who hold positions of out of classroom teachers
to ensure specific resources and programs reach students. In this capacity, some
schools additionally count on the individuals in these positions to also provide
additional assistance to classroom teachers for best providing instruction for special
education, ELL, AVID, or high-risk students. While these positions are not
mentioned in the EBM, they fill a state and federally mandated position that the
schools must fund while receiving categorical funding from such programs.

91
Table 4.5 Administrators, Instructional Coaches & Pupil Support Staff

Source: Principal interviews

coordinators who hold positions of out of classroom teachers to ensure specific
resources and programs reach students. In this capacity, some schools additionally
count on the individuals in these positions to also provide additional assistance to
classroom teachers for best providing instruction for special education, ELL, AVID,
or high-risk students. While these positions are not mentioned in the EBM, they fill a
state and federally mandated position that the schools must fund while receiving
categorical funding from such programs.
Table 4.6 Professional Development
Gage Halley Ludington 3rd Street Ladera
Professional
development
50 hrs a year
including
summer
enrichment
classes
50 hrs a year
including
summer
enrichment
classes
50 hrs a year
including
summer
enrichment
classes
50 hrs a year
including
summer
enrichment
classes
50 hrs a year
including
summer
enrichment
classes
Source: Principal interviews

Examining all of the schools hours spent conducting professional development it
appears that all the schools used similar amounts of time working to improve
pedagogical practices. According to table 4.6 each school utilized at least 40 hours
per year during the school year and approximately three-four days of collaborative

Gage Halley Ludington 3rd Street Ladera

EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual
Administrators 5 5 6 6 3 5 2 2 2 2
Instructional
Coaches
8 5 8 5 8 3 2.75 2 2.77 2
Academic
Pupil Support
6.5 9 8 11 10 11 5 4 5 3
Social Welfare
Pupil Support
15 16 21 24 15 11 1 2 1 2

92
work over the summer to prepare for the school year. With the additional instruction
based summer workshops provided through funding from the PLAS program, each
school utilized very similar amounts of time in professional development.
While questioning how time was spent and the focus of these professional
developments three of the schools utilize traditional expectations. While Gage and
Ladera both focus on realigning classroom instruction, state standards and state
testing materials, Halley, Ludington and 3rd Street all utilize their professional
development time with specific themes. Halley adopts a lesson study strategy,
whereby teachers continually observe, discuss and evaluate similar lessons to
determine best practices for each content area. While their principal was quick to note
the apprehension to which most teachers expressed in attempting this method, it
appears that for the most part the school’s staff has bought into this cyclical process
of observing and improving pedagogical practices.
Slightly different from Halley, Ludington’s principal noted that after years of
failing to reach targeted levels of achievement, the school community committed to
training on how to best motivate and reach at-risk students. While the school spent
time ensuring instructional strategies were improved, the school utilized a significant
amount of time identifying and strengthening teachers ability to raise expectations for
students who have had long histories of low performance and high behavioral
problems. As explained by their principal, the school’s campus was dominated by
negative behavior exhibited by students. With such significant incidents of major
misconduct by students, the school staff found it extremely difficult to teach
throughout the day. In light of this fact, the school utilized significant amounts of

93
time for professional development time to not only equip teachers with the tools
necessary to overcome these challenges, but also refocusing the school community in
creating a more conducive learning environment. Through doing so, the school works
to align discipline, curriculum, and testing to ensure students receive greater
educational opportunities.
Similar to Ludington setting a clear focus for all professional development,
the principal at 3rd Street explains that their school adopted a comprehensive
approach of assigning their professional development a theme of “Mission 750.” With
this theme, all professional developments and staff meetings take on an almost pep
rally appearance, where the school’s stakeholders are always aware of the fact that
their efforts are expected to raise the school’s API scores. To solidify this approach,
the school’s administrative staff dresses in military fatigues, to drive home the notion
that all efforts are aimed at improving student achievement through a disciplined and
focused approach. With this tactic in place, the school’s professional development
strategy, is aimed at improving the pedagogical practices of every teacher, attitude of
every student and climate of expectation for all stakeholders on the campus in the
efforts to increase student achievement.
While comparisons between the schools show evidence that the schools utilize
similar amounts of professional development time, each school appears to have the
autonomy to determine objectives and strategies for improvement planning. With
these objectives in place, the schools are capable of furthering efforts to increase
student achievement.

94

Table 4.7 Additional resources (technology, assessments, library materials)
EBM Gage Halley Ludington 3rd Street Ladera
Technology $250/pupil
175 student
Computers
150 Teacher,
administrator,
and clerical
staff
computers

1 Technology
Assistant

2.8 computers
per student
(PLAS)
No computers
for teachers
1 Technology
Assistant

Little to no
computers for
administrators
and teachers
3.2 computers
per student
(PLAS)

Little to no
computers for
administrators
and teachers

Very little
currently but
school is
hoping to
open a
computer lab
next year and
bring in
APEX
(supplemental
instruction
Program)
Very little
currently but
school is
hoping to
open a
computer lab
next year and
bring in
APEX
(supplemental
instructional
program)
Instructional
Materials
$165/pupil State-
approved
Core Content
Materials &
Intervention
Materials
State-
approved
Core Content
Materials &
Intervention
Materials

State-
approved
Core Content
Materials &
Intervention
Materials
State-
approved
Core Content
Materials &
Intervention
Materials
State-
approved
Core Content
Materials &
Intervention
Materials
Formative
Assessments
$25/pupil Quarterly
Formative
Assessments
Using CST
Format
Quarterly
Formative
Assessments
Using CST
Format
Quarterly
Formative
Assessments
Using CST
Format
Quarterly
Formative
Assessments
Using CST
Format
Quarterly
Formative
Assessments
Using CST
Format
Library
Materials
$20/pupil n/a

n/a n/a n/a n/a
Student
Activities
$250/pupil After-school
and
Lunchtime
Sports and
Activities
(Coaching
Stipend for
Teachers)

LA Bridges
Woodcraft
Rangers
After-school
and
Lunchtime
Sports and
Activities
(Coaching
Stipend for
Teachers)

LA
Conservatory
After-school
and
Lunchtime
Sports and
Activities
(Coaching
Stipend for
Teachers)

LA Bridges

Woodcraft
Rangers

Youth
Services

LA’s Best
Other Chess Club
Board Game
Club
Drill Team
Track Club

Healthy Start Healthy Start

95
Examining table 4.7, it is evident that although the schools receive additional
resources for technology, assessments, and student programming the schools in this
sample still appear to have less resources than the EBM suggest. While Gage differs
from the other schools due to a technology grant awarded to the school by a previous
administration, the other schools seem to all have similar amounts of additional
resources provided by the district. Unlike funding for professional development, it is
clear that the schools have little to no autonomy in how they use educational
resources for technology, assessment and student programming. As explained by the
principals, additional funds for technology resources are made at the district level,
unless the schools are successful in attaining outside grant funding. Due to this fact, it
appears that these factors in school resource usage strategies have little influence on
explaining student outcomes for these schools.
Below in table 4.8, the growths for each school are compared to that of district
and state averages. In this table, the changes in the percentage of students scoring
proficient or advanced, the school API scores, and changes in API scores are
reported. Examining these reports it appears that while three of the schools API
scores increased only two, Halley and 3rd Street, reached the PLAS goal of
increasing API scores by 30 points. In addition, Halley and 3rd Street both out paced
the district and the state in the increase of the percentage of students who were able to
score proficient or advance in language arts or mathematics. These changes are
significant and when compared to the

96

Table 4.8 CST Growth in Proficient and Advance Scores
LAU SD Sta Te
Ele Mid Ele Mid
Gage Halley Ludington 3rd
Street
Ladera
%Change
Language
Arts
4.9 3.1 5.9 2.5% 1.5% 4.5% -0.8% 15.9% 4.6%
%Change in
Mathematics
2.5 2.9 3.2 2.4% 1.7% 6.3% -0.1 12.8% 2.4%
API 558 622 526 721 709
Change
from 2008 to
2009
-1 33 -10 54 9
Source: PLAS year one results report

resource usage strategies for each school, there are only two areas where Halley and
3rd Street both differ from the rest of the schools in this sample. While all of the
schools follow the funding mandates of the district in terms of FTE and the number of
hours spent in professional development, the schools only differ in their creative use
of staff members, professional development focuses and supplemental instructional
programs. By answering the research questions of this dissertation, this paper reveals
how schools, efficient in utilizing their resources, can possibly affect future choices
for other schools attempting to improve student achievement.

Answering Research Question
1. What are the current instructional improvement strategies at the school-level?
Through the process of examining the instructional improvement strategies for the
schools in this sample, it appears that schools serving high-need students, the focus of
these strategies at the site-level are defined by the objectives and goals of the

97
categorical programs funding improvement efforts. Centered around these mandates
from federal, state, and local programs, school site instructional improvement
strategies appear to be a continual effort to justify the usage of categorical funds to
address the needs student populations with histories of low performance. In exchange
for these additional resources, each school conforms to reform efforts prescribed by
each program. While schools either volunteer or are placed in these programs due to
student populations or tests scores, the resources attached to these instructional
improvement strategies are derived from categorical formulas and the objectives of
each program. In this light, success at the school site seems to come when
administrators are able to best manipulate multiple funding sources with multiple
restrictions to match up with the overwhelming needs of their students.
2. How are the actual resource patterns at the school sites aligned with or different
from the resource use strategies that are used in the Evidence-Based Model?
While comparing the resource usage patterns of the schools in this sample to
that of the Evidence-Based Model, it is evident that the schools have access to less
funding than what is suggested by the EBM model. Even while adjusting for
populations differences, it appears that while the schools in this sample serve a
greater number of students and a much more challenging population of pupils, the
schools still have access to less resources than the EBM ideal funding
recommendation. After examining the FTEs and teacher-to-student ratios at each
school, it appears that while principals would prefer to adopt the suggested funding
patterns of the EBM, staffing choices appear to be solely based on state and district
mandates. With such state and federal restrictions set on funding usage in schools in

98
this sample, site-based decisions differ from other schools in the district based on the
school leadership’s ability to creatively use resources within the categorical
obligations of its funding sources. In other words, the schools funding patterns appear
to more closely resemble the EBM when school leaders find creative ways of more
efficiently manipulating categorical resources at the school-site.
As explained above funds are differentiated at the school-level when schools
efficiently utilize Title 1, QEIA and PLAS grant funding to create greater educational
opportunities for all of its students. For example, since Title 1 funds cannot be
transferred from year-to-year some school-sites purposefully will use these
categorical dollars first so that additional resources can be utilized in other areas or
saved to make specific purchases in the future. An example of this would be shifting
categorical funds to purchase all of the schools text books, classroom supplies, and
intervention materials so that unrestricted dollars can be used to allow the school to
replace aging copiers or document reproduction machines. While physical equipment,
such as copiers, fax machines, or staff computer equipment, may not fall under the
parameters of categorical funding restrictions, utilizing resources in such a creative
manner demonstrates evidence of spending efficiency.
3. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
strategies? (instructional vision, plan, goals, etc.)
While all of the schools in this sample share the commonality of historical low
student achievement and voluntary partnering with the PLAS program, they all share
a similar instructional visions that are partially inspired by the supplemental programs
(Title 1, QEIA and PLAS) funding each school. As mentioned above and in the case

99
study for each school, the vision for each instructional improvement strategy is for
schools to use the cyclical process of,
• Identifying the barriers to student achievement
• Developing programs and pedagogical practices that address such barriers
• Evaluating the effectiveness of these attempts to raise student achievement
• Identifying further barriers to raising student success rates and repeat the
cycle.
Through this process of continual evaluation and improvement, all of the
schools in the sample are working to create greater educational opportunities for their
students. Comparing their efforts to the suggestions of the EBM, it appears that as
schools have moved closer to the prescribed resource usage patterns of the EBM the
more successful the schools have been in furthering their improvement efforts. This
lends support to the hypothesis that the more efficiently schools utilize their allotted
resources, the higher student tests scores will be.
4. How does the availability of resources effect the development and implementation of
the strategic plan?
It is clear that while these schools serve student populations that clearly differ
from the ideal model school of the EBM, it is also apparent that these schools are
afforded with significantly less resources than the EBM would deem necessary for
these schools to succeed. In light of these facts, it appears that if judged on the
progress of each school over the past ten years, even while lacking necessary
resources, the schools have been able to show evidence of continual growth in student
achievement. While these improvements exhibit evidence of the diligent work being

100
done at these schools, when compared to the student achievement levels of schools
with greater amounts of resources, its clear that lack of resources has inhibited these
schools from reaching state mandated goals for student success. As noted earlier,
while these schools average yearly increases in student achievement has outpaced
state and district averages, these schools all have had the greatest amount of ground to
make up in improving. This is evident in the fact, that while all of the schools in this
sample have made significant improvements over the past ten years, all of them still
are in the lower deciles of schools in the state.
While instructional improvements have shown clear evidence of promoting
student achievement, it is apparent that discrepancies between the EBM suggested
funding level and current resource levels, schools in these sample cannot afford to
provide adequate educational opportunities for their students. In light of this
unfortunate conclusion the small gains evident at each of the schools in this sample
provides evidence of possible steps that could further under funded, low-achieving
schools as they attempt to better instructional improvement strategies.
In the last chapter of this dissertation, implications for these results will be
discussed in an effort to provide possible steps to better utilize such improvement
strategies for similar schools.

101

Chapter 5

Summary

As early as the 1990’s there has been a shift in the focus in educational
finance reform from debating equity to contemplating adequacy. From the
educational policy perspective, the emphasis has shifted from assuring every student
receive the same amount, to every student receive enough resources to reach the same
goals. Instead of looking at students’ starting points, policy makers have attuned their
attention to examining what ingredients are necessary to ensure all students reach
similar outcomes. Poised to further this argument, this dissertation examines site-
based leadership’s role in deciding how educational resources are utilized to improve
student achievement and educational opportunities.
Through evaluating resource levels and usage at five high-poverty, low-
achieving urban schools, this study originated with the purpose of determining how
effective school-sites were utilizing available resources to improve student
achievement. To accomplish this objective, this dissertation compared school
resource usage patterns to that of the Evidence Based Model (EBM), proposed by
Odden Goetz, and Picus (2007). This was done with the aim of determining possible
links between instructional improvement strategies and changes in how resources
were appropriated to accomplish the goals of such improvement efforts. Based on the

102
results from this study, it appears that clearly emphasized goals and consistencies in
site-based leadership contribute to greater success for schools specifically serving
high-needs student populations.
Purposefully choosing a sample to represent the lowest achieving schools in a
large metropolitan urban school district, five sites were selected in the aims of
evaluating how federal, state and local programs were assisting school sites with
improving student achievement. Recognizing the efforts to provide adequate
educational opportunities for students in high-need schools, chosen schools all
received additional resources through the Title 1, Quality Education Investment Act
(QEIA) and the Partnership with Los Angeles Schools (PLAS), to assist in
overcoming the barriers associated with schools in low-income, high-crime areas.
These barriers would include high dropout rates, low staff retentions rates, and low
student achievement. Through this sample, this dissertation aims to expose possible
implications for how educational finance policy makers approach increasing student
achievement at any urban school with a history of low-achievement.
To evaluate the efficiency to which each school utilized these federal, state
and local resources, schools test data from the California Department of Education
(CDE) and resource usage data were collected from interviews with each school’s
principal. Testing data, included measures of student achievement in core courses
(mathematics, language arts, science and history) based on state mandated California
Standardized Test (CST) and the schools resulting Annual Progress Index (API)
scores. Resource usage data consisted of measures of investment levels in staffing,
equipment and programming associated with the operation and functions of a school.

103
In doing so, efficiency in resource usage was determined by comparing how
effectively schools were able to utilize resources to increase student achievement.

Conclusion

The purpose of this dissertation was to ask, are current school and resource
usage patterns reflective of the goals and objectives of school-sites and districts
efforts to improve student achievement? Comparing the resource usage at the school
site level of this sample of schools to that of Odden, Goetz and Picus’ (2007)
Evidence Based Model, three factors become evident. First, even with the additional
funding from the Title 1, QEIA and PLAS programs, the schools in this sample
funding levels fail to equal the necessary amounts suggested by the EBM to ensure
student success. Second, the schools in this sample are obligated to assume the goals
and objectives of categorical and grant funding programs in exchange for receiving
additional resources to address the barriers to success for high-needs students.
Finally, with these circumstances in place, increases in student achievement at
schools with historical low success and high poverty rates appear to be attributed to
site-based leaderships ability to manipulate categorical funding restrictions and
improve pedagogical practices.
These conclusions are supported by the research of Duncombe and Yinger
(2007) on California public schools. In their report, Understanding the Incentives in
California’s Education Finance System, they explain, “school districts cannot be
expected to meet performance standards unless they have sufficient funds”
(Duncombe & Yinger, 2007). While this dissertation explored funding decisions at

104
the school site, it appears that high-need, low-performing schools still have
difficulties reaching state and district goals for student achievement due to lack of
resources in strategic areas of staffing, support programming and equipment.
Compared to the EBM proposed funding levels, its clear that the schools in this
sample do not receive enough funds to ensure students are successful.
Furthering this point, Duncombe and Yinger (2007) explain that the CDE has
attempted to use categorical funds, in the attempts to ensure resources reach students
with the greatest needs. At the same time, they deduce, “that further restricting local
control will do little to address the main fairness problems in California. The problem
is that districts with a relatively high concentration of disadvantaged students and
those that operate in a relatively low-wage environment do not currently receive
enough state support to reach even modest student-performance targets, such as the
state’s current goal of 800 on the API” (Duncombe & Yinger, 2007). This point
supports the second finding that assuming the goals and objectives of categorical and
grant funding programs, in exchange for additional resources, fails to address the
specific barriers at each school site.
Through interviews with the principals and evaluations of funding usage
patterns, this study concludes that school sites in this sample all assume the objectives
and goals of grant and categorical programs in exchange for additional resources with
the aims of providing greater educational opportunities for their students. While the
goals and objective set in place by the state, district, and public organizations are
established to assist the multitude of schools receiving such resources, it appears that

105
these obligations and regulations for resource usage stifles schools attempting to alter
funding strategies. In this fashion, altering resource usage strategies, to address the
needs at the site-level, has become a daunting task of manipulating funding
restrictions to achieve specific outcomes. In other words, the vision and the mission
for the schools are not based on the needs of the students at the school sites, but rather
on the objectives for the federal, state and local programs.
While not trying to pose the possibility that these federal, state and local
programs’ objectives are in opposition to that of each the school sites, this conclusion
merely notes that federal, state and local organization goals fail to fully address the
front line needs of the classrooms. Said another way, while categorical funding is set
in place to restrict the misappropriation of resources, school sites encounter barriers
to funding programs or positions due to the fact that their functions would not fall
into any of the parameters or objectives of specific funding sources. At Gage, the
principal noted an example that while the school has ample resources from several
different funding sources, their hands are tied due to strict guidelines for each funding
sources’ usage. In this situation, the school was receiving additional funding for
purchasing classroom libraries for reading intervention programs through the Title 1
program, but the school could not upgrade its copier equipment due to fact that
specific equipment used outside of the classroom is not included in the parameters
funding guidelines. As a result, greater success in using school resources comes not
from simply accessing additional resources, but from being able to creatively
manipulate categorical funding restrictions to address the specific needs of each
school site.

106
Examining the resulting CST and API scores, it appears that while all of the
schools exhibited progress in certain areas, Halley Middle School and 3rd Street
Elementary were the most successful in increasing student achievement. While
Halley bolstered the largest student population of any of the schools in the sample
with over 2,400 students, the school’s success is attributed to three factors. First,
similar to 3rd Street and Ladera elementary school, Halley retained the majority of its
administrative staff. With the exception of adding a new principal the school retained
all of its administrators from the previous years. With this in place, Halley’s
administrative staff was well equipped with a working knowledge of the resource
needs and funding restrictions for categorical funding sources.
Second, the school had already restructured the campus into Smaller Learning
Communities (SLC) to generate a greater sense of community and support for its
students. Through creating college themed SLC’s the school was able to promote a
school climate that supported the notion, that success at the school was preparing
students for future success in college. While the campus was so large, the adoption of
SLC’s appears to have provided students with closer connections with their teachers
and the adults on the campus.
Lastly, the school also committed to continual focusing on utilizing the
instructional expertise of administrators and teaching staff to develop more effective
instructional lessons for their students. This was done through the use of lesson labs
that allow instructional staff the time to use inquiry-based protocols for developing,
observing and critiquing classroom instruction to further develop teachers’ pedagogy.
By continually evaluating, discussing and improving instruction throughout every

107
grade level, content area and SLC, it appears the school was able to improve the level
and effectiveness of instruction.
Furthermore, these three factors contributed to Halley improving its API
scores by 33 points in one year. According to table 4.8, the percentage of students
able to score proficient or advanced increased by 6.3%, which was twice as much as
both the state and district’s averages. Similarly in language arts, the school was able
to realize an increase of 4.5% in the number of student scoring proficient and advance
on the CST. These results signify, that with maintaining the administrative staff,
creating SLC’s and utilizing resources to improve professional development, Halley
was able to realize greater increases in student achievement.
Similar to the efforts of Halley, 3rd Street Elementary was able to increase
student achievement through consistently communicating a singular vision of
expectations. Comparable to the efforts of the other schools in this sample, 3rd Street
worked tirelessly to align curriculum to their standards based assessments, promote
parental involvement and create a campus climate of high expectations. In contrast to
the other schools, 3rd Street’s administrative staff took a slightly more creative
approach of galvanizing the students, staff and stakeholders into identifying one
objective and focus for the entire year. Targeting an increase of 83 points for the
school’s API score, the school’s objective was named “Mission 750.”
To emphasize this goal, professional developments, parent meetings and
student assemblies were all held to inform teachers, parents and students of their rolls
in accomplishing this lofty objective. To emphasize the methodical and calculated
strategies created to ensure the effectiveness of instructional improvement efforts,

108
administrators dressed in fatigues to drive home the point that the 3rd Street’s
stakeholders were all on the same team working together like a military unit. In doing
so, the appeal to individual’s sense of mission and duty, every instructional
improvement effort, classroom activity, parent program, and classroom activity was
structured in a way to remind each stakeholder that he or she was playing his role in
accomplishing the school’s goal. In this fashion, 3rd Street’s “Mission 750” created a
clear and concise objective that all the school’s stakeholders understood to be the
motivation behind every change and improvement effort at the school.
While the school was only able to reach an API score of 721, at the end of the
year, the school was able to realize two significant changes in student achievement.
First, the increase in the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on the
CST test in language arts rose by 15.9%, tripling the average increases by both the
state and district. Second, 3rd Street’s percentages of students scoring advance or
proficient in mathematics were approximately four times greater than both state and
district averages. With such clear indications of improvement in student scores in
core subjects, the schools API score increased by 54 points.
These results for Halley and 3rd Street indicate that two factors play
significant roles in improving student achievement. First, it is imperative that schools
need experienced individuals who understand the restrictions and guidelines of their
categorical funding sources. At both Halley and 3rd Street, both schools had the
majority if not all of their administrative staff for the last three or more years. While
seemingly not a significant amount of years, the experience in fulfilling the

109
obligations of categorical funding sources, affords the schools with authority to
creatively utilize resources to address the needs of their student populations.
Second, it’s imperative that while receiving numerous categorical resources,
that schools are able to focus efforts to smaller and specific goals. At Halley this was
done by ensuring that all professional developments focused on improving
instructional practices, through continuous inquiry-based protocols for developing,
observing and critiquing classroom instruction. At 3rd Street, all goals and objectives
were singularly compressed and communicated through the school’s slogan “Mission
750,” which became the motivation and purpose of all improvement efforts. Through
identifying relevant, specific and attainable objective, both schools were able to
realize significant improvement in student achievement.

Implications
Examining the changes within each of the schools in this sample, it is clear
that the cyclical process of continually evaluating and revaluating instructional
improvement efforts are evident at every school. However, the success of these
efforts appear to hinge schools’ ability to align goals of increasing student
achievement to resource usage strategies. As illustrated in this dissertation, when
schools are able to more efficiently utilize their resources to address instructional
improvement efforts, the schools like Halley and 3rd Street are more successful.
These factors hold significance for other schools without necessary resources to

110
overcome the barriers associated with serving student from urban high-poverty, low-
wage areas.
Following this point, several questions emerged to possibly further understand
how efficient usage or resources influence student achievement. First, if schools with
histories of low student achievement were to receive significant increases in
resources, how would they plan for its implementation? While interviewing all of the
principals for this study, it became apparent that none of the schools had singular
plans for what factors would be necessary to offer students greater educational
opportunities. None of the schools discussed long-term plans or what steps would be
taken in three, five or ten years ahead to ensure the schools had reached the State’s
mandated goal of 800 API scores.
How can States, school districts or schools in this case hope to enlist
significant change if site-based leaders are unable to articulate long term plans for
their schools? With the constant high turnover rates for high-needs schools, it appears
that lack of stability at the school site prevents most principals from giving energy or
effort to constructing long-term plans for their schools. Due to the instability of their
positions, it appears that principals are obligated to plan for each school year, only
months in advance. This reality points out more questions of, how successful are
schools that are able to clearly communicate three, five or ten year plans to their staff,
students and stakeholders? If these schools are more successful, are these schools
receiving categorical funding? If they are, does knowledge or long-term strategies
having an affect on lowering staff turn over rates? Finally, inverse to the last

111
questions, is the lack of awareness to long-term goals and plans increasing staff turn
over rates?
This dissertation has identified several of the complex factors influencing
success at urban schools with histories of low student achievement. Recognizing the
relevance of these factors in similar schools around the country, holds important
implications in their possible improvement efforts. Through understanding how these
factors of efficient use of resources can effect student achievement, this study
advances the discussion of how educational finance policy makers can improve
educational opportunities for all students. While schools that need greater educational
resources may fail to receive enough funds to ensure all students reach specific
outcomes, it is clear that there are schools still able to make significant gains by
aligning their resources with their goals for instructional improvement.

112

References

Baker, B. D. (2005). The Emerging Shaper of Educational Adequacy: From
Theoretical Assumptions to Empirical Evidence. Journal of Education
Finance, 30:3 Winter 2005.

Biddle, B.J. & Berliner, D. C. (2002). Unequal school funding in the United
States. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 48-59.

Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Conley, D. T. & Picus, L. O. (2003) Oregon’s Quality Education Model: Linking
Adequacy and Outcomes. Education Policy, Vol. 17 No. 5 (November, 2003)
pp. 586-612

Cross, C. T. & Roza, M. (2007) How the Federal Government Shapes and Distorts
the Financing of K-12 Schools. Seattle: University of Washington,
Center on Reinventing Public Education, School Finance Redesign Project
Working Paper 1

Downes, T. A. (1992) Evaluating the Impact of School Finance Reform on the
Provision Of Public Education: The California Case. National Tax Journal,
Vol. 45, no 4.

Duncombe, W. & Yinger, J. (2007). Understanding the Incentives in California’s
Education Finance System. Getting Down to Facts: A Research Project
Examining California’s Finance Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University,
Institute for Research on Education Policy Practice.

Edgwood Independent School District v. Kirby, 777 S.W. 2d 391 (Tex. 1989)

Edgwood v. Meno, 893 S.W.2d 450 (Tex. 1995)

Education Trust (2005). The Funding Gap 2005 Low-Income and Minority Students
Shortchanged by Most States. Retrieved January 13, 2008. From
www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/31D276EF-72E1-458A-8C71
-E3D262A4C91E/0/FundingGap2005.pdf

Howell, P., & Miller, B. (2000). Understanding School Finance: California’s
Complex K-12 System. Ed Source. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from
HYPERLINK "http://www.edsource.org" www.edsource.org.

113

Hunter, M.A. (2005). State-by-state status of school finance litigations. Campaign for
Fiscal Equity, Inc. Retrieved July 29, 2005, from www.schoolfunding.info

Imazeki, J. (2008). Assessing the Cost of Adequacy in California Public Schools: A
Cost Function Approach. Getting Down to Facts: A Research Project
Examining California’s Finance Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University,
Institute for Research on Education Policy Practice.

Imanzeki, J. (2006) Assessing the Cost of K-12 Education in California Public
Schools. Getting Down to Facts: A Research Project Examining California’s
Finance Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Institute for Research on
Education Policy Practice.

Imanzeki, J. (2008). Meeting the Challenge: Performance Trends in California
Schools. Policy Analysis for California Education, policy brief 08-1.
Retrieved June 2,2008, from HYPERLINK
"http://pace.berkeley.edu/pace_publications.html"
http://pace.berkeley.edu/pace_publications.html.

Imanzeki, J., Reschovsky, A. (2000). Achieving Educational Adequacy Through
School Finance Reform. Consortium for Policy Research in Education
Research Report Series RR-045

Julius, D. J., Baldridge, J. V., & Pfeffer, J. (1999) A Memo from Machiavelli. The
Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 70; No. 2 (March/April 1999)

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities. Crown Publishers: NY

LaMorte, M.W. (1996). School Law. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Loeb, S., Beteille, N., & Perez, M. (2008). Building an Information System to
Support Continuous Improvement in California Public Schools. Policy
Analysis for California Education, policy brief 08-2. Retrieved June 2,
2008, from HYPERLINK
"http://pace.berkeley.edu/pace_publications.html"
http://pace.berkeley.edu/pace_publications.html.

Loeb, S., Byrk, A. & Hanushek, A. (2007) Getting Down to Facts: A Research
Project Examining California’s Finance Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University, Institute for Research on Education Policy Practice.

114
Loeb, S. Grissom, J. & Sturk, K. (2007). District Dollars: Painting a Picture of
Revenues and Expenditures in California Public School Districts. Institute For
Research on Education Policy & Practice. Retrieved June 12, 2008, from
HYPERLINK "http://www.irepp.net" www.irepp.net

Long, D. (2008) 2008-2009 Budget Highlights. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from
HYPERLINK "http://www.ose.ca.gov/budget/"
http://www.ose.ca.gov/budget/

McDonald, J., Kaplow, R., & Chapman, P. (2006) School Finance Reform: The Role
of US Courts from 1968-1998 National Forum of Education Administration
And Supervision Journal- Electronic Vol. 23, No. 4, 2006

National Center of Educational Statistics (2008) Retrieved July, 8, 2008 from
HYPERLINK "http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372"
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

Oates, W. E., (1999). An Essay of Fiscal Federalism. Journal of Economic Literature
Vol. XXXVII (September 1999) pp. 1120-1149

Odden, A. (1998). How to Rethink School Budgets to Support School Transformation.
Getting Better by Design, Volume 3. New American Schools Development
Corp: Virginia.

Odden, A. (1998). Creating School Finance Policies That Facilitate New Goals.
Consortium for Policy Research in Education Research Report
Series RB-26

Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan

Odden, A & Archibald, A (2000). Reallocation Resources: How to Boost Student
Achievement Without Asking for More. Tyler, TX: Crowin Press.

Odden, A., Goetz, M. E., Picus, L. O. (2007) Paying for Schools Finance Adequacy
with the National Average Expenditure Per Pupil. Seattle: University of
Washington, Center on Reinventing Public Education, School Finance
Redesign Project Working Paper 2

Odden, A., Picus, L. O. (2008) School Finance A Policy Perspective (4
th
ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Archibald, S., Goetz, M., Mangan, M. T. & Aportela, A.
(2007). Moving From Good to Great in Wisconsin: Funding Schools
Adequately And Doubling Student Performance. Madison, Wisconsin:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

115

Picus, L. O. (2004). School Finance Adequacy: Implications for Schools Principals.
National Association of Secondary School Principals, NASSP Bulletin: Sept
2004; 88, 640; Research Library Core pg. 3.

Picus, L., Odden, A., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. & Goetz, M. (2008) Implementing
School Finance Adequacy: School level Resource Use in Wyoming Following
Adequacy-Oriented Finance Reform. CA: Larry Picus and Associates.

Robinson v. Cahill, 303 A.2d 273 (N.J. 1973)

Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc., 790 S.W.3d 186 (Ky. 1989)

Roza, M. (2008). Allocation Anatomy: How District Policies That Deploy Resources
Can Support (or Undermine) District Reform Strategies. School Finance
Redesign Project. Center of reinventing Public Education: University of
Washington.

San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 I U.S. 45 (1972)

Serrano v. Priest, 96 Cal. Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241, 5 Cal. 3d 584 (1971)

Silard, J. (1973). Equity for cities in school finance reform. Washington, DC:
Potomac Institute.

Sonstelle, J. (2008) Resource Needs of California Public Schools: Results From a
Survey of Teachers, Principals, and Superintendents. Getting Down to Facts:
A Research Project Examining California’s Finance Systems. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University, Institute for Research on Education Policy Practice.

Swanson, A.D. & King, R.A. (1991). School finance: Its economics and politics.
White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.

Timar, T, & Roza, M. (2008). A False Dilemma: Should Decisions about Education
Resource Use Be Made at the State or Local Level? Connecting the Dots and
Closing The Gaps. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from
http://cap-ed.ucdavis.edu/node/25

Willis, J., Durante, R., Gazzerro, P. (2007). Towards Effective Resource Use:
Assessing How Education Dollars are Spent. Seattle: University of
Washington, Center on Reinventing Public Education, School Finance
Redesign Project Working Paper

116
APPENDIX A

Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol - School Sites

Following are open-ended questions intended to capture each school’s strategies for
improving student performance. Ask the questions in the order that they appear on
this protocol. Record the principal’s answers as s/he gives them and focus on getting
the key elements of the instructional improvement effort with less emphasis on the
process aspect.

I. Tell me the story of how your school improved student performance.

A. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy?

1. What has the content focus of your improvement process been?
(E.g. Reading, Math, Reading First, Math Helping Corps, etc.)

2. What curricula have you used during your instructional improvement
effort? (E.g. Open Court reading, Everyday Math, etc.)
• Is it aligned with state standards?
• How do you know it is aligned? (E.g. District recent review for
alignment)

3. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement effort?
o Does your staff have an agreed upon definition of effective
teaching?

4. What is the instructional vision for your improvement effort?
(E.g. Connecticut standards or the Danielson Framework)

5. Have assessments been an integral part of your instructional
improvement process?
o If so, what types of assessments have been key? (E.g. formative,
diagnostic, summative)
• How often are those assessments utilized?
• What actions were taken with the results?

6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a part
of your reform efforts? (E.g. Individualized instruction,
differentiated instruction, 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading
instruction)
o Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy?

117
Appendix A Continued
o How did you know that the instructional strategies were being
implemented?

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

1. Early Childhood program: Is it half or full day? Number kids?
Staffing ratios? Eligibility?

2. Full Day Kindergarten
• If yes, how long have they had full day kindergarten?

3. Class Size Reduction
• Reduction Strategy (E.g. 15 all day long K-3 or reading only
with 15)

4. Professional Development:
• When are the professional development days scheduled for?
(E.g. Summer Institutes, Inservice Days)
• What is the focus of the professional development?
• Do you have instructional coaches in schools? Were there
enough coaches? (Did they need more but couldn’t afford it?)

5. “Interventions” or Extra Help Strategies for Struggling Students:
• Tutoring: Specify 1:1, in small groups (2-4), or in medium
groups (3-5)
• Extended day: How frequently (Number minutes & Number of
times per week), Academic focus, Who instructs (certified
teachers or aides), Who participates
• Summer school: How Frequently (Number hours a day, Number
weeks), Who instructs (certified teachers or aides), Who
participates
• ELL
• Scheduling: (E.g. double periods in secondary schools)

6. Parent outreach or community involvement

7. Technology

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

118
Appendix A Continued

D. What type of instructional leadership was present?

E. Was there accountability built into this improvement plan? (E.g.
School Board report which helped solidify focus)

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

119
APPENDIX B

Data Collection Protocol

School Name School
Pseudonym
Address
City State Zip
Phone Fax
Website
NOTES:

Title
Honorific First Name
Last Name

Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

Title
Honorific First Name
Last Name

120
Appendix B Continued

Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

Title
Honorific First Name
Last Name

Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

District Name
District State ID

Title
Honorific First Name
Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

Title
Honorific First Name
Last Name

Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

Title
Honorific First Name
Last Name

Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

Appendix B Continued

121

Appendix B Continued

Current Student Enrollment
Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment
Grade Span
Number of ELL Students
Number of Students Eligible for Free- and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL)
Total Number of Special Education Students (IEPs)
Number of Special Education Students (self-contained)
Total Length of School Day
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Mathematics Class
Length of Reading or English/LA Class
Length of Science Class
Length of Social Studies Class
Length of Foreign Language Class
AYP
NOTES:

Core academic teachers
FTEs
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
English/Reading/L.A.
History/Soc. Studies
Math
Science
Foreign Language
NOTES:

122

Appendix B Continued

Specialist and Elective Teachers
Art
Music
PE/Health
Drama
Technology
Career & Technical Education
Drivers Education
Study Hall
Athletics
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers Description:
NOTES:

Librarian
Library Media Specialist
Library Aide
NOTES:

Appendix C

Gage Middle School
Case Study

Introduction

In an effort to tell the story of Gage Middle School, this case study describes
the background of the school, its surrounding district, student testing results, and the
elements of the school’s improvement strategies. Through examining the school and
district’s demographics, we can begin to unearth the issues this school contends with
in their efforts to increase student achievement. After exploring the school’s makeup,
this case study will then work to decipher possible trends in student’s yearly
assessment levels over the past 10 years. With an understanding of how student
achievement scores have changed over the last decade, then this case study will then
focus on the school. In addition to examining these pedagogical reforms, this case
study will also compares the school’s resource allocations to that of the Evidence
Based (EB) Model (Odden & Picdex3us, 2007). This model was developed for public
schools in California, to determine if there are any lessons learned for improving to
efficiency to which schools similar to Gage, utilize their educational resources.

124
Appendix C Continued
School Demographics and Background

By providing educational opportunities for 1,626 students in a high-poverty
area of Los Angeles County, Gage is a Title I school serving approximately 1,600
students who all qualify for Free- and Reduced-Priced Lunch (FRL) programs.
Similar to the surrounding neighborhood, the schools populations includes 68%
Latino and 32% African- Americans. Inside of this population, 587 students are
Spanish speaking English Language Learners (ELL), which is directly representative
of the local neighborhood.
Unique in comparison to other schools in the district, Gage also has a distinct
population of 62% of the students who live with guardians other than their birth
parents. This means the majority of students in the school live in group-homes, foster
care, or under the supervision of a relative. This has created significant issues for the
school in retaining parental support or creating continuity and structure for students’
households. Compounding issues associated with being high-need students and living
in unstable home lives, has been associated with students exhibiting lower levels of
motivation, higher suspension rates, and below average assessments scores.
To compensate for some of the barriers associated with students in this
demographics, the school has volunteered to participate in a Partnership with the
city’s Mayor’s office, along with nine other schools serving similar student
populations in the district. In an effort to increase educational opportunities for more

125
Appendix C Continued

than 18,000 students, this program aims to improve the schools ability to secure and

utilize additional resources of private and governmental investment. Before
discussing how the improvement strategy and partnership with the Mayor’s office is
being used to enhance student achievement, the next section will address the schools
historical performance on State assessments, a major reason for joining the
Partnership.
Student Achievement Levels

Through California’s Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999, the
state has developed a comprehensive system for holding students, schools, and
districts accountable for improving student performance. For middle schools such as
Gage, the PSAA uses the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) system to
measure student achievement.
Through this system each spring, the school administers the California
Standards Tests (CST) to assess all students 10 days before or after 85% of the school
year has passed. The CST’s are designed to measure how effectively students retain
content taught in accordance to academic standards. By using the scores for these
tests, the state uses an Academic Performance Index (API) system to measure
progress of the school and its subgroups on the CST’s. These subgroups compose of
the school as a whole and all additional statistically significant minority groups
served at the school.
By means of examining the longitudinal API data since 1999 for Gage, the

126
Appendix C Continued
school has shown consistent progress over the last 10 years. As shown in table 1 and
2 below, for the last ten years Gage has continuously made progress, and have met or
exceeded API targets five of the last nine years. Since the first year of the API’s
implementation, Gage has increased its score a full 200 points, going from 361 in
1999 to 561 in 2008. Contrary to the fact of the school showing progress, the school
has been labeled a Program Improvement (PI) year 5 because it has missed its
mandated target API score for consecutive years since 2001. This means, the school
has failed to reach its Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) for the past seven years. With
this status, as mandated by the state’s Department of Education, the school has also
been labeled as one of the State’s 1
st
decile school. In other words, the school has
been categorized with the lowest 10% of schools serving similar populations in the
State.

Table C-1Gage Middle School Achievement Data

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
API score 378 409 459 476 528 533 518 541 561
API
Target
383 399 429 476 492 542 546 532 554
Statewide
Rank
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Math
Proficient
n/a n/a 4.9 6.1
(+1.2)
7.1
(+1.0)
7.5
(+0.4)
9.6
(+2.1)
12.6
(+3)
n/a
Language
Proficient
n/a n/a 6.3 9.7
(+3.4)
11.6
(+1.9)
10.0
(-1.6)
12.3
(+2.3)
15.5
+3.2
%
n/a

127
Appendix C Continued

Comparing the school’s progress over the last 10 years to those of the state and
school district, it is worth noting that the school is not only showing continual growth
but also decreasing the achievement gaps. According to data from the CDE, the gap
between the school’s API and the average API of the state was 291 points, while the
gap between the school and the average of the district was 146 points in 1999. These
gaps have decreased to 232 between the state and 106 between the school and the
districts average in 2007. This is significant, because this means in the eight-year
span between 1999 and 2007 the school has averaged 7.375 points per year
decreasing of the gap between the school’s student achievement and all schools in the
state. In addition, over the same period of time, the school has averaged
approximately a 5.0 decrease in the gap between the school’s API score and that of
the districts average. Evident from Gage’s higher slope in graph 1 below

128

Appendix C Continued

Figure C-1 API Growth between 1999 to 2007

Instructional Improvement Strategy

Due to the fact that the principal is in her first year at the school, very little
details could be gathered concerning previous intervention programs from her
perspective. This being the case, information concerning improvement strategies was
garnished from the fact that Gage is one of the schools identified for Federal and
State interventions programs. As apart of these programs the school would have been
asked to identify systemic school and district barriers to improving student
achievement. After recognizing such barriers, the school would then be asked to

129
Appendix C Continued
identify strategies to remedy both the school site and district barriers towards
improving student achievement.
These programs would have included the federal Title I program and
California’s Department of Education’s (DOE) Immediate Intervention/
Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP), the High Priority School Grant Program
(HPSGP) and the current Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) program. With
these categorical programs, the school’s amount of educational resources has
increased, along with mandates for using each of these categorical funding sources.
The additional resources provided from the federal government in the Title I
program is used to supplement services needed to raise academic achievement levels
of low-income K-12 students. These additional resources are used to purchase
classroom supplies, strategize methods of improving instruction, and increasing
parental involvement. Aimed at assuring high need students receive necessary
materials the federal government provides these resources based on the number of
low-income student or students who qualify for free-and-reduce lunch programs.
Similar to the Title I program, California’s II/USP and HPSGP provide
additional resources and templates for restructuring the school to further efforts of
improving student achievement. Through the II/USP, the school receives an
additional $200 per student and $50,000 for professional development. While
additional per-pupil spending is used to address efforts to improve student

130
Appendix C Continued
achievement the professional development resources were used to assist the school in
creating clearer plans for improving instruction and management.
Similar to the II/USP, the High Priority School Grant Program, was enacted to

address the needs of California’s schools with the most need. Labeled as low
performing, Gage received $400 per pupil, a total of $735,600, in the efforts of
providing, means of identifying and funding programs to support students needing
intervention. Through the HPSGP, the school began a process of identifying students
with the lowest CST scores. These students were then placed in intervention
programs in the aims of ensuring students are provided with resources necessary to
reach mandated AYP for each of the schools subgroups.
While progress has been made during these years, after failing to reach
targeted levels of achievement in 2007move out of the status of lo- performing in
2007, the school was then approved for the Quality Education Investment Act (2006).
While the additional resources from the II/USP and HPSGP have both ceased to
provided to the school, the QEIA program provides $1.1 million dollars to used from
2008-2013 school years. As mandated by the QEIA program, Gage is currently
working towards ensuring that by the third year of the program’s implementation that
the school is able to:
• Reduce student-to-teacher ratios to 25:1, or to 5 less than 2005-2006 levels
• Bring student-to-counselor ratio no more than 300 to 1

131
Appendix C Continued
• Staff the school with fully qualified teachers in accordance with NCLB
• Assure that the average experience of classroom teachers in the school is
equal to or exceeds the district average
• And finally that the school meets or exceeds its API growth target averaged
• over the first three full years of funding

To accomplish these goals the school has shifted to move onto attempting to
improve student achievement through changing the school site management strategy
and revisiting their plans for better aligning curriculum to assessments. These changes
were done in an effort to first, gain greater insight into how the school could improve
by shifting decision-making responsibilities from the principals office into the
classrooms. Secondly, these measures were taken in an effort to continue the cyclical
process of examining how well State content standards were being taught by teachers
and learned by students.
In the efforts to change school site management the school has moved to a
structure that brings teachers, non-certified staff, parents, and students into the
planning process with school administrators to set the agenda for school
improvement. To facilitate these changes the school has created a School Site Council
(SSC). Enlisting the opinions of all of the school’s stakeholders, the SSC attempts to
give greater autonomy and authority for making decisions concerning what happens
in the classrooms, to those who are in the classroom. In doing so, the SSC was

132
Appendix C Continued
created to not only give instructors a greater say into how the school functions, but it
essentially asks teachers to commit to stepping out of their roles as the deliverers of
instruction, to assume the responsibility of assisting in the constructing of the
educational experience from the time the student enters the school, till they leave.
This process of shifting authority from a top down model, managed by the
principal, to a holistic school management strategy provides several benefits. Through
gaining the input of teachers, certified staff members, parents and students, decisions
from the SSC appear to have a synergistic feel that includes the greater buy-in from
all stakeholders because of their inclusion in the decision making process. In this
fashion greater influence of the classroom experience is given in making curriculum
decisions, staffing choices, and resource allocations. While doing so, reform efforts
appear to be adopted in classrooms with greater fidelity and with greater success.
In addition to shifting to a more site-based management structure, in the 2007-
2008 school year, the school has additionally begun to follow California’s
Department of Education’s and the No Child Left Behind’s mandate of creating a
Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA). This SPSA is a plan for aligning all of
a schools resources and defining the SSC’s function in an effort to improve student
achievement. More specifically, as defined by California’s Department of Education
Handbook for School Site Councils (2006), the SPSA has eight distinct functions:

133
Appendix C Continued
1. School districts must assure that school site councils have developed and
approved a plan, to be known as the Single Plan for Student Achievement for
schools participating in programs funded through the consolidated application
process, and any other school program they choose to include.
2. School plans must be developed with the review, certification, and advice of
any applicable school advisory committees.
3. Any plans required by programs funded through the Consolidated Application,
the School and Library Improvement Block Grant, the Pupil Retention Block
Grant, and NCLB Program Improvement must be consolidated into a single
plan.
4. The content of the plan must be aligned with school goals for improving
student achievement.
5. School goals must be based upon an analysis of verifiable state data, including
the Academic Performance Index…and the English Language Development
test…and may include any data voluntarily developed by districts to measure
student achievement.
6. The plan must address how Consolidated Application funds will be used to
improve the academic performance of all students to the level of the
performance goals, as established by the Academic Performance Index.

134
Appendix C Continued
7. The plan must be reviewed annually and updated, including proposed
expenditures of funds allocated to the school through the Consolidated
Application, by the school site council.
8. Plans must be reviewed and approved by the governing board of the local
educational agency "whenever there are material changes that affect the
academic programs for students covered by programs" funded through the
Consolidated Application.

While using this SPSA, Gage Middle School, has been taken through a cyclical
process of evaluating the success of programs in improving the school and then to
revisit how effectively those programs are being implemented. This process is
illustrated in diagram 1.1 below. Through this theoretical cyclical process, the school
aims to continually examine the effectiveness of improvement strategies while
monitoring student achievement.

135
Appendix C Continued

Figure C-2 Model of cyclical improvement

While these efforts have proven to give those working on the SSC and
administration a greater sense of group efficacy, the school still failed to reach its
AYP targets. In doing so in the 2007-2008 school year, the school was invited along
with ten of the districts lowest performing schools to join the Mayor’s Partnership for
Los Angeles Schools (PLAS). With an objective of accomplishing several lofty goals,
the implementation of the PLAS’s programs is expected to yield greater student
achievement. According to the PLAS’s Executive Summary (2007), in the attempts of

Reaffirm or Revise
School Goals
Revise
Improvement
Strategies and
Expenditures
Monitor Implementation
Measure
Effectiveness
of Improvement
Strategies
Approve and
Recommend SPSA to
Local Governing
Board
Seek Advisory
Committees
Input
Reach Desired
Outcomes

136
Appendix C Continued
bettering the school’s ability to meet its targets for student success the partnership has
set four specific measurable outcomes:
• Increase API scores by 30 points or by approximately 5%.
• The school will raise the percentage of students scoring “proficient” and
“advance” levels on CST scores in English/Language Arts by 5% over 2007-
2008 scores.
• The school will raise the percentage of students scoring “proficient and
“advance” levels on CST scores in Mathematics by 5% over 2007-2008
scores.
• Lastly, the PLAS will work to assist the school in showing increases in
stakeholders’ efficacy through annual surveys for parents, teachers, and other
school staff.
While the school has already shown signs of improvement in its API scores, reaching
these objectives would move the school out of the low performing and PI status.
As explained in the PLAS Executive summary (2007), to accomplish these
objectives, the PLAS plans on implementing five strategies of:
1.) Improving leadership development for principals and assistant principals for all
schools
2.) Accelerate student performance through implementing strategic plans for
developing instructional coaching, targeted interventions, and building a culture
of data-driven instructional decision making

137
Appendix C Continued
3.) Creating positive learning environments with emphasis on promoting the idea of
going to college as an expected norm for all students.
4.) Increasing family and community involvement through increasing parent
participation and volunteerism by establishing parent centers and clearer
communication with the surrounding community.
5.) Finally, by streamlining and improving school operations through working to
redesign the district’s ability to support schools with high needs.

With these efforts in place the school has added additional steps to better
implement the Partnership’s strategies by applying several programs to increase
student performance. These programs would include:

138
Appendix C Continued

Table C-2 Suggestions for Additional Steps
Creation of Transitional Teams Towards the end of 2007-2008 school year and during the 2008
summer, this Transitional team worked to define both the
Partnership’s role in improving the school and instructional
strategies to be adopted by the school during the 2008-2009 school
year.
Accelerated Reader Program This is a Renaissance Learning program that works through
identify student’s reading levels and then assigning texts
appropriate to their skill level. Through this program the school is
able to adjust instruction for student reading comprehension and
vocabulary acquisition in the aims of inspiring life long enjoyment
of reading, and higher tests scores.
Saturday School This is an intervention program intended to use formative test data
to identify students who are scoring far below and below basic in
mathematics, language arts, and ESL classes. With the assistance of
eight teachers, one administrator, and three classified staff members,
the schools works to raise test scores for the 200-250 students who
attend regularly.

6
th
Grade Math Intervention Program Uses an in-class diagnostic for assisting teachers with formative data
to be used to increase student achievement. Through this program
the school works to ensure that students are able to attack story
problems, translate text into algebraic expressions, and solve
problems. With the school’s 17 sixth-grade teachers, this program is
utilized for all 550 sixth-grade students.

Bound for College Academy This is an intervention program for sixth graders. In addition to the
Saturday school, these students stay after school to address
weaknesses in core subjects. With 10 classes and 12:1 or less
student to teacher ratios, the school is using this program as a
prototype for planning school wide interventions for the entire
school.
Youth Services LA Bridges/ Woodcraft
Rangers
This program aims to assist in giving students alternatives for
activities after school as apart of the gang prevention efforts of the
school. Through this program the students are offered programs
such as, basketball, baseball, soccer, photography, track, tutoring,
drill team, and rock climbing.

PLAS additional Professional Development While the school administrators and PD team plan all professional
developments and staff meetings, the Partnership has worked to
assist the school by providing valuable resource-use data in the
aims of improving their efficient use at the school and through
transition team meetings. In addition, they have also provided
PD’s for administrators to improve site based leadership.
Parent Center Remodeling With the remodeling of the school’s parent center and increased
parental involvement in the aims of increasing the number of
positive adult supervision at the school.

139
Appendix C Continued

Through these efforts the school, hopes to raise student achievement levels,
and address the numerous social issues affecting students with such high needs.
While the principal and staff seem to have faith in the fact that these efforts will
improve the student success, these efforts have yet to lead to the expected targeted
achievement levels sought out by the district and state. In the effort of determining
how effective the school is using their resources to reach targeted API scores, this
case study now compares the school’s resource use to that of Odden and Picus (2007)
EB model.

Comparing Actual Resources to the Evidence Based Model

While the school differs tremendously in size and in the predicted numbers of
English Language Learners (ELL) and Free-and-Reduce Lunch (FRL) comparing the
school to the EBM, exposes possible areas for improving resource efficiency. As
evident from Table 1.2 below, the schools populations is 3.6 times larger than the
model’s population. While research shows that smaller schools would be preferable,
due to the population of the community surrounding the school this would mean that
the district would have to double the number of schools in the city to compensate for
the number of students. Since this isn’t an option, it’s imperative that the school
works to ensure that all resources are used most efficiently. Exploring the differences

140
Appendix C Continued

between the suggestions of the EBM and the school’s actual resource use points out
possible means of improving student achievement.
Table C-3 Gage’s Evidence Based Model Comparison
School Element Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
Gage MS – Current
Resource Status
Gage MS – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions

School
Characteristics

Configuration Grades 6-8 Grades 6-8 Same
School Size 450 1626 3.6x Larger than EBM

Core Class Size 25 1.7x Larger than EBM

Free & Reduced
Price Lunch Count
36.3% of population
expected(used below
as a calculator for
school resourcing)
1626 10 x Larger than EBM
Number of ELL
Students
10.3% of population
expected (used below
as a calculator for
school resourcing
587 12.7 x Larger than EBM
Personnel
Resources

(measured as FTEs)

1. Core Teachers 18 60 64.8(4.8 less than EBM)
2. Specialist/
Elective
Teachers
20% of Core
Teachers
13

13

Total Teachers

21.6 73 (4 permanent
subs)
77.8(4.8 less than EBM)

3. Instructional
Coaches
1 per 200 Students 5 instructional

8.13(3.13 less than EBM)

4. Tutors 1 per 100 At Risk
Students (Free &
Reduced Price
Lunch)
Exact numbers for
Youth Service
Program were not
available but 10 of
the sixth grade
teachers provide after
school tutoring
16

5. Teachers for ELL
Students
1 per 100 ELL
Students
12 5.8 (6.2 more than EBM)

141
Table C-3:
Continued

6. Extended Day 1 per 15 Eligible
Students (Staffing
based on 50% of Free
& Reduced Price
Lunch Students)

8 Saturday School
Teachers
10 College Ready
Program teachers
54 (36 less than EBM)
7. Summer School 1 per 15 Students
(Staffing based on
50% of Free and
Reduced Price Lunch
Students)

Numbers not
available but the
school is a Teach for
America Campus, so
there are usually a
large number of
certified teachers on
campus during
summer school
54
8. Alternative
Schools
NA

NA NA
9a. Learning- and
Mildly Disabled
Students
3 Teachers per 450
Students

6 Teachers
3 Aide
(108 Students)
1Teacher (5 more than EBM)
0.5 aides (2.5 more than
EBM)
9b. Severely
Disabled
Students
100% State
Reimbursement for
Top 1% Minus
Federal Funds
3 Teachers
4 Aides
(68 Students)
As needed
10. Services for
Gifted Students
$25 per Student $10,000
for 63 students

11. Career/ Technical
Education
.3 Weight per CTE
Student to Maintain
Low Class Sizes
$7000 per CTE
Teacher Contract
2
With resources from
a technology grant
1.38 (0.62 more than EBM)
12. Substitutes 10 Days per Teacher
@ $100 per Day
Daily Rate = $240

10 Days per Teacher @ $100
per Day ($140 more than
EBM due to the number of
high need students)
13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 Guidance
Counselor per 250
Students plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position per 100 Free
& Reduced Price
Lunch Students
4Counselors plus
Pupil Support Staff:
1 Special Ed Coor.
2 Deans
2 Community
Liaison,
1 At-Risk Advocate,
1 Psychologist,
.1 Occ. Therapist,
0 Physical Therapist,
0 Speech Therapist,
1 Nurse, &
.5 Health Asst.
6 securityofficer
1 school police
6.5 (1.5 less than EBM)
Counselors plus
16 Pupil Support Staff

142
Table C-3 Continued
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
2 per 400-500
Students

0 6 (6 less than EBM)
15 Instructional
Aides
0

8
(ELD & SpEd)

0(8 more than EBM)
16. Librarians/
Media
Specialists

1 Libriarian
.5 Library aids
1 Librarian 1.5(.5 less than EBM)
17. Administrator 1 Principal plus .5
Assistant Principal
1 Principal plus
4 Assistant Principals
1 Principal plus
4 Assistant Principal

18. Secretary 1 Secretary
1 Clerk
1Secretary
2 Admin. Asst.
1 book registra
2 Attendance
1 dean assistance.
1 Accounting Officer
3Office Assistants

7.2 (3.8 more than EBM)
Non-Personnel
Resources

19. Professional
Development
10 Days Intensive
Professional
Development in
Summer Included in
Teacher Contract

Instructional Coaches
(included in
personnel resources)

Planning & Prep time
1 Buy Back Days for
summer planning

Partnership
sponsored Summer
Transition Team
Meetings

59 Minute Daily
Prep Period

Early dismissal
Tuesday 1
Professional
Development
Session Monthly (45
hours throughout the
school year)

Provide 10 Days Intensive
Professional Development
Annually

Additional Instructional
Coaches

143
Table C-3 Continued
Dollar/Pupil
Resources

20. Technology Calculation: 1
Computer per 3
Students.
Distribution: 1
Computer per 4
Students & 1:1 Ratio
for Administrators,
Teachers, &
Secretaries

$250/Pupil

175 student
Computers
150 Teacher,
administrator, and
clerical staff
computers

1 Technology
Assistant

542 (215 less than EBM)
Computers

$460,500 Annually for
Maintenance and
Replacement
21. Instructional
Materials

Formative
Assessments

Library Materials

$120/Pupil

$25/Pupil

$20/Pupil
State-approved Core
Content Materials &
Intervention
Materials

Quarterly Formative
Assessments Using
CST Format

$195,120 Instructional
Materials

$40,650 Formative
Assessments

$32,520 Library Materials
22. Student
Activities
$200/Pupil After-school and
Lunchtime Sports
and Activities
(Coaching Stipend
for Teachers)
Woodcraft Rangers
Leadership Class
Youth Services
$325,2000
23. Other Chess Club
Board Game Club
Drill Team
Track Club

Lesson Learned

Before exploring what changes the EBM would suggest the school makes, it is
important to note that Gage differs extremely in comparison to the EBM due to its
size. Compounding issues created with such a large enrollment, the school has a
significant number of students who fall into the subgroups of ELL and at-risk

144
Appendix C Continued

students, which constrains the efforts of improving student achievement. Due to this
situation and the schools historical low-test scores, the school has received additional
categorical resources for several years in the form of Title 1, HPSGP, II/USP, QEIA,
and PLAS. With these resources it appears that the school is incorporating a number
of expected resource usage patterns that coincide with the EBM.
Through multiplying the EBM ideal quantities of each division of the model,
by a factor of 3.6 (since the populations is 3.6 times larger than the model) it appears
that the school comes up short in several areas. First, according to the EBM a school
with an enrollment of 1,626 students is prescribed to hirer 4.8 more core teachers.
Following the suggestion of the EBM research, that the most effective teacher-to-
student ratio would be 25:1 in 4
th
-12
th
grade, increasing the number of teachers by
4.8 would lower ratios to the desired levels. Thereby, giving teachers the ability to
provide students with additional attention and instruction. In doing so, the school
could moreover afford to increase the number of teachers, in tutoring and teaching in
extended day programs.
As explained in the EBM, having certified teachers in core classrooms is
imperative in increasing student achievement for low-performing students (Odden
and Picus, 2007). In the same vain the EBM has also noted that the use of additional
aides and tutors who are not certified teachers, saves money but fails to provide
students with little to no significant assistance in improving student achievement.
With the exception of aides for Special Education students, according to the EBM it

145
Appendix C Continued

would be a better use of the school’s resources if the school used the resources from
the ELL and out of classroom aides to hirer additional certified teachers or more
instructional coaches. Similar to increasing the number of teachers, there is more
evidence that supports the notion that instructional coaches could work to improve
teachers’ pedagogical strategies, and planning for intervention programs.
Examining the resource use patterns of schools that subscribe to using EBM,
it has been noted by Odden and Picus that there are several similarities between
successful schools (2007). These similarities are:
 Small class sizes (with a goal of 25) in grades 4-12
 Extensive teacher professional development including more days of training
and the placement of instructional coaches in schools
 Extensive use of formative assessments to help tailor and focus instruction to
the precise learning status of each teacher’s students
 Deployment of a series of extra help strategies that usually include some
combination of one-to-one tutoring, extended day, and academic-oriented
summer school programs
 Creation of a collaborative, professional school culture.

Comparing the schools resource use patterns to that of successful schools, it appears
that the school’s resource usage and improvement strategies are aligned with four of
the five patterns.

146
Appendix C Continued
As noted above, with the assistance of PLAS, the school has increased the
number of professional development sessions and days used for planning for the
school year through the school’s transition teams. As noted by the SSC, these
additional meetings over the summer seem to have provided the instructional staff
with adequate time to assure the school was fully staffed and supporting a
collaborative and professional school culture. This creation of a culture of cooperative
professionalism is evident in the fact that the staff has agreed to support a new peer
observation program, where teachers are provided with classroom coverage’s to allow
teachers the freedom to sit-in as other teachers teach. In addition, furthering this effort
of creating professional standards, the administrative staff has also implemented
departmental competitions for setting standards and norms for classroom
environments, procedures, and expectations.
With an objective of deploying extra help strategies for all students that need
them, the school has enlisted the use of formative data to identify students who
perform poorly on quarterly assessments. Coinciding with the recommendations of
the EBM, these efforts are not only showing progress in raising student achievement
levels, but after reviewing the success of past programs, the school has begun to use
its teaching staff in alternative ways to ensure struggling students’ needs are
addressed. Through such steps the school has begun to unroll its 6
th
grade College
Bound Academy and mathematics intervention program. While these programs are
both in the pilot stage, they are similarly aimed at ensuring all students are given

147
Appendix C Continued

additional instruction to improve student achievement. According to beginning data
from these pilot programs, this approach has not only improved teachers ability to
align instruction more closely to state curriculum standards, but have also shown to
be aiding the school in its efforts to increase student achievement. Through these
measures, the school additionally is following the cyclical process illustrated in
diagram 1.1, of choosing a reform process, evaluating its implementation and
effectiveness, then finally adjusting strategies to improve those efforts.
Although the schools’ other intervention programs, L.A. Bridges/Woodcraft
Rangers and Saturday School classes, use both student demographic and formative
data to assist the school in identifying students, the programs have not lead to
significant changes in student assessment scores. Neither program coordinates with
classroom instruction, in the aims addressing students’ academic deficits. While these
programs provide positive constructive alternative activities and supplemental
instruction to deter gang activities, they fail to address students’ academic needs in a
specific and prescriptive manner such as the pilot programs.
While the Saturday School program provides students with targeted
instruction in the aims of improving the tests scores for low-performing students, with
an average enrollment of 200-250 students each Saturday, the program only serves at
most 12%-15% of the school population. As noted in the EBM table above, to be
effective in improving student achievement this program would need to increase the
number of students to approximately 800 student or 50% of the school with

148
Appendix C Continued

classrooms of 15:1 ratios. This would infer that the school recruits the services of 54
instructors to teach these classes. In addition, ensuring the course curriculums
differentiated for each students’ needs and aligned with both classroom instruction
and state standards, would also assist in improving student achievement
Alternatively, the school could also ratchet up its sixth-grade pilot programs
for intervention for its seventh- and eighth-grade students. In doing so, if the other
grades were to follow the same model, this would mean 60 core teachers would assist
in the intervention process for mathematics, and 20 additional teachers for after
school tutoring. This would imply that, without hiring additional staff, the school
could reach the EBM prescribed number of certified teachers providing intervention
or additional tutoring.
As noted above, while the school’s student-to-teacher ratio is still not 25:1,
through the QEIA grant, the school is currently attempting to decrease that ratio in the
efforts to better provide greater attention to all students. Threatening this effort, the
district is currently unsure of the resource levels for next year. With this looming
threat, the school is continuously examining contingency plans for possibly loosing
staff members and having to increase student-to-teacher ratios. While the school has
historically experienced high staff transient rates for both instructional staff and
administrative leadership, this ominous circumstance of uncertainty for next year’s
budget appears to currently be central to ensure current efforts of improving the
school continues. These factors become even more important due to fact that the

149

Appendix C Continued
school’s currently employing new teachers, who will be first to loose their positions if
the district is forced to reduce its work force.
While current grant programs guarantee that the school will continue
receiving funding, due to reductions of staff at the central and local district offices the
contract obligations for certified employees there is a significant chance that some of
the schools new teachers will be replaced. In this vain, it is imperative that planning
for next year begins as soon as possible to ensure that efforts from this year continue
regardless of possible staff changes.

Appendix D
Halley Middle School Case Study

Introduction

In telling the story of Halley Middle School, this case study examines the
school’s demographics, test data, and instructional intervention strategies. First by
examining the school and district’s demographics, this case study will begin to
explore the school’s barriers to increasing student achievement. Second, through
exploring the last 10 years of assessment data this case study aims to expose patterns
relating past pedagogical practices and resource usage to student achievement. Third,
this case study will delve into the instructional strategies implemented in accordance
with state and federal programs in the aims of increasing student achievement.
Through examining these factors, this study will end with lessons learned through
comparing the schools resource use patterns to that of an Evidence Based (EB) model
in the attempts of exposing possible solutions and barriers to improving student
achievement at schools with similar populations (Odden & Picus, 2007).

School Demographics and Background

Serving a grade span of sixth-through-eighth grades, Halley Middle School currently
has an enrollment of 2,100 students. Located in a poorer section of a large

151
Appendix D Continued
urban city, the school serves a population that is entirely categorized as socio-
economically disadvantaged. In addition, to having high needs due to low socio-
economic status (SES) the school also contends with servicing the needs of
approximately 843 (40%) English Language Learners (ELL) and 252 (12%) students
with special education needs. In a community that is majority Latino, it is no surprise
that the school’s racial demographic is comprised of 98% Latino students and 2%
African- American students.
With such a large community of high-need students, the school qualifies for
numerous federal and state programs to address the barriers students face in such
communities. All coming with mandated stipulations and expectations for targeted
outcomes, the largest of these programs are the Title 1, High Priority School Grant
Program (HPSGP), the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming School Program
(II/USP), and Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) all aim to address the
instructional barriers for improving student performances. IBut in the last year the
school has joined a Partnership with Los Angeles Schools (PLAS) in the aims of
assisting 10 of the Los Angeles’ schools that have had historically low performance
levels. Through these programs the instructional strategies have been set in place to
assist the relatively new administration in ensuring that student achievement
increases.
After interviewing the school’s principal, it appears the school is in its
beginning stage of clarifying its strategies for increasing student achievement. While
this is the principal’s first year at the school, her knowledge and understanding

152
Appendix D Continued
patients of school reform, seems to directly correlate with the efforts that have been
exacted and are planned for the school. This being the case, the principal was unable
to give clear insight into historical resource use patterns in improving student
achievement, but receiving categorical funds through the Title I, II/USP, HPSGP, and
QEIA it can be expected that past improvement efforts would have followed the
stipulations and expectations of these programs. Understanding how these resources
are currently utilized now in comparison to the EB model we can begin to identify
both patterns and barriers for possibly better utilizing educational resources in the
efforts to support student achievement. Before discussing these past intervention
efforts, this case study will first examine the historical achievement data, to gain an
understanding how school resource changes may have influenced student assessment.

Student Achievement Data

In accordance with California’s Public School Accountability Act (PSAA) of
1999, the Halley uses the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) system, to
hold students, teachers, and the school accountable for attaining grade specific
learning objectives. Using these measures the school’s improvement efforts can be
compared to that of other schools using similar strategies for improving student
achievement. More specifically, these comparative measurements are assigned based
on the schools Academic Performance Index (API) scores, which are assigned to the
schools, based on their students’ assessments data.

153
Appendix D Continued

For middle schools, such as Halley, the assessment scores are based on
California Standardized Tests (CST), which is administered within the window of 10
days before or after the school have completed 85% of the school year. Using
subgroups defined by significant populations of ethnic and/or gender demographic of
the schools enrollment, the API scores are based on the school’s ability to address the
improvement of students in each of these subgroups. Using these API scores, the state
then assigns similar school scores, which are based on the deciles schools fall in
comparison to all other schools in California. Based on the school’s historical data,
the school’s API scores have held the school in the lowest 10% of all schools in the
state since 1999. Contrary to these circumstances during the same period of time the
school has shown continually been making progress.
From the table 7.1 below, it is evident that since 1999 that the improvement
strategies, the school has been continually making progress every year. According to
CDE’s website, during this period of time, the school API score has improved from a
score of 394 in 1999 to 594 in 2008. Examining table 7.2, in addition to the progress
made in student achievement, the school has also been able to shrink the achievement
gap between the state’s and district’s average API growth. Exploring these changes in
the gaps between the state and district, the school has decreased these gaps by 60%
and 40% respectfully. Meaning, that while the school is still in the lowest deciles of
schools in the state, the school’s instructional strategies have brought student
achievement closer to averages for all students in the state and district.

154
Appendix D Continued
Figure D.1 Halley Middle Schools API Changes 1999-2007

Figure D-2 Halley Middle School API Growth 1999-2007

155
Appendix D Continued
Although, there is evidence that supports the notion that the school’s
instructional improvement strategies are increasing student achievement, examining
the school’s achievement levels since 2004 it appears growth’s momentum has been
slowing. Looking at the schools Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and CST scores for
Language Arts and Mathematics, it becomes evident that there are clues pointing to
why the acceleration in growth of the school’s API scores seems to be decreasing.
Figure D-3 Halley Middle School Mathematics AYP Data

Comparing table 7.3 and 7.4 it is clear that while student achievement continually
increasing in Language Arts, student assessments scores have been decreasing in
mathematics since the 2005-2006 school year. Contrasting these assessment gains to
that of the school’s grade level CST scores in the same years (table 7.5 and 7.6) its
appears that changes in mathematics courses offered may have contributed to these

156
Appendix D Continued
Figure D-4 Halley Middle School Language Arts AYP Data

scores. Meaning because the school went through stages of offering 8
th
grade general
mathematics, to mandating that all 8
th
graders take algebra, and then to offering both
in 2007 the school seems to have lowered its student achievement and teacher
expectations. After the policies of mandating that all 8
th
graders be enrolled in
Algebra, it appears that when 94% of the students in 2005 and 99% of the students in
2006, were unable to score proficient of above on the algebra assessments, Halley
decided to reverse its policies by offering additional Algebra Readiness courses. This
lowering of expectations for all students to be successful in Algebra, has resulted in
lowering in both 7
th
and 8
th
grade mathematics CST scores for the years following the
change.

157
Appendix D Continued

Figure D-5 & D-6 Grade level CST scores for Language Arts and Mathematics

While it is clear that the school is making efficient use of resources, exploring
the data above provides evidence of possible themes for improving instructional
strategies. Before discussing possible means for increasing efficiency in resource use
in the future, this case study will first explore features of past instructional strategies
to increase student achievement.

158
Appendix D Continued
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Examining the instructional improvement efforts used to move student
achievement provides evidence of how these gains have been realized. Although
exact details concerning the historical instructional strategies were not available
because the principals is in her first year, it is clear that as a participant in several
federal and state categorical funding programs, the school would have been mandated
to follow certain measures to better serve at-risk and low-performing students.
Through programs such as Title I, II/USP, HPSGP, and QEIA the school’s strategies
for increasing student success have both been shaped and reformed over the past ten
years. Understanding the objectives and themes of these programs provides
justifications for both the current and future plans for improving student achievement.
First, the Title I program would have provided the school with additional
funding in the aims of increasing the achievement levels of high-poverty, ELL,
special education, migratory students, Native American, neglected or delinquent
students. While the majority if not all the students fall into one or more of these
categories, the program has been used to identify, and increase the distribution and
targeting of resources in the aims of closing the achievement gaps between minority
and non-minority students. According to the federal Department of Education, to
accomplish these goals the Title I program provides categorical funds to support the
implementations of strategies such as Reading First initiatives, Advance Placement
classes, dropout prevention, and comprehensive school reforms. Like other schools
receiving Title I funding, Halley would have first identified barriers to student

159
Appendix D Continued
achievement, then would have used categorical funding to address students needs in
specific areas supported by those resources.
Similar to the Title I program, Halley also has received additional support for
low-income students through the state’s II/USP aims at assisting lowest performing
schools in improving through providing additional funding. Initiated through the
states Public School Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999, the II/USP provides
assistance for the schools with the lowest API scores or those failing to reach
improvement targets set by the state. Through this program the school received $200
per student to address efforts to improve student achievement. In addition, the school
would also have received $50,000 for professional development to clarify strategies
for improving the schools instructional strategies and management. Totaling
approximately $470,000, these resources would have been focused on raising API
growth rates to targeted levels to show significant improvement. This would normally
have meant that the school would have reached a point where they would have moved
into the sixth decile or higher in state ranking. Having failed to reach this level the
school would then face becoming a state-monitored school.
Comparable to the II/USP, the High Priority School Grant Program aimed to
follow a similar model of identifying barriers to student success and adding additional
assistance from the school district or Local Educational Agency (LEA) to increase
student success. This monitoring from the LEA has come in light of the schools
inability to reach API growth targets set through II/USP. Through the HPSGP, the
school receives $400 per student and approximately $45,000 for district interventions

160
Appendix D Continued
in creating comprehensive reforms at the school. With these additional resources the
Halley under the supervision of its LEA, would be charged with developing,
implementing, and assessing a School Action Plan. This action plan would have
included the restructuring of the school into small learning communities, in the effort
to reduce the size of the school into more manageable themed cohorts. Although
aimed at ensuring the school’s ability to give greater attention to each student through
grouping students into smaller communities, currently the program has not shown
evidence of improving student achievement or the school’s learning environment.
In addition to adopting the small learning communities, it appears that through
the II/USP and HPSGP, the school’s improvement strategies have incorporated the
creation of Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) and School Site Council
(SSC). Moreover, the school has shifted its site-based management from the
principal’s office to a shared decision-making model through enacting this SSC.
Through this SSC, and in accordance with the mandates of both the CDE and NCLB,
the school has authored a SPSA. In accordance to the California’s Department of
Education Handbook for School Site Councils (2006), the SPSA has eight distinct
functions:
• School districts must assure that school site councils have developed and
approved a plan, to be known as the Single Plan for Student Achievement for
schools participating in programs funded through the consolidated application
process, and any other school program they choose to include.

161
Appendix D Continued
• School plans must be developed with the review, certification, and advice of any
applicable school advisory committees.
• Any plans required by programs funded through the Consolidated Application,
the School and Library Improvement Block Grant, the Pupil Retention Block
Grant, and NCLB Program Improvement must be consolidated into a single plan.
• The content of the plan must be aligned with school goals for improving student
achievement.
• School goals must be based upon an analysis of verifiable state data, including
the Academic Performance Index…and the English Language Development
test…and may include any data voluntarily developed by districts to measure
student achievement.
• The plan must address how Consolidated Application funds will be used to
improve the academic performance of all students to the level of the performance
goals, as established by the Academic Performance Index.
• The plan must be reviewed annually and updated, including proposed
expenditures of funds allocated to the school through the Consolidated
Application, by the school site council.
• Plans must be reviewed and approved by the governing board of the local
educational agency "whenever there are material changes that affect the
academic programs for students covered by programs" funded through the
Consolidated Application.

162

Appendix D Continued

While it is evident that progress has been made through these programs, after
failing to reach targeted API levels the school has currently received additional funds
through the Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA). The resources through this
program are aimed at allowing the school to configure and better align the schools
curriculum and improvement strategies enable the school to reach targeted goals. In
this fashion the QEIA program aims to address students’ needs before 2013 through:
• Reduce student-to-teacher ratios to 25:1, or to 5 less than 2005-2006 levels
• Bring student-to-counselor ratio no more than 300 to 1
• Staff the school with fully qualified teachers in accordance with NCLB
• Assure that the average experience of classroom teachers in the school is
equal to or exceeds the district average
• And finally that the school meets or exceeds its API growth target averaged
over the first three full years of funding.
Receiving an additional $1.5 million in additional funding, Halley is currently using
these resources to promote the alignment of curriculum to district instructional guides
and standards, and for intervention programs. Differing from the other programs, the
QEIA grant money is given in lump sums so that schools has greater autonomy in the
future use of educational resources.

163

Appendix D Continued
Coordinating further attempts to increase student achievement, the Partnership
for Los Angeles Schools (PLAS) is also working with the school to ensure the site-
based leadership is provided with support and structure for better utilizing the
resources afforded to the school through the district and state. Promoting a set of
goals to overcome the barriers of the city’s historically lowest performing schools and
students. As explained in their Executive Summary (2007), the PLAS aims to
improve Halley and its other schools through assisting the school in its ability to meet
four specific and measurable outcomes:
• Increase API scores by 30 points or by approximately 5%.
• The school will raise the percentage of students scoring “proficient” and
“advance” levels on CST scores in English/Language Arts by 5% over 2007-
2008 scores.
• The school will raise the percentage of students scoring “proficient and
“advance” levels on CST scores in Mathematics by 5% over 2007-2008
scores.
• Lastly, the PLAS will work to assist the school in showing increases in
stakeholders’ efficacy through annual surveys for parents, teachers, and other
school staff.
To accomplish these goals, the PLAS has set out a clear plan of action to ensure
its collaborative efforts with the school produce targeted results. Described in their
Executive Summary (2007), the PLAS plans to enact a strategy of:

164

Appendix D Continued
• Improving leadership development for principals and assistant principals for
all schools
• Accelerate student performance through implementing strategic plans for
developing instructional coaching, targeted interventions, and building a
culture of data-driven instructional decision making
• Creating positive learning environments with emphasis on promoting the
idea of going to college as an expected norm for all students.
• Increasing family and community involvement through increasing parent
participation and volunteerism by establishing parent centers and clearer
communication with the surrounding community.
• Finally, by streamlining and improving school operations through working
to redesign the district’s ability to support schools with high needs.
Focusing on utilizing resource more efficiently, this program is assisting the school in
discovering additional funds, using data to drive decisions concerning resources, and
identifying researched means of increasing student achievement. Comparing the
current resource usage patterns to that of Lawrence Picus and Allen Odden’s
Evidence Based model (EBM), it appears that there is even more evidence that the
school is moving in a direction that agrees with the suggestions of current research
but still has room for further improvement (2007). Examining the table 2.1 below
these differences and similarities become even more evident, into possible changes to
be undertaken in improving student achievement.

165

Appendix D Continued
Table D-1 Halley’s Evidence Based Model
School Element Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
Halley MS–
Current Resource
Status
Halley MS – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
School
Characteristics

Configuration Grades 6-8 Grades 6-8 Same
School Size 450 2100 4.6x Larger than EBM

Core Class Size 25 30 1.2x Larger than EBM

Free & Reduced
Price Lunch Count
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)

2100 This is 2.9 x larger than EBM
which is built on an expected
36% of school’s population
or only 756 students.
Number of ELL
Students
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)

840 This is 3.7 x larger than the
EBM which is built on
prototypical 10.6% (223
students)of the schools
population
Personnel
Resources

(measured as FTEs)

1. Core Teachers 18 72 83 (-13)
2. Specialist/
Elective
Teachers
20% of Core
Teachers
15 teachers (21.5%
of Core Teachers)
7 out of classroom
positions

16.6

Total Teachers 21.6 94 99.4(-5)
3. Instructional
Coaches
1 per 200 Students 3 10.5 (-6.5)
4. Tutors 1 per 100 At Risk
Students (Free &
Reduced Price
Lunch)
0 certified
But there is a
significant number of
tutors provided
through Community
Based Organizations,
Boys & Girls Club,
and Pat Brown
Program
21(-21)

5. Teachers for ELL
Students
1 per 100 ELL
Students
3
(Uses an Prepared
Reclassification
Program to reduce
the number of
students in ELL)
8.4(-5.4)

166

Table D-3:
Continued

6. Extended Day
1 per 15 Eligible
Students (Staffing
based on 50% of Free
& Reduced Price
Lunch Students)

70
(1,050 students)
7. Summer School 1 per 15 Students
(Staffing based on
50% of Free and
Reduced Price Lunch
Students)

N/A 70
(1,050 students)
8. Alternative
Schools
NA

NA NA
9a. Learning- and
Mildly Disabled
Students
3 Teachers per 450
Students

7 Teachers
6 Aide
(232 Students)
3 (+4) Teachers
9b. Severely
Disabled
Students
100% State
Reimbursement for
Top 1% Minus
Federal Funds
2 Teachers
6 Aides
(20 Students)
As needed
10. Services for
Gifted Students
$25 per Student $10,000 $52,000
11. Career/
Technical
Education
.3 Weight per CTE
Student to Maintain
Low Class Sizes

$7000 per CTE
Teacher Contract
1 NA
12. Substitutes 10 Days per Teacher
@ $100 per Day
Daily Rate = $240

10 Days per Teacher @ $100
per Day
13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 Guidance
Counselor per 250
Students plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position per 100 Free
& Reduced Price
Lunch Students
5 Counselors plus
2 Pupil Support
Staff:
5Community
Liaison,
1 At-Risk Advocate,
1 Psychologist,
.3 Occ. Therapist,
.3 Physical Therapist,
.3 Speech Therapist,
1 Nurse, &
.75 Health Asst.

8(-3) Counselors plus
21(+3.65) Pupil Support Staff
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
2 per 400-500
Students

6 4.6 (+1.4)
15 Instructional
Aides
0

10.3
(ELD & SpEd)
0

167

Table D-3:
Continued

16. Librarians/
Media
Specialists

1 1 1.5
17. Administrator 1 Principal plus .5
Assistant Principal
1 Principal plus
5 Assistant Principals
5 Coordinators
Title 1, Billlingual,
AVID, Magnet and
QEIA
1 Principal plus
5Assistant Principal

18. Secretary 2 School Site
Secretaries
1 Secretary
8 clerical staff

9.2 (-0.2)
Non-Personnel
Resources

19. Professional
Development
10 Days Intensive
Professional
Development in
Summer Included in
Teacher Contract

Instructional Coaches
(included in
personnel resources)

Planning & Prep time
2 day intensive buy-
back days for
planning over the
summer

Currently making
plans for a summer
intensive PD for next
year

Early dismissal
Tuesdays for
planning and Staff
meetings

Partnership provides
leadership
development for
administrative staff
Provide 10 Days Intensive
Professional Development
Annually

Add Instructional Coaches

$299,920 to Fund
Dollar/Pupil
Resources

20. Technology Calculation: 1
Computer per 3
Students.
Distribution: 1
Computer per 4
Students & 1:1 Ratio
for Administrators,
Teachers, &
Secretaries

$250/Pupil
2.8 computers per
student (PLAS)
No computers for
teachers
1 Technology
Assistant

Little to no
computers for
administrators and
teachers
820 (+100) student
computers

$525,000 Annually for
Maintenance and
Replacement

168

Table D-3:
Continued

21. Instructional
Materials

Formative
Assessments

Library Materials

$120/Pupil

$25/Pupil

$20/Pupil
State-approved Core
Content Materials &
Intervention
Materials

Quarterly Formative
Assessments Using
CST Format
≈ 9 Hours Per
Teacher Developing
& Aligning
Benchmark Exams to
Standards
$252,000 Instructional
Materials

$52,000 Formative
Assessments

$42,000 Library Materials
22. Student
Activities
$200/Pupil After-school and
Lunchtime Sports
and Activities
(Coaching Stipend
for Teachers)

LA Conservatory
$420,000
23. Other

Lessons Learned

Before discussing the comparison of the EBM to Halley Middle School
resource usage patterns, it is imperative to first note that the school’s enrollment
varies extensively in contrast to the EBM. While the EBM is constructed around a
student population of 450 students, it is important to note that Halley has an
enrollment approximately 5 times larger than model. In addition, the EBM is built
with an expectation that the typical school would have approximately 36.3% of its
populations qualify for FRL programs and 10.6% that would be labeled as ELL. Due
to the schools locations its student demographics includes 100% of its students
qualifying for FRL and 40% being labeled as ELL. Demanding greater attention for

169

Appendix D Continued
high-need students, it is expected that there would be differences between the EBM’s
and Halley’s resource use due to the school’s sheer size.
Through comparing the recommendations of the EBM to the schools resource
usage exposes both possible consideration researchers must recognize and likely areas
yet to be addressed by the school’s instructional improvement strategies. Said another
way, examining these differences provides insight to what schools with large
populations of high-need students are doing to improve student achievement. In the
table 7.7, multiplying the EBM ideal model by a factor of 4.6 (since the populations is
4.6 times larger) it is possible to project an expected amount of FTE’s based on the
suggestions of the research supporting the EBM. Through doing so it appears that the
school is lacking in several areas. Understanding the disparages between the school
instructional strategy choices and the anticipated resource patterns of the EBM,
exposes possible alternative means of better addressing students’ learning deficits.
Following the suggestion of the EBM research, there are 10 factors suggested
by the Allen Odden and Lawrence Picus, shown to double student achievement
(2007). Using these factors we can further analyze how the differences or similarities
between the EBM and Halley’s resource usage patterns support efforts in increasing
student test scores. These ten characteristics shared by schools who are able to double
student achievement according to the EBM are:
1. Conduct needs Assessment.
2. Set High Goals.

170
3. Adopt New Curriculum.
4. Commit to data-based decision making.
5. Invest in on-going professional development.
6. Focus class time more efficiently.
7. Provide multiple interventions for struggling students.
8. Create professional learning communities.
9. Empower leaders to support instructional improvement.
10. Take advantage of external expertise.
While comparing the school’s staffing choices and current pedagogical strategies to
the characteristics of the EBM’s successful schools, objectives for needed changes
become more apparent. In doing so, this case study aims to conclude with suggestions
for next steps to ensure the school continues to improve its ability to raise student
achievement.

Conduct Needs Assessments

According to the principal, the school uses testing data primarily in a
formative manner to uncover student deficits. To accomplish this the school uses a
combination of quarterly assessments and CST scores to identify students who need
intervention. In this fashion the school can distinguish specific content standards that
students are failing to master and possible topics that warrant greater attention in the
classrooms. Thereby, this data should ultimately influence future pacing plans and
instructional strategies for not only teaching but also for intervention.

171
Appendix D Continued
While these steps are extremely helpful in assisting the school in being able to
recognize which students need help, there was no mention of assessing how
successful students are once they leave Halley, how effective are curriculums or texts,
or to what degree of fidelity are teachers grades correlating with CST scores. With
this lack of introspective, how can a school decide whether pedagogical practices are
preparing students for high school, for college, or for productive citizenry? Without
these types of assessment, how can we decide whether instructional programs are
fully adopted in the classroom or simply ineffective at reaching high need students.
So it is imperative that the first priority for improving student achievement will be
assessing current instructional strategies and staffing choices to determine possible
needs to be addressed.

Set High Goals

Recognizing that the school is making progress, it is far more important to
note that the school is still in 1 status according to the state ranking. With this fact in
mind, it is imperative that the school, set goals and objectives for improvement above
the expectations of the state and district. This is integral in light of the fact that the
school is not only trying to raise student achievement to reach AYP targets, but also
attempting to close race and class achievement gaps. This notion is supported by the
PLAS organizational goal of raising the students who score advance and proficient by
5% in mathematics and language arts. This objective raises the goals of the school by

172
Appendix D Continued
shifting attention from traditional focuses on student deficits to increasing excellence
in student achievement.
While this characteristics of successful schools is echoed in the planned future
objectives for the school, its is important to note that current resource levels for
Gifted Students, core teacher FTE’s, and certified tutors fail to mimic this sentiment.
In other words, to ensure that the school is capable of actually realizing the high goals
it appears to be setting, it will need to adjust resources in the areas of gifted students,
core teachers, and certified tutors to support increasing the percentage of students
scoring proficient and advance on future CST tests.

Adopt New Curriculum

While California has high standards which curriculum are built around,
schools must recognize that while only depending on district pacing plans the school
has yet to improve student tests scores by any significant amounts. Adding to this
fact, as explained by the principal, if teachers fail to adhere to currently adopted
curriculum with fidelity, how can we determine the effectiveness of such pedagogical
practices. In essence, to improve student testing scores, it is critical that Halley’s
teaching staff come to agreement to teaching standards, and classroom instructional
practices to be adopted by all staff members.

173
Appendix D Continued
In comparison to the EBM, Halley resource usage patterns suggest that the
lack of professional development time in the beginning of the year may account for
the school’s undefined curriculum criterion, and pedagogical expectations.
Corresponding with the principal’s intention for increasing summer planning
sessions, the EBM would expect that the school allow for a 10 day professional
development session, to identify curriculum goals and develop agreed standards for
expected instruction.

Committee to Data-driven Decision Making

As mentioned above, it is clear that the school is using student data to drive
instructional decisions, but it is unclear to the extent that staffing decisions are
supported by current research or school data. It appears program coordinators are
hired to address the staff’s need for site-based management in organizing and
effectively implementing programs to assist high need students. With these two
factors in mind, the school must continually use both student and research data to
determine if the expenditures of additional coordinators or aids are having significant
effects on student achievement.
As pointed out by the EBM, research would suggest to better address needs of
struggling students, shifting coordinators (Bilingual, QEIA, Title 1, AVID, and
Magnet) roll to allow for instructional coaching, or classroom observations would
Appendix D Continued

174
Appendix D Continued
increase their value and contribute to increasing teacher effectiveness. It is critical,
that as additional funds and resources come into the school, that all positions are
evaluated to prioritize their effectiveness and utility. Thereby, satisfying the lack of
instructional coaches, identified in line 3 of table 7.7.

Invest in On-going Professional Development

The next characteristic of schools able to double student achievement is
schools’ commitment to on-going professional development. Currently the principal
explains that the schools uses the Pearsons’ Learning Teams model to facilitate
school professional development. As explained by their website, this Learning Team
Model consist of five effectiveness research supported elements,:
1. Set goals that are shared by all stakeholders;
2. Define indicators that measure success;
3. Provide assistance from capable facilitator and instructional coaches;
4. Ensure leadership supports goals of professional development;
5. Create settings that allow staff to get important things done.
While these steps are supported by research of the EBM the principal admits
that due to the fact that the majority of teachers are not familiar with current
curriculum standards limits teams ability to be effective.
Examining the comparison between Halley’s resource usage and the EBM it
appears that not having enough instructional coaches, could possibly explain this lack

175
Appendix D Continued
curriculum knowledge. As explained by the principal, instructional coaches are
currently used to facilitate the implementation of intervention instruction, and
addressing pedagogical practices. In the aims of rectifying this lack of curriculum
knowledge again could be addressed in summer intensive professional development
and through the assistance of additional instructional coaching by coordinators.

Focus class time more efficiently

While the school follows a traditional schedule, reducing student to teacher
ratios would allow instructors the freedom to give greater attention to students.
According to EBM, increasing the number of core teachers would give the school the
capability of decreasing classroom ratios and allow for more efficient use of class
time. This solution to increasing student achievement is also supported by the
expectations of the QEIA grant. As mentioned above, increasing the number of
certified teachers is expected to reduce class size, in the aims of increasing the class
time efficiency.

Provide multiple interventions for struggling students

Currently the school offers several intervention programs for
struggling students in the forms of Saturday school, Basic Reading courses, and

176
Appendix D Continued

summer school. While these interventions are used to address students testing at Far
Below-Basic (FBB), and Below Basic (BB) levels, these interventions seem to lack
coordination with core curriculums. In other words these interventions appear to be
remedial in nature, and don’t provide students with necessary knowledge to
productively function in standard classrooms. In comparison to the suggestion of the
EBM these intervention programs during the school year falls short of the expected
50% while only serving 550 students or 25% of the high need population.
To rectify this shortcoming, the EBM advises that the school hires certified
tutors, and begin to ensure interventions are structured around better supporting
student success and ability to acquire an understanding of all content taught. The
focus and emphasis of interventions must consist of improving students ability to not
only increase their testing score but to also be successful in their current classrooms.

Create professional learning communities

In the attempts to create professional learning communities, the school has
organized its instructional staff in small learning cohorts, but without a centralizing
themes or mission. While this structure organizes teachers around groups of shared
students, if there is no identifying common barriers or successes with specific
students the small learning communities benefits disappear.

177
Appendix D Continued

Empower leaders to support instructional improvement

Consistent with the EBM proposed prototypical school, PLAS’s objectives, and
aim of the SSC, the school has refocused site-based leadership on instructional
improvement. In doing so, the school has committed to continually evaluating
instruction by increasing the amount of time spent observing classroom instruction. In
the efforts to increase student achievement, the principal includes that currently
assistant principals have been reorganized around monitoring teacher teaching in
areas of the assistant principals’ content knowledge. In other words, the PLAS and
SSC supports school leaders increasing the amount of time spent supporting
classroom teaching.

Take advantage of external expertise

Currently the school’s resource usage pattern follows the expectations
of utilizing external expertise, through utilizing the Pearson Education company’s
professional development support, and PLAS organizational assistance. As previously
mentioned, while the school still has room for improving its professional
development efforts, its employing of the Pearson models for continually examining
and reexamining instruction through learning teams is a step in the correct direction.

178
Appendix D Continued
With a data supported track record for improving instruction, the choice to use such
strategies follows the anticipated steps of the EBM prototypical school.
In addition to improving professional development, Halley also depends on
PLAS ability to lobby for additional resources and gain greater support for its student
services. Comprised of tenured instructional leaders, and politically connected city
government administrators, the PLAS organization provides additional support for
instruction and political capital in appealing for assistance from the city in improving
student achievement. In doing so, the school and surrounding community is
beginning to recognize higher degrees of efficacy from both school and community
stakeholders.

Conclusion
Examining Halley’s improvement efforts and resource usage patterns over the
past 10 years exposes that the school has continued to show progress, no matter how
modest. Comparing its current progress and resource usage patterns to that of the
EBM, illustrates areas for further consideration or prioritization for instructional
improvement strategies. Faced with the tumultuous task of providing meaningful and
effective instruction for such a challenging population, it is evident from continual
increases in student achievement that the school’s staff and surrounding community
has reason to celebrate its accomplishments. At the same time, it is more apparent that
the school’s status of being categorized with the lowest deciles of schools in the state,
that uncovers the fact that without purposeful prioritizing and usage of resources in

179
Appendix D Continued

new methods the school is doomed for minimal additional progress at best. Contrary
to this fact, examining the objectives and focus of planned instructional improvement
strategies, it appears that the direction the school aims to move is verily supported by
current research on improving student achievement.

Appendix E

Ludington Middle School Case Study

Introduction
In telling the story of Ludington Middle School this case study will
examine population demographics, student assessment data, and instructional
intervention strategies for improving student achievement. By first examining the
school and district’s populations, this case study will begin to expose possible barriers
to increasing the likelihood of preparing students for future success. Second, through
examining student assessment scores for the past ten years, this case study aims to
decipher possible patterns relating resources usage and student achievement. Third,
this case study will compare recommendations of current research to instructional
strategies implemented in accordance with state and federal programs in the aims of
increasing student achievement. Through examining these factors, this study will then
compare the school’s resource use patterns to that of an Evidence Based model
(EBM), in the attempts of exposing possible strategies for raising student
achievement (Odden & Picus, 2007). Using the EBM research of Allen Odden and
Lawrence Picus (2008) this case study will conclude by identifying characteristics
that Ludington shares with schools identified for being able to double student
achievement. In doing so, these comparisons will provide evidence to support their
current efforts and possible additional steps to further those attempts to raise student
achievement.

181

Appendix E Continued

School Demographic and Background

Similar to schools in this section of Southeast Los Angeles County, the
Ludington serves a large number of high-needs and underprivileged students.
Currently the school bolsters an enrollment of 1,575 students. Inside this population
550 or 35% of these students are English Language Learners (ELL) and
approximately 180 or 12% of the students are special education students. While these
would be significantly larger than the EBM prototypical schools, in comparison to
neighboring schools in the district, these numbers are normal. With these similarities
it is expected that surrounding schools not only share the same demographics and
barriers to improving student achievement.
Unique to the schools in the district, Ludington has recently suffered
challenges caused by the lack of trust from the school’s staff, and the community
when the former principal was accused and released for inappropriate contact with
students. Confronting this situation and gaining the confidence and respect of the
school’s stakeholders was the first barrier faced by the incoming administration.
Adding to the challenges of working with such an overwhelming number of high-
need students, improving the school’s achievement becomes even more challenging.
In the attempts of increasing student success, overcoming these barriers have become
central to current school improvement plans. Shaped by the Quality Education

182

Appendix E Continued

Investment Act (QEIA) and Partnership for Los Angeles Schools (PLAS) programs,
the new principal has brought new strategies to increase student achievement. Before
examining how effective these programs are in utilizing resources in this effort, it is
important to first examine the school’s test data to evaluate how successful past
improvement strategies have aided the school’s progress.

Student Test Data

Following the mandates of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and California’s
Public School Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999, Ludington measures student
achievement through the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) system. This
STAR system holds students, teachers and the school accountable for attaining grade
specific learning objectives by comparing the school’s progress to other schools
throughout the state. These comparative measurements are assigned based on the
schools Academic Performance Index (API) scores, which designates the school’s
effectiveness in increasing student achievement levels.
Ludington’s API is based on students scores on the California’s
Standardized Test (CST), which were established through the PSAA. This CST
assessment program evaluates the degree to which students at the school are able to

183

Appendix E Continued
master given standards in core classes for mathematics, language arts, social science,
and science.
To generate the Ludington’s API score the school receives or looses points
based on its ability to raise the testing averages for the school as well as subgroups
serviced by the school. With these measurements the Ludington is able to assess how
effectively it addresses the needs of the school as a whole, and for the school’s
statistically significant demographics (i.e. African American males, or Latino
Females).

Figure E-1 Ludington MS Academic Performance Index change from 1999 to 2007

184
Appendix E Continued
Based on a school’s CST assessment data it is then assigned an API score
which ranger from 200 to 1000. Currently the state has set an API score of 800 as the
target to which all schools should aspire to achieve. With this target, schools such as
Ludington, tailor their instructional intervention programs in the aims of pushing
every statistically significant subgroup’s scores up to targeted level. Examining
Ludington’s longitudinal API scores, exposes the fact that while the school is still far
from realizing its goal of reaching 800, but the school has continually made progress
in closing achievement gaps. Examining this progress in table 4.1, it is clear that the
school has made significant progress since the first year of CST testing in 1999 (CDE
2009). According to the California Department of Education’s table and current data,
with the exception of the dips in 2006 and 2007 the school has continually been
making progress for the last ten years. Comparing the schools API score in 1999 of
385 to its current 2008 score of 541 it is evident that the school has made gains of 156
points or a 40% increase in student achievement.
Compared to the average progress of both schools in the state and the
surrounding school district in graph 4.1, its even clearer that the school’s progress is
bridging the achievement gap (CDE, 2009). This data points to the fact that there is
clear evidence that the school’s improvement strategies have raised student
achievement with greater acceleration than that of other schools in the state and
district. With the exception of the span of 2006-2008, it appears that changes in
instructional strategies have clearly improved student achievement. As noted in the
graph below while the state has gone up

185
Appendix E Continued
Figure E-2 Ludington API Growth

101 points from 1999 to 2007, Ludington has been able to increase student
achievement 134 points in the same time span. With the additional increase for the
2008 school year, the school has reason for celebrating its progress, averaging
approximately 16 point increase each year. While this increase is significant in
comparison to the state and district averages, there still is a gap of almost 200 points
between the school’s API and the average API score of all school in the state. This
fact points to the reality that the school’s intervention programs have moved the
school’s achievement levels in a positive direction but have yet to assist it in reaching
targeted goals. Due to this fact, it is imperative that further research into what

186
Appendix E Continued

possible changes can be made to improve the use of school resources to further
increase student achievement.
Examining the details of student testing scores from 2003 to 2007, there is
conflicting evidence that while the school’s overall API scores are increasing, it
appears overall percentages for student scoring at advance or proficient levels on the
CST are staying relatively stagnant. In graphs 4.2 and 4.3 the student’s distribution of
scores are aggregated by the levels of Far Below Basic, Below Basic, Basic,
Proficient, and Advanced. Examining both the English Language arts and
mathematics CST scores by grade, it appears that while overall API scores have
increased from 464 to 519 during this four year span, there has been little to no
increase in the percentage of students scoring proficient or above in either subject.
More troubling, it is appears that in the last three years of this time frame, the
percentages are decreasing. Meaning instructional strategies have been unsuccessful
in promoting student progress as they matriculate.

187

Appendix E Continued

Figure E-3 English Language Arts CST Performance

Figure E-4 CST Mathematics Performance

188
Appendix E Continued
While in his first year the principal was unable to provide detailed information into
why the school’s previous pedagogical strategies were unsuccessful in raising student
achievement, it appears that changes in courses offered may have effected
expectation. As noted by the absence of the scores for general mathematics in 2004
and 2005 school years, it must be noted that during this period of time the district
mandated that all 8
th
graders be enrolled in Algebra. It appears that while this decision
was reversed in 2006, the elimination of this mandate seems to have retroactively
lowered student scores. In essence, it seems as if lowering the expectations for
teachers to instruct and/or students to master algebraic standards, coincides with
lower student achievement. While this does not prove a correlation exists between
lowering student expectation and lower test scores, it provides support for the notion
of the inverse of having greater expectation directly associating with higher
achievement.
With such low tests scores, the school has continued to be ranked as a school
in the lowest 10% of all schools in the state. Ranked in the lowest decile of schools in
the state through the STAR program, the school has been categorized as a 1 school.
Holding this ranking since 1999, the Ludington has additionally been labeled a
Program Improvement (PI) school. Falling into these categories, the school is
provided with additional resources, services and monitoring from the district and state
to ensure its efforts to improve student achievement are successful. Through these
programs the school has configured its current instructional strategies to conform to
state and federal intervention protocols. Comparing the features of the school’s

189
Appendix E Continued

intervention program to the research-based suggestions of EBM, provides additional
approaches for furthering the Ludington’s endeavors to increase student success.
Before making such comparisons, this case study explores the objectives and
direction state and federal programs such as Title 1, QEIA, and PLAS are providing
for the school. Studying the expectations for these programs lends to providing and
understanding of why Ludington has taken certain steps to improve their students’
success.

190
Appendix E Continued

Instructional Improvement Strategies

Similar to other schools with historical low levels of achievement, large
numbers of high need students, and in PI status, Ludington’s efforts are currently
being monitored and fashioned by federal, state, and district programs. Through
exploring these intervention programs, this case study provides a structure for
understanding the school’s motivation for implementing additional pedagogical
improvement strategies. Comparing these strategies to that of schools able to show
evidence of doubling student achievement in the EBM, lends to this case study’s
ability to judge the efficiency to which the school is utilizing its resources.
First, the Title 1 program has provided the school with additional resources to
assist in increasing the achievement levels of ELL, high-poverty, special education,
Native American, neglected, delinquent or migratory students. With such a significant
population of high-need students, the majority if not all students fall into one or more
of the categories serviced by the Title 1 program. In this case the school is given the
authority to use categorical resources from the program in any of the areas of
addressing, literacy initiatives, Advance Placement classes, dropout prevention, and
comprehensive reform efforts. Utilizing these resources from the Title 1 program,
Ludington is mandated to both evaluate possible barriers impeding student success

191
Appendix E Continued
and identify methods of increasing student achievement through using these
investments.
Through the Title 1 program, the school’s improvement strategies would have
been consistent with the cyclical process illustrated in diagram 4.1. This illustration
identifies this procedure begins by first evaluating effectiveness of current programs.
After which, strategies are altered to increase the schools ability to accomplish given
goals, in anticipation of progressing in such a fashion to allow the school to set and
attain new goals. Finally the cycle is completed by continually assessing and refining
strategies and objectives for the school
Figure E-5 Model of cyclical improvement

In addition to Title 1 program funds, the school also receives resource from
California’s QEIA program. Similar to California’s Immediate Intervention/
Underperforming Program (II/USP) and the High Priority School Grant

Reaffirm or
Revise
School Goals
Revise
Improvement
Strategies and
Expenditures
Monitor
Implementation
Measure
Effectiveness
of
Improvement
Strategies
Approve and
Recommend
SPSA to Local
Governing
Board
Seek
Advisory
Committee
s Input
Reach
Desired
Outcomes

192

Appendix E Continued

Program(HPSGP), the QEIA grant funds are provided to ensure schools unable to
reach targeted Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) targets are given assistance in reaching
such goals. While the previous programs, II/USP and HPSGP, aimed to refining the
efforts of Title 1 by creating comprehensive strategies for improving the school. To
facilitate these reform efforts, through the II/USP and HPSGP the school would have
first reorganized its site-based management by shifting instructional decision-making
authority to what is known as a School Site Council (SSC). The main function of this
SSC would have been creating and implementing a Single Plan for Student
Achievement (SPSA). In accordance to the CDE’s Handbook for School Site
Councils (2006), the SPSA has eight functions:
• School districts must assure that school site councils have developed and
approved a plan, to be known as the Single Plan for Student Achievement
for schools participating in programs funded through the consolidated
application process, and any other school program they choose to include.
• School plans must be developed with the review, certification, and advice
of any applicable school advisory committees.
• Any plans required by programs funded through the Consolidated
Application, the School and Library Improvement Block Grant, the Pupil

193
Retention Block Grant, and NCLB Program Improvement must be
consolidated into a single plan.
• The content of the plan must be aligned with school goals for improving
student achievement.
• School goals must be based upon an analysis of verifiable state data,
including the Academic Performance Index, the English Language
Development test, and may include any data voluntarily developed by
districts to measure student achievement.
• The plan must address how Consolidated Application funds will be used to
improve the academic performance of all students to the level of the
performance goals, as established by the Academic Performance Index.
• The plan must be reviewed annually and updated, including proposed
expenditures of funds allocated to the school through the Consolidated
Application, by the school site council.
• Plans must be reviewed and approved by the governing board of the local
educational agency "whenever there are material changes that affect the
academic programs for students covered by programs" funded through the
Consolidated Application.

In this fashion the II/USP, HPSGP, and QEIA grant program all similarly focus on
providing additional educational investments to allow for the creation of research-
based interventions to improve student achievement. In doing so, each of the

194
Appendix E Continued

programs allow school-site stakeholders to determine appropriate learning objectives
and strategies for meeting AYP and API targets.
Diverging slightly from the prior II/USP and HPSGP implementation, the QEIA
grant program begins with a more specific longitudinal objectives and funding
processes. More specifically he QEIA grant program uses date sensitive goals to
further increasing school reform efforts. Recognizing similar barriers for low
performing schools, the QEIA program is built to adjust school funds to increase the
number qualified educators. Through increasing the quantity of certified school
professionals, it is expected that schools will be able to give greater attention to
supporting the needs of low-achieving students. To accomplish these objectives the
QEIA program focuses on:
• Reducing student-to-teacher ratios to 25:1, or to 5 less than 2005-2006 levels
• Bringing student-to-counselor ratio no more than 300 to 1
• Staffing the school with fully qualified teachers in accordance with NCLB
• Assuring that the average experience of classroom teachers in the school is
equal to or exceeds the district average
• And finally that the school meets or exceeds its API growth target averaged
over the first three full years of funding.
To accomplish these goals, the school receives approximately $700 dollars per
pupil, or $1.125 million to be used to staff the school and purchase equipment and

195
Appendix E Continued
supplies. Again differing from the II/USP and HPSGP, the QEIA program allows
schools greater autonomy in deciding what programs, and staff positions to fund with
these resources. It appears empowering stakeholders with the greatest understanding
of what tools are necessary to overcome the barriers for high-need students.
Furthering these efforts, the school has additionally enlisted the assistance the
support of the Partnership for Los Angels Schools (PLAS). The PLAS is a city
government entity created and managed by the Mayor’s office in the efforts to
recognize and assist the city’s lowest performing schools. As explained in their
Executive Summary (2007), the PLAS aims to improve Ludington’s reform efforts
through supporting the school in reaching four specific and measurable outcomes:
• Increase API scores by 30 points or by approximately 5%.
• The school will raise the percentage of students scoring “proficient” and
“advance” levels on CST scores in English/Language Arts by 5% over 2007-
2008 scores.
• The school will raise the percentage of students scoring “proficient and
“advance” levels on CST scores in Mathematics by 5% over 2007-2008
scores.
• Lastly, the PLAS will work to assist the school in showing increases in
stakeholders’ efficacy through annual surveys for parents, teachers, and other
school staff.
To accomplish these goals, the PLAS has set out a clear plan of action to

196
Appendix E Continued
ensure its collaborative efforts with the school produce targeted results. Described in
their Executive Summary (2007), the PLAS plans to enact a strategy of:
1.) Improving leadership development for principals and assistant
principals for all schools
2.) Accelerate student performance through implementing strategic
plans for developing instructional coaching, targeted interventions,
and building a culture of data-driven instructional decision making
3.) Creating positive learning environments with emphasis on
promoting the idea of going to college as an expected norm for all
students.
4.) Increasing family and community involvement through increasing
parent participation and volunteerism by establishing parent
centers and clearer communication with the surrounding
community.
5.) Finally, by streamlining and improving school operations through
working to redesign the district’s ability to support schools with
high needs.
With these goals and strategies in place the PLAS program aims to provide
the school with a structure for further supporting and refining instructional
interventions and reforms. In conjunction with PLAS’s assistance inleadership
development, and facilitating greater support for teacher, parents, and
students, Ludington is currently

197
Appendix E Continued
using Title 1 and QEIA funds to implement several instructional intervention
programs. These instructional intervention strategies are described in Table 8.4.
Table E-1 Instructional Intervention
Intervention Program Description
1. Evaluate curriculum alignment to state standards and
student assessments
• Student grades are compared to Student CST
scores to evaluate how well are teacher
expectations aligned with that of state standards
• Curriculums and grading standards are rewritten to
exceed state standards to ensure CST scores more
accurately represent students’ mastery of content
standards
2. School Mission and Vision are rewritten • The new vision was rewritten to inspire students to
increase their achievement levels through
increasing teacher expectation and support.
3. Formative test data used to drive curriculum • Recognizing that 48% of students score FBB or
BB, intervention programs will be utilized for all
students to support students falling behind and
enrich instructions for successful students
• Test data is used to organize differentiated
instruction for students
4. Professional Development focused on supporting
high need students
• Creating processes for ensuring all students are in
class throughout the day
• Changing classroom environment to increase on
task instruction
• And how curriculum content can be built around
ensuring that students are inspired to picture
themselves being successful beyond high school
5. School Day Intervention, Summer School &
Saturday School
• Intervention curriculums are built to strategically
follow traditional classroom instruction
• Curriculums are broken up into smaller chunks so
students can be tested and show evidence of
mastering given standards
• With formative test data, teachers are able to re-
teach standards to address topics students struggle
with
• Intervention programs are taught by the school’s
strongest teachers to ensure students.
• Intervention classes have reduced class sizes of
20:1 to ensure greater attention to students needs
• Currently planning for all students to participate in
summer school for either intervention or
enrichment
6. Increased parental involvement • Through greater communication and
encouragement from the school administration and
staff, consistent parent participation has increased
from 4-5 parents to 40-50 parents working on
campus or around school daily
• Additionally greater trust has been expressed from
parents due to increased support given to parents
from the school and administration

198
Appendix E Continued
While these measures are expected to provide evidence of directly causing
increases in student academic achievement levels, this case study will now compare
the resource usage patterns to that of the EBM. Through this comparison, this case
study aims to provide additional evidence that these current steps are supported by
evidence-based recommendations of current research in improving student success.
Finally, through comparing the schools current intervention programs to that of the
characteristics of schools able to double student achievement, this case study will
provide supplementary means of using resources to further support school progress.
Before examining the differences between Ludington and the EBM it is imperative
to note that the school’s populations is 3.5 times larger than the prototypical school
from the model. With such a large student enrollment it is expected that the school’s
resource usage patterns will differ from the model. To compensate for these
differences, the prototypical totals for each category are multiplied by a factor of 3.5
to compensate for the differences in populations. Comparing the data after calculating
adjustments for the EBM’s to that of the actual numbers from the school, it is clear
that there are still significant differences between the suggestions of the model to
patterns of resources usage. To denote these differences the actual resources amounts
are subtracted from the EBM expected values for a school with 1,575 students. All of
these differences are denoted in table 8.5 below with positive and negative values to
denote Ludington resource usage patterns exceeding or failing to meet the
expectations of the EBM.

199
Appendix E Continued
Table E-2 Ludington’s Evidence Based Model Comparison
School Element Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
Ludington MS–
Current Resource
Status
Ludington MS – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions

School
Characteristics

Configuration Grades 6-8 Grades 6-8 Same
School Size 450 1575
(with 150 magnet)
3.5x Larger than EBM

Core Class Size 25 37 1.6x Larger than EBM

Free & Reduced
Price Lunch Count
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)

1575 This is 2.8X larger than
EBM, which is built on an
expected 36% of school’s
population or only 567
students.
Number of ELL
Students
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)

840 This is 3.7 x larger than the
EBM which is built on
prototypical 10.6% (223
students) of the schools
population
Personnel
Resources

(measured as FTEs)

1. Core Teachers 18 42 63 (-21)

2. Specialist/
Elective
Teachers
20% of Core
Teachers
20
(including 5
coordinators/3
coaches)

12(+8)

Total Teachers

21.6 63 75(-12)

3. Instructional
Coaches

1 per 200 Students 3 8 (-5)

4. Tutors 1 per 100 At Risk
Students (Free &
Reduced Price
Lunch)
0 certified
But there is a
significant number of
tutors provided
through Community
Based Organizations,
Boys & Girls Club,
and Pat Brown
Program
15(-15)

5. Teachers for ELL
Students
1 per 100 ELL
Students
7 8.4(-1.4)

200

Table E3:
Continued

6. Extended Day 1 per 15 Eligible
Students (Staffing
based on 50% of Free
& Reduced Price
Lunch Students)
25-29
(with 400 students
and 180 in after
school programs in
classes 20:1
52(-23)
(785 students)
7. Summer School 1 per 15 Students
(Staffing based on
50% of Free and
Reduced Price Lunch
Students)

30-35
(with the desire to
enroll the entire
school in summer
school for
intervention or
enrichment
52(-17)
(785 students)
8. Alternative
Schools
NA

Magnet Program
170 students
5 teachers 1coor.
NA
9a. Learning- and
Mildly Disabled
Students
3 Teachers per 450
Students

4 Teachers
6 Aide

As needed
9b. Severely
Disabled
Students
100% State
Reimbursement for
Top 1% Minus
Federal Funds
5 Teachers
5Aides

As needed
10. Services for
Gifted Students
$25 per Student $30,000 $39,375(-9,375)
11. Career/ Technical
Education
.3 Weight per CTE
Student to Maintain
Low Class Sizes
$7000 per CTE
Teacher Contract
1 NA
12. Substitutes 10 Days per Teacher
@ $100 per Day
Daily Rate = $240

10 Days per Teacher @ $100
per Day
13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 Guidance
Counselor per 250
Students plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position per 100 Free
& Reduced Price
Lunch Students
6 Counselors plus
Pupil Support Staff:
1Parent advocate,
1 At-Risk Advocate,
1 Psychologist,
1 Occ. Therapist,
1 Physical Therapist,
1 Speech Therapist,
1 Nurse, &
1 Health Asst.
1 Registrar of
records
2 Non teaching aids
10(-4) Counselors plus
15(-5) Pupil Support Staff
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
2 per 400-500
Students

6 Security 3(+3)
15 Instructional
Aides
0

18
(ELD, EL, Title 1 &
SpEd)
0(18)

201

Table E3:
Continued

16. Librarians/
Media Specialists
1 1 1.5(-0.5)
17. Administrator 1 Principal plus .5
Assistant Principal
1 Principal plus
5 Assistant Principals
5 Coordinators
Title 1, Bilingual,
AVID, Magnet and
Special Education
1 Principal plus
2 (+3) Assistant Principal
0(+5)
18. Secretary 2 School Site
Secretaries
1 Secretary
7 clerical staff
7(+1)
Non-Personnel
Resources

19. Professional
Development
10 Days Intensive
Professional
Development in
Summer Included in
Teacher Contract

Instructional Coaches
(included in
personnel resources)

Planning & Prep time
2 day intensive buy-
back days for
planning over the
summer
Early dismissal
Tuesdays for
planning and Staff
meetings

Partnership provides
leadership
development for
administrative staff
Provide 10 Days Intensive
Professional Development
Annually

Teaching staff should
continually be allowed to
compare differing methods of
addressing similar students’
needs in different ways at
conferences and other sites

Add Instructional Coaches

Dollar/Pupil
Resources

20. Technology Calculation: 1
Computer per 3
Students.
Distribution: 1
Computer per 4
Students & 1:1 Ratio
for Administrators,
Teachers, &
Secretaries
$250/Pupil
3.2 computers per
student (PLAS)

Little to no
computers for
administrators and
teachers
820 (+100) student
computers

$525,000 Annually for
Maintenance and
Replacement
21. Instructional
Materials

Formative
Assessments

Library Materials

$120/Pupil

$25/Pupil

$20/Pupil
State-approved Core
Content Materials &
Intervention Ma
Quarterly Formative
Assessments Using
CST Format
≈ 9 Hours Per
Teacher Developing
& Aligning
Benchmark Exams to
Standards
$189,000 Instructional
Materials

$39,375 Formative
Assessments

$31,500 Library Materials

202

Table E3 Continued

22. Student
Activities
$200/Pupil After-school and
Lunchtime Sports
and Activities
(Coaching Stipend
for Teachers)

LA Bridges
$315,000
23. Other

Examining the differences denoted by the table above, there are categories
that Ludington exceeds and falls short of fulfilling in accordance to the model. While
the most important key measurements concerning teacher-to-student ratios and
professional development staff are significantly lower, it is key to note that the school
appears to use its most successful teachers as coordinators and coaches. In other
words the use of teaching staff in dual rolls as instructional coaches and coordinators
substantiate disparages between the school actual staffing patterns and the EBM
expectations.
Currently the school has enough teaching positions (63) to bring actual
teacher-to-student ratios down to 25:1 if coordinators and coaches taught a full load
of classes (i.e. 5 periods a day). In the EBM the teacher-to-student ratio is calculated
by examining the number of core teachers in relationship to the number of students
enrolled in the school. In doing so, this calculation attempts to compensate for the fact
that teachers actually teach five out of the six periods during the day, while electives
are used to provide instruction for students while core teachers conduct planning for
their classes. To balance these differences, and to reduce class size schools in this
district use Physical Education (PE) courses to reduce the numbers of students in core
classes, by increasing their teacher to student ratios to closer to 60:1. In essence while

203
Appendix E Continued

it is not defined in the table 4.3 above, the 6 PE teachers actually could be counted as
12 teachers, due to the fact that their ability to significantly reduce core classroom
teacher-to-student ratios. This factor explains why there is such a large disperagy
between the actual teacher-to-student ratio (approximately 28:1) and the one
calculated in the EBM (40:1).
The table also points out significant differences in the areas of professional
development and the expected number of instructional coaching in the school. For the
first concern of professional development, it is imperative to note that while the
school has not followed the specific suggestion of the EBM in conducting 10 day
intensive professional development and summer planning, the school has used its
weekly professional development time to successfully evaluate and rewrite
curriculums to mirror the school’s vision of increasing expectations and alignment of
content standards and student achievement. In other words, this time has been used to
reconfigure the school’s pacing plans and classroom evaluation measure to ensure
that students both receive instruction in accordance with state standards and their
classroom grades directly reflect their mastery of given material. While the EBM’s
suggestion of a summer professional development did not occur due to the fact that
the principal was hired shortly before the school year began, it is worth noting that the
work he and his leadership staff have organized has set the stage for intensive
improvement in classroom instruction an student achievement.

204
Appendix E Continued

Recognizing additional differences in teacher coaching (line 3), it is important
to note that while the EBM calls for eight instructional coaches, the school currently
employs 3 coaches and 5 program coordinators. Currently coaches are used to
provide pedagogical strategies and support for classroom instruction, while
coordinators hold the position of facilitating services for specific categorical funds
and student services. More specifically Ludington’s coordinators support teachers in a
more indirect fashion by ensuring that the school follows the state and federal
mandates and regulations for Special Education, ELL, Title 1, AVID and Magnet
programs. In this manner coordinators assist with improving classroom instruction
indirectly through ensuring students receive proper services in accordance to the laws
mandated for student subgroups.
Lessons Learned
While these factors explain a number of the differences between the EBM and
Ludington’s actual resource usage patterns, suggestions for future plans can be
garnished by examining the characteristics noted to double student achievement
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Through evidence-based research efforts of Allen Odden and
Lawrence Picus, schools able to significantly improve student success rates have
appeared to share 10 similarities. Comparing these 10 characteristics to the current
instructional intervention efforts at Ludington provides both research- based support
for continuing current efforts and possible suggestions for further enhancing student
achievement.

205
Table E-3 Characteristics for doubling student achievement

Characteristic of Improvement Suggestions for Ludington
1.) Conduct Needs Assessment • School has continued to examine needs and
alignment for curriculum standards, expectations
and student outcomes.
• EBM would suggest that these steps are
continually repeated and reevaluated.
2.) Set High Goals • Ludington has currently raised its expectations for
student achievement, teaching norms, and parent
involvement.
• EBM shows evidence that continuing to take such
steps will provide significant increases in student
success

3.) Adopt New Curriculum • The school has committed to rewriting
curriculums to better address the expectations and
learning styles of high-need students
4.) Commit to data-driven decision making • The school continually uses formative data, and
classroom assessments to determine intervention
strategies and plans for enrichment programs
5.) Invest in ongoing professional development • While details were not provided for the planning
of future PD, the EBM would suggest that the
school continue its current efforts by instituting a
summer intensive training, supporting teachers
going to conferences, and for a greater presence of
instructional leadership in classrooms observing
and critiquing instruction
6.) Focus Class time more efficiently • EBM suggest that current focus on classroom
management in weekly PD will assist in increasing
the amount of knowledge students retain during
class time, if greater amounts of time are spent on
task.
• EBM would also support the schools plans for
switching to block scheduling as long as all
instructional staff commits to utilizing additional
time to more rigorous instruction
7.) Provide multiple interventions for struggling
students
• EBM research would support the increase of
current efforts of using strongest teachers in
intervention programs, but also would suggest to
lowering the student-to-teacher ratio to 15:1
• Additionally the EBM suggest that it would be
more effective to higher certified teachers, to tutor
students instead of using instructional aids
providing supplemental classroom help
8.) Create professional learning communities • Current changes to school climate and overall trust
for school administration appears to be supporting
and improving the professionalism and notion of
group efficacy for the learning community
9.) Encourage and empower leaders to support
instructional improvement
• PLAS’s leadership development appears to mimic
the suggested support for site based leaders
necessary to improve instructional practices
10.) Take advantage of external expertise • Here the EBM would suggest that the school
doesn’t ignore the fact that teachers attending
conferences and external professional
developments must be empowered to and
encouraged to share information and strategies
with their peers, to garnish greater returns for
investments in instructional improvement

206
Appendix E Continued

Examining the characteristics that Ludington shares with schools proven to be
able to double student achievement, it appears that the school instructional
improvement strategies are aligned with the school realizing greater student
assessments. Comparing the school’s current strategies, it appears that a more
strategic use of student resources in the forms of supporting coordinators and teachers
assisting with instructional coaching, the school might see even more improvements
in pedagogical practices. The notion of using school coordinators as additional
instructional coaches is supported by both the EBM’s suggestions a school using
resources in accordance with the prototypical model. Pointed out in line 3 of table 8.5
the EBM suggest that the school with an enrollment as large as Ludington’s needs an
instructional coaching staff of eight specialists to effectively promote instructional
improvement strategies. Additionally, this concept of using coordinators to improve
classroom instruction is also supported by the ninth characteristic in table 8.6 of
empowering leadership to support instruction. While coordinators, such as special
education and ELL, typically support classroom instruction indirectly, through
ensuring student receive proper services within the school, their positions could
garnish greater returns in student achievement if their expertise and more tenured
experiences of best practices could be shared with the entire school community. In
this fashion, new teachers and those with less experience could benefit from gaining
greater understandings of how to best instruct and provide accommodations for
differentiating instructions for students.

207
Appendix E Continued
In the same vane of altering coordinators positions to provide additional
benefits for the school as a whole, the EBM would also suggest that teachers
attending conferences and external professional development be encouraged to share
gained knowledge with the school’s learning community. This is concept is supported
by both the differences illustrated in table 8.5 and table 8.4. As noted in line 19 of
table 8.5, and in the tenth characteristic of table 8.6, to improve instructional practices
teachers need to be provided opportunities to observe the implementation of
alternative pedagogical practices and strategies. To ensure that utilizing resources in
this fashion are used most efficiently, the school must also encourage and support the
teaching staff in taking leadership rolls of exposing the entire school community to
information learned. Through doing so, investing in the individual improvement of
specific teachers possibly provides dividends that can be received by the entire school
community.
Examining Ludington’s whole school instructional improvement efforts, it is
apparent that the school’s improvement strategies are aligned with that of the
suggestions of current research. More importantly, it appears that if efforts are
slightly refined the school would utilize resources more efficiently. With Ludington’s
modifications to its’ instructional intervention plans appear to be moving the school
in a direction of realizing greater student achievement and higher levels of student
success as graduates move into high school and participate in society. More
importantly, schools servicing similar populations should take note of the efforts

208
Appendix E Continued

occurring here, for methods of improving educational opportunities for all high-need
populations.

209

Appendix F

Ladera Elementary
Case Study

Introduction

Telling the story of Ladera Elementary School, this case study examines the
school and district’s enrollment, student testing data, and current intervention
strategies implemented to assist at-risk/high-needs students. Through describing the
school and district’s student demographics, this case study works to unearth specific
pedagogical practices used to address targeted student populations. Secondly, this
study explores Ladera’s longitudinal testing data from the last ten years to begin to
evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the school’s improvement efforts. After
which, this study will analyze the current and planned improvement efforts to identify
the school’s educational resource usage patterns. Through these steps this case study
will then compare the school’s resource usage patterns to that of the suggestions of
Allen Odden and Lawrence Picus’ Evidence Based Model (EBM) to determine the
efficiency in which the school uses resources to increase student achievement (2007).
After making this comparison this case study will conclude with suggestions for
possible next steps to further improve instructional intervention and curriculum
efforts based on the research of Odden and Picus (2007).

210
Appendix F Continued
School Demographic and Background
Serving students in pre-kindergarten classrooms through fifth grade, Ladera
Elementary School has an enrollment of 554 students. Located on the south central
section of Los Angeles, the entire school population is labeled as high-needs or low
socio-economic status. In addition to the barriers associated with these labels, 45% of
the students are English Language Learners (ELL) and 12% of the students are
labeled students with special needs. With this population the school is faced with the
awesome task dealing with barriers associated with high-needs students, which
includes low-achievement. These challenges stems from students having to contend
with the reality of being exposed to the distractions of violence in their community, of
substance abuse, of gang activity, and of families with unsuccessful school
experiences.
To contend with such issues, the school adopts both federal and state
programs to address the barriers of increasing student achievement. Examining these
programs and how they have shaped instructional improvement strategies for
improving the school I conducted a case study that uses student achievement data to
determine their effectiveness. In doing so, this case study will be able to both judge
its efficiency and also provide suggestions by comparing the schools instructional
strategies to those that exhibit evidence of being successful in increasing student
achievement. Before delving into the pedagogical strategies put in place as Ladera,
first I discuss the school’s testing data to gain an understanding of why and how
specific intervention efforts have been implemented at the school.

211
Appendix F Continued

Student Achievement Data
Similar to other schools in this district, Ladera Elementary utilizes the
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) system to hold students, teachers, and
the school accountable for attaining grade specific learning objectives. Originating
from California’s Public School Accountability Act (PSAA) in 1999, this testing
program measures and compares the school’s improvement efforts to that of schools
serving similar student populations. More specifically, these comparative
measurements are used to determine the school’s Academic Performance Index (API)
and Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) scores.
The school’s API score is based on second through fifth grade students’ scores
on the California Standardized Tests (CST). Through assessing students in English
language arts, mathematics, and science students are labeled: Advanced (A),
Proficient (P), Basic (B), below basic (BB), of Far Below Basic (FBB). As described
in the Table 6.1 from Ed-Data’s webpage (2009), content areas are given weights to
ultimately determine the schools overall API score. Based on these weighted
percentages the API scores are used to both identify areas needed to be addressed by
intervention programs and how the school compares to other schools serving similar
demographics.
Differing from the API, the AYP score is defined as the school’s ability to
reach California’s performance targets for the school as a whole and within specific
subgroups served by the school’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation required

212
Appendix F Continued
AYP progress reports. Schools are assigned, these AYP scores based on participation
rates and proficiency of specific subgroups. More specifically the school’s AYP aims
to provide data on the school’s ability to reach targeted expectations for numerically
Table F-1 Weights for CST Content Area

Source: Ed-data website (2009)
significant subgroups defined by the California’s Department of Education as:
• African American (not of Hispanic origin)
• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Asian
• Filipino
• Hispanic or Latino
• Pacific Islander
• White (not of Hispanic origin)
• Socioeconomically disadvantaged (Free and Reduced Lunch)
• English learners
• Students with disabilities
Based on these scores the school is provided with formative data in judging how
effective instructional interventions address the precise needs and differing learning
styles for each subgroup.

213

Appendix F Continued
According to Ladera’s longitudinal achievement data, it is evident that the
school has made continual progress over the last ten years. Apparent in the California
Department Education’s (2008) Table 6:2 below, the school has been able to increase
its API score from 377 to 655 from 1999-2007. This progress is even more apparent
with the fact that as of 2008 the school’s API score had increased to 699.
Figure F-1 Academic Performance Index for Ladera Elementary

Source: CDE’s website (2008)
With the state mandated goal of reaching an API score of 800, it is important to note
that while the school has still not reached this goal, the school’s instructional
interventions are having positive effects on student achievement.

214
Appendix F Continued
More impressive than Ladera’s ability to increase student achievement is its
aptitude to improve success levels with a greater momentum than other schools in the
district and state. As illustrated in the CDE’s (2008) table 6:3 below, it is clear that
the school’s progress narrowed the achievement gap over the last decade. During the
span of 1999-2007 Ladera has decreased the gap between the school and the state’s
average API score by 136 points. While the school has been unsuccessful in reaching
the state mandated API score of 800, the reforms undertaken seem to have propelled
student achievement further than other schools in the state.
Figure F-2 Ladera API Growth 1999-2007

Source: CDE’s website (2008)
While the school is showing evidence of improvement, the school has still failed to
reach the targeted expectations for its AYP. In accordance to the school’s district

215
Appendix F Continued
report card below, the school only met 17 of 21 measured criteria. In addition due to
the schools inability to reach its AYP goals, Ladera continues to into its third year of
Program Improvement (PI) status. As a PI3 school, the school qualifies for additional
resources and services that includes the Title 1 program. It has also elected to be part
of the Los Angles Mayor’s office Partnership for Los Angeles Schools (PLAS). By
providing an understanding to the observers, the purpose and objectives of these
programs present possible justification and intent for pedagogical strategies
implemented at Ladera Elementary.
Figure F-3 Ladera Elementary Report Card

Source: CDE’s website (2008)

216
Appendix F Continued

Instructional Improvement Strategies

While Ladera Elementary School’s testing data, API scores, and school report
card illustrate the fact that the school is making progress, a great deal of this progress
can be attributed to the school’s instructional interventions. Primarily shaped by the
objectives of the federal Title I and PLAS program, the instructional interventions or
pedagogical strategies are continually focused and refined to better address student
needs. Examining the goals and mandates of the federal and local programs an clear
understanding of the Ladera’s for utilizing current reform efforts.
First, the federal Title 1 program has provided the school with additional
funds, school supplies, and school resources to assist in increasing the achievement
levels of ELL, high-poverty, special education, Native American, neglected,
delinquent or migratory students. With such a significant population of high-need
students, the majority, if not all students, falls into one or more of the categories
serviced by the Title 1 program. In this case the school is given the authority to use
categorical resources from the program in any of the areas of addressing, literacy
initiatives, Advance Placement classes, dropout prevention, and comprehensive
reform efforts. Utilizing these resources from the Title 1 program, 3rd Street is
mandated to both evaluate possible barriers impeding student success and identify
methods of increasing student achievement through using these investments.
Through the Title 1 program, the school’s improvement strategies would have
been consistent with the cyclical process illustrated in Table 6:1. This illustration

217
Appendix F Continued

identifies this procedure begins by first evaluating effectiveness of current programs.
After which, strategies are altered to increase the school’s ability to accomplish given
goals, in anticipation of progressing in such a fashion to allow the school to set and
attain new goals. Finally the cycle is completed by continually assessing and refining
strategies and objectives for the school instructional improvement strategies.
After identifying the school’s needs and utilizing research on improving the
student achievement, the school has used Title 1 funding to construct a Single Plan
for Student Achievement (SPSA), to reduce class-size (20:1 for K-3), and to provide
additional instruction for low-performing students. To best manage resources
provided through the Title 1 funding the school has additionally shifted site-based
management

Figure F-4 Model of Cyclical Improvement

Reaffirm or
Revise School
Goals
Revise
Improvement
Strategies and
Expenditures
Monitor
Implementation
Measure
Effectiveness
of Improvement
Strategies
Approve and
Recommend SPSA
to Local Governing
Board
Seek Advisory
Committees
Input
Reach Desired
Outcomes

218
Appendix F Continued

out of the principal’s office to the classroom by formally empowering a School Site
Council (SSC). Through this SSC the school’s stakeholders identify barriers and plan
solutions for increasing student success with the SPSA. In accordance with the
California’s Department of Education Handbook for School Site Councils (2006),
Ladera’s SPSA has eight distinct functions:
• School districts must assure that school site councils have developed and
approved a plan, to be known as the Single Plan for Student Achievement
for schools participating in programs funded through the consolidated
application process, and any other school program they choose to include.
• School plans must be developed with the review, certification, and advice
of any applicable school advisory committees.
• Any plans required by programs funded through the Consolidated
Application, the School and Library Improvement Block Grant, the Pupil
Retention Block Grant, and NCLB Program Improvement must be
consolidated into a single plan.
• The content of the plan must be aligned with school goals for improving
student achievement.
• School goals must be based upon an analysis of verifiable state data,
including the Academic Performance Index, the English Language
Development test, and may include any data voluntarily developed by
districts to measure student achievement.

219
• The plan must address how Consolidated Application funds will be used to
improve the academic performance of all students to the level of the
performance goals, as established by the Academic Performance Index.
• The plan must be reviewed annually and updated, including proposed
expenditures of funds allocated to the school through the Consolidated
Application, by the school site council.
• Plans must be reviewed and approved by the governing board of the local
educational agency "whenever there are material changes that affect the
academic programs for students covered by programs" funded through the
Consolidated Application.

Following the cyclical process illustrated in Table 6:5, Ladera’s SPSA is used to define
the school’s pedagogical focus for the year, and a process of evaluating the school’s
vision each year as the plan is updated each year.
In addition to funds from Title 1, the PLAS program also provides educational
resources and guidance for their usage. As explained in its Executive Summary
(2007), the PLAS aims to improve 3rd Street’s reform efforts through supporting the
school in reaching four specific and measurable outcomes:
• Increase API scores by 30 points or by approximately 5%.
• Raise the percentage of students scoring “proficient” and “advance” levels on
CST scores in English/Language Arts by 5% over 2007-2008 scores.

220
• Raise the percentage of students scoring “proficient and “advance” levels on
CST scores in Mathematics by 5% over 2007-2008 scores.
• Lastly, the PLAS will work to assist the school in showing increases in
stakeholders’ efficacy through annual surveys for parents, teachers, and other
school staff.
To accomplish these goals, the PLAS has set out a clear plan of action to ensure its
collaborative efforts with the school produce targeted results. Described in their
Executive Summary (2007), the PLAS plans to enact a strategy of:
• Improving leadership development for principals and assistant principals for
all schools
• Accelerate student performance through implementing strategic plans for
developing instructional coaching, targeted interventions, and building a
culture of data-driven instructional decision making
• Creating positive learning environments with emphasis on promoting the
idea of going to college as an expected norm for all students.
• Increasing family and community involvement through increasing parent
participation and volunteerism by establishing parent centers and clearer
communication with the surrounding community.
• Finally, by streamlining and improving school operations through working to
redesign the district’s ability to support schools with high needs.
Since the school elected to become part of the PLAS program in 2007, the program
has already provided the school with additional funds and focused professional
developments for the school’s staff and administration. Through these professional

221
Appendix F Continued
development the PLAS program has worked to increase staff and stakeholder efficacy
by improving pedagogical practice, parental involvement, and support for the
school’s leadership. With the PLAS relationship with the Mayor’s Office, the
program brings political capital and leverage for additional services from the city.
Utilizing the resources provided through Title 1 funds, and PLAS’s assistance
the school has begun to revise its vision for effective teaching and focus for improving
student achievement. While it is evident that the school’s current instructional
intervention programs positively correlate with increasing student achievement, to
determine the efficiency the school’s resource usage patters will be compared to that of
Odden, Goetz, and Picus’ Evidence-Based Model (EBM) (2007).
In this case study, the EBM will function as a model for making
recommendations for Ladera’s resource usage. The EBM combines current educational
research concerning improving student learning to identify effective strategies and best
practices for efficiently utilizing school resources. In the comparison between the
Ladera’s instructional strategies and resource usage to that of the EBM in the Table 6:6
below, this will be concluded with lessons learned from the contrast and suggestions for
furthering the school’s progress.

222

Table F-2 Ladera Elementary’s Evidence Based Model
School Element Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
3rd Street’s–
Current Resource
Status
3rd Street’s – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions

School
Characteristics

Configuration Grades K-5 K - 5 Offers free preschool
School Size 432 554 1.28x Larger than EBM

Core Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
k-3:20
4-5 : 30
1.25x Larger than EBM

Free & Reduced
Price Lunch Count
36.3%
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)

554 This is 2.9 x larger than EBM
which is built on an expected
36% of school’s population or
only 199 students.
Number of ELL
Students
10.6%
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)

251 This is 4.3 x larger than the
EBM which is built on
prototypical 10.6% (58
students)of the schools
population
Personnel
Resources

(measured as FTEs)

1. Core Teachers 24 23 30(-7)

2. Specialist/
Elective
Teachers
20% of Core
Teachers
4.8
0.4FTE
Art teacher
Music Teacher
6(-6)

Total Teachers

28 23.4 36 (-12)

3. Instructional
Coaches

1/200 students:
2.2
2 2.77(-.77)

4. Tutors 1 per 100 At Risk
Students (Free &
Reduced Price
Lunch)
1.57
0.75 certified

5(-4.25)

5. Teachers for ELL
Students
1/100 ELL Students
.46
7
(but 4 ELL aides)

3(+4)
6. Extended Day 0.25 teacher
positions for every
15 extended-day
students
1.31
10 teachers
for 200 students
13(-3)

223
Table F2:
Continued

7. Summer School 1 per 15 Students
(Staffing based on
50% of Free and
Reduced Price Lunch
Students)

4teachers to 20
students with the
Teacher for America
With the number of TFA
teachers and certified teachers
in the classroom teacher to
student ratios are extremely
low 1:5
8. Alternative
Schools
NA

NA NA
9a. Learning- and
Mildly Disabled
Students
2 Teachers per 300
Students

6 Teachers
4 aides
(65 students)
1 (+5) Teachers
9b. Severely
Disabled
Students
100% State
Reimbursement for
Top 1% Minus
Federal Funds
2 Teachers
1 Aides
(32 students)
As needed
10. Services for
Gifted Students
$25 per Student $750

$13,750
11. Substitutes 10 Days per Teacher
@ $100 per Day
Daily Rate = $240

10 Days per Teacher @ $100
per Day
12. Pupil Support
Staff
1.0 FTE positions for
every 100 at-risk
students: 1.32
0 Guidance
1 Nurse
1 Health Assistant
1 Title 1 Coordinator
5(-2))Pupil Support Staff
13. Non-Instructional
Aides
1 per 200-250
Students

0 4.6 (+1.4)
14 Instructional
Aides
0

2
(title 1 aides)

0(+5)

15. Librarians/
Media
Specialists

1.0 Librarian 0
1 Library aide
1 (-1)
16. Administrator 1.0 Administrator 1 Principal plus
1 Assistant Principals
1 Title 1
Coordinators

AP’s takes on the role of
guidance counselor,
instructional coach, and staff
management

17. Secretary 1.0 Senior secretary
1.0 Clerical/data
1 Secretary
2 clerical staff

Same
Non-Personnel
Resources

224
Table F2:
Continued
18. Professional
Development
10 Days Intensive
Professional
Development in
Summer Included in
Teacher Contract

Instructional Coaches
(included in
personnel resources)

Planning & Prep time
2 day intensive buy-
back days for
planning over the
summer

Early dismissal
Tuesdays for
planning and Staff
meetings

PLAS provides
leadership
development for
administrative staff
Provide 10 Days Intensive
Professional Development
Annually

Add Instructional Coaches

Dollar/Pupil
Resources

19. Technology

$250/Pupil

Very little currently
but school is hoping
to open a computer
lab next year and
bring in APEX
(instructional

$138,500 Annually for
Maintenance and
Replacement
20. Instructional
Materials

Formative
Assessments

Library Materials

$165/Pupil

$25/Pupil

$20/Pupil
State-approved Core
Content Materials &
Intervention
Materials

Quarterly Formative
Assessments Using
CST Format
≈ 9 Hours Per
Teacher Developing
& Aligning
Benchmark Exams to
Standards
$991,410 Instructional
Materials

$13,850 Formative
Assessments

$11,080 Library Materials
21. Student
Activities
$250/Pupil Woodcraft Rangers
Youth Services
$138,500
22. Other Healthy Start
Source: Ladera’s Principal interview March 2009

Examining the Table 6:6 it is clear there are differences between the school’s
resource usage strategies and the prototypical elementary school of the EBM. The
greatest difference is in the expected student enrollment demographics. More
specifically with an enrollment 1.27 times larger than that of the ideal elementary

225
Appendix F Continued
school, the school contends with overcoming the difficulty of addressing the needs of
individual students. While the student population is larger than the prototypical size
suggested by the EBM, the size of the school is comparable to neighboring schools in
the district. To compensate for the differences each of the 22 categories are adjusted
by a factor of 1.27 to generate an expected resource expenditure level for each
category. Through doing so, the last column is used to report the values in which the
EBM would generate if the prototypical school had the same enrollment as Ladera.
Before exploring the differences and possible suggestions for improving the
school’s instructional strategies, it is imperative to note that Ladera Elementary
currently serves an at-risk population that is three times larger than what a
prototypical school is expected to have. While attempting to overcome the barriers
associated with this population, the school has made specific choices to assist
historically low-performing students improve their achievement levels.
Contending with such a large population of high-need students and the
barriers associated with being at-risk, Ladera has alternatively decided to employ
additional special education and ELL teachers. Whereas the EBM would suggest that
the school hirer eight additional teachers to lower student-to-teacher ratios, with
limited resources the school compensates by employing teachers trained in addressing
the specific needs of high-need students. While the EBM prototypical schools
attempts to employ more core teachers, the usage of teachers trained in special
education and ELL instruction seems to provide additional benefits for high-poverty

226
Appendix F Continued
at-risk students. With an API score of 699, it appears the combination of highly
trained staff, and higher expectations are providing positive effects in student
achievement.
Within conversations with the school’s principal (March 4, 2009), it is clear
that she has a vision and desire to both raise student expectations and improve
pedagogical practices. In addition, the school’s current reform efforts have
significantly increased the school’s stakeholders’ enthusiasm and commitment to
improving student achievement. While the school’s resource usage patterns vary
slightly from the EBM’s prototypical school, by using FTE’s with multiple functions
the school is more capable of addressing barriers for student learning.

Lessons Learned
Ladera is showing consistent progress in increasing AYP and API scores for
the school, yet the school is still a PI3 school aiming to further student success. To
address these goals the school has used Title 1 and PLAS resources to create a SPSA
to organize and prioritize reform efforts. Although student tests scores exhibit the fact
that the school is making progress, the EBM has ten suggestions for continuing these
gains (Odden, Picus, Archibald, Goetz, Mangan, Aportela, 2007). In table 6.7 the
characteristics of schools recognized for being able to double student achievement
through the EBM are placed against suggestions for increasing success levels at
Ladera Elementary. After interviewing the school’s principal, I show the current

227
Appendix F Continued
plans for instructional interventions and suggestions for possible next steps compared
to the EBM suggestions for improving student achievement (Odden & Picus, 2007).
Table F-3 Characteristics for doubling student achievement
Characteristic of Improvement Suggestions for Ladera
1.) Conduct Needs Assessment • Through the school’s SPSA the school works to identify barriers,
expectations, and student outcomes.
• EBM would suggest that these steps are continually repeated and
reevaluated.
2.) Set High Goals • Ladera has created a greater buy-in from its teaching staff in raising
expectations but resource usage patterns fail to support higher
achievement
• EBM shows evidence that taking such steps would provide
significant increases in student success
3.) Adopt New Curriculum • The school has committed to rewriting assessments to better address
the expectations and learning styles of high-need students
• The EBM supports the idea that further alignment of student
curriculum to assessment and expectations will raise student success
rates
4.) Commit to data-driven decision
making
• The school continually uses formative data, and classroom
assessments to determine intervention strategies and plans for
enrichment programs
5.) Invest in ongoing professional
development
• The school currently uses cyclical PD approach to improve teaching,
and utilizes PLAS PD conferences to further advance pedagogical
practices
• The EBM would suggest that the school continue its current efforts
by instituting a summer intensive training, supporting teachers going
to conferences, and for a greater presence of instructional leadership
in classrooms observing and critiquing instruction
6.) Focus Class time more efficiently • The school’s current focus on improving ELA and Math instruction
should give the school greater amounts of time are spent on task.
7.) Provide multiple interventions
for struggling students
• EBM research would support the increase of current efforts of using
strongest teachers in intervention programs, but also would suggest
to lowering the student-to-teacher ratio to 15:1
• Additionally the EBM suggest that it would be more effective to
higher certified teachers, to tutor students instead of using
instructional aids providing supplemental classroom help
8.) Create professional learning
communities
• The EBM would suggest that empowering the school’s SSC and
greater involvement from all stakeholders would generate greater
buy-in and involvement in a professional learning community
9.) Encourage and empower leaders
to support instructional improvement
• PLAS’s leadership development appears to mimic the suggested
support for site based leaders necessary to improve instructional
practices
10.) Take advantage of external
expertise
• Here the EBM would suggest that the school doesn’t ignore the fact
that teachers attending conferences and external professional
developments must be empowered and encouraged to share
information and strategies with their peers, to garnish greater returns
for investments in instructional improvement

Appendix F Continued
Recognizing that the steps suggested from schools using EBM to align
resources to efficiently improve student achievement, it is imperative to recognize

228
that longitudinal data illustrates that the school is progressing. In addition, numerous
research supported planned reforms are coincide with the suggestions of the EBM.
Furthering these efforts by incorporating the suggestions of the Doubling Student
Performance policy report, should serve as a model for increasing student success
(Odden, Picus, Archibald, Goetz, Mangan, Aportela, 2007). In doing so, these
changes should serve as examples for improving schools serving at-risk populations.

229

Appendix G

3rd Street Elementary
Case Study

Introduction

To tell the story of 3rd Street Elementary this case study will examine the
current school and district enrollment, students’ testing data, and current intervention
strategies implemented at the school. Through describing the school and district’s
student demographics this case study will expose possible motivations for utilizing
specific pedagogical reform efforts for addressing the needs of targeted student
populations. By examining the longitudinal testing data, this case study will judge the
effectiveness and possible areas needed to be addressed in improve student
achievement through future intervention strategies. Next, this case study will analyze
the current and planned improvement efforts to identify the school’s educational
resource usage patterns. Thereby, allowing this case study to compare the schools
efforts against that of the suggestions of Allen Odden and Lawrence Picus’ Evidence
Based Model (EBM) to determine the efficiency in which the school uses resources to
increase student achievement (2007). After making this comparison this case study
will end with an analysis of possible next steps for furthering improvement efforts
based on the suggestions of Odden and Picus’ research (2007).

230
Appendix G Continued
School Demographic and Background

With a grade span of kindergarten through fifth grade, 3rd Street Elementary
School has a current enrollment of 550 students. Located on the south central section
of Los Angeles, the majority (95%) of the students are labeled high-needs or low
socio-economic status. In addition to the barriers associated with these labels, 38% of
the students are English Language Learners (ELL) and 10% of the students are
labeled special education students. With these current demographics the school is
continually attempting to battle with both the pressures of students dealing with
problems associated with being labeled high-needs and at risk. These challenges
stems from students having to contend with the reality being surrounded by violence
in their community, substance abuse, gang activity, and family members with
unsuccessful educational experiences.
To contend with such issues, the school adopts both federal and state
programs to address the barriers in increasing student achievement. Exploring these
programs ability to address the barriers to improving high-need students achievement
levels have implications for schools serving similar populations. The largest of these
programs would include the federal and state Title 1 program that has been
implemented for the last several years and the new Partnership for Los Angeles
Schools (PLAS) program with the mayor’s office. Before examining these programs
and how they have shaped instructional improvement strategies for improving the
school this case study will use student achievement data to determine their

231
Appendix G Continued

effectiveness and aim. In doing so, this case study aims to define the role instructional
interventions programs play in the improving student achievement in specific areas.

Student Achievement data

Similar to other schools in this district 3rd Street Elementary utilizes the
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) system, to hold students, teachers, and
the school accountable for attaining grade specific learning objectives. Originating
from California’s Public School Accountability Act (PSAA), this testing program
measures and compares the school’s improvement efforts to that of schools serving
similar student population. More specifically, these comparative measurements are
used to determine the school’s Academic Performance Index (API) and Annual
Yearly Progress (AYP) scores.
The school’s API score is based on second through fifth grade students’ scores
on the California Standardized Tests (CST). Through assessing students in English
Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science students are labeled; Advanced (A),
Proficient (P), Basic (B), below basic (BB), of Far Below Basic (FBB). As described
in the table 5.1 from Ed-Data’s webpage (2009), content areas are given weights to
ultimately determine the schools overall API score. Based on these weighted scores
the API scores are then used to both identify areas needed to be addressed by

232
Appendix G Continued

intervention programs and how the school compares to other schools serving similar
demographics.
Differing from the API, the AYP score is defined as the schools ability
to reach California’s performance targets for the school as a whole and specific
subgroups served by the school, in accordance to No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
standards. With the
Table G-1 API Content Weights

AYP, schools are assigned scores based on participation rates and proficiency of
specific subgroups on CST’s. More specifically the school’s AYP aims to provide
data on the schools ability to reach targeted expectations for numerically significant
subgroups defined by the California’s Department of Education as:

233
Appendix G Continued

• African American (not of Hispanic origin)
• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Asian
• Filipino
• Hispanic or Latino
• Pacific Islander
• White (not of Hispanic origin)
• Socioeconomically disadvantaged (Free and Reduced Lunch)
• English learners
• Students with disabilities
Based on these scores the school is provided with formative data in judging how
effective instructional interventions address the specific needs and differing learning
styles for each subgroup.
Examining 3rd Street’s longitudinal testing data, it appears that the school has
continually been making progress in improving student achievement scores.
Examining the API data for 3rd Street, as provided from the CDE’s is appears that the
school has continually been making progress since the first years the STAR’s
inception of 1999. According to CDE’s graph below API score grew from 415 in 199
to 646 in 2007.

234
Appendix G Continued
Figure G-1 3rd Street Elementary’s API growth.

In 2008 the school continued this momentum by increasing its CST score to 666.
Over the last ten years the school has averaged a 25 point increase each year. While
the school’s has shown evidence of constantly increasing student achievement, when
compared to the success of the averages of schools in the same district or state, this
change is more significant. Observing the decrease in the gaps between 3rd Street and
comparable schools in the state in CDE’s (2008) graph below, it is clear that
instructional practices at the school are having a significant effect on student success.
In graph 5.2, it is apparent that since the inception of accountability testing, the
school has been able to shrink the achievement gap between the state by reducing the
difference by 89 points.
Evident by the graph the school is showing continual progress in reaching its
ultimate goal of attaining the state’s targeted expectation of reaching an 800 API
score.

235
Appendix G Continued
Figure G-2 3rd Street Elementary API growth 1999-2007

While the school is showing evidence of improvement, the school has still failed to
reach the targeted expectations for its AYP. In accordance to the school’s district
report card below, the school had 21 criteria to meet and was only able to meet 15. In
addition due to the schools inability to reach its AYP goals, the school continues to
into its third year of Program Improvement (PI) status. As a PI3 school, the school
qualifies for additional resources and services that includes the Title 1 program and
electing to be apart of the Los Angles Mayor’s office Partnership for Los Angeles
Schools (PLAS). Understanding the purpose and objectives of these programs
provides justification for pedagogical strategies implemented at the school.

236
Appendix G Continued
Figure G-3 3rd Street Elementary Report Card

Instructional Improvement Strategies

While 3rd Street Elementary School’s testing data, API scores, and school
report card illustrate the fact that the school is making progress, a great deal of this
progress can be attributed to the school’s instructional interventions. Shaping the
current aspects of 3rd Street Elementary’s current and previous pedagogical strategies
are based primarily on the federal Title 1 program and on the school adopted PLAS

237
Appendix G Continued
program. These programs shape and set the objectives for the current efforts to
increase student achievement. Examining the goals and mandates of these programs
provides an understanding of the school’s possible motivations for utilizing current
reform efforts.
First, the federal Title 1 program has provided the school with additional
resources to assist in increasing the achievement levels of ELL, high-poverty, special
education, Native American, neglected, delinquent or migratory students. With such a
significant population of high-need students, the majority if not all students fall into
one or more of the categories serviced by the Title 1 program. In this case the school
is given the authority to use categorical resources from the program in any of the
areas of addressing, literacy initiatives, Advance Placement classes, dropout
prevention, and comprehensive reform efforts. Utilizing these resources from the
Title 1 program, 3rd Street is mandated to both evaluate possible barriers impeding
student success and identify methods of increasing student achievement through using
these investments.
Through the Title 1 program, the school’s improvement strategies would have
been consistent with the cyclical process illustrated in diagram 5.1. This illustration
identifies this procedure begins by first evaluating effectiveness of current programs.
After which, strategies are altered to increase the school’s ability to accomplish given
goals, in anticipation of progressing in such a fashion to allow the school to set and
attain new goals. Finally the cycle is completed by continually assessing and refining
strategies and objectives for the school instructional improvement strategies.

238
Appendix G Continued

Figure G-4 Model of cyclical improvement

After identifying the school’s needs and utilizing research on improving the
student achievement, the school has used Title 1 funding to construct a Single Plan
for Student Achievement (SPSA), reduce class-size (20:1 for K-3), and provide
additional instruction for low-performing students. To best manage resources
provided through the Title 1 funding the school has additionally shifted site-based
management out of the principal’s office to the classroom by empowering a School
Site Council (SSC). Through this SSC the school’s stakeholders take part in

Reaffirm or Revise
School Goals
Revise
Improvement
Strategies and
Expenditures
Monitor Implementation
Measure
Effectiveness
of Improvement
Strategies
Approve and
Recommend SPSA to
Local Governing
Board
Seek Advisory
Committees
Input
Reach Desired
Outcomes

239
Appendix G Continued

identifying barriers and planning solutions for increasing student success with the
SPSA. In accordance to the California’s Department of Education Handbook for
School Site Councils (2006), 3rd Street’s SPSA has eight distinct functions:
• School districts must assure that school site councils have developed and
approved a plan, to be known as the Single Plan for Student Achievement
for schools participating in programs funded through the consolidated
application process, and any other school program they choose to include.
• School plans must be developed with the review, certification, and advice
of any applicable school advisory committees.
• Any plans required by programs funded through the Consolidated
Application, the School and Library Improvement Block Grant, the Pupil
Retention Block Grant, and NCLB Program Improvement must be
consolidated into a single plan.
• The content of the plan must be aligned with school goals for improving
student achievement.
• School goals must be based upon an analysis of verifiable state data,
including the Academic Performance Index, the English Language
Development test, and may include any data voluntarily developed by
districts to measure student achievement.

240
Appendix G Continued
• The plan must address how Consolidated Application funds will be used to
improve the academic performance of all students to the level of the
performance goals, as established by the Academic Performance Index.
• The plan must be reviewed annually and updated, including proposed
expenditures of funds allocated to the school through the Consolidated
Application, by the school site council.
• Plans must be reviewed and approved by the governing board of the local
educational agency "whenever there are material changes that affect the
academic programs for students covered by programs" funded through the
Consolidated Application.

Following the cyclical process illustrated in diagram 5.1 above, the school’s SPSA is
used to define the school’s pedagogical focus for the year and a process of evaluating the
school’s vision each year as the plan is updated each year.
In addition to funds from Title 1, the PLAS program also provides educational
resources and guidance for usage of those resources. As explained in their Executive
Summary (2007), the PLAS aims to improve 3rd Street’s reform efforts through
supporting the school in reaching four specific and measurable outcomes:
• Increase API scores by 30 points or by approximately 5%.

241
Appendix G Continued
• The school will raise the percentage of students scoring “proficient” and
“advance” levels on CST scores in English/Language Arts by 5% over 2007-
2008 scores.
• The school will raise the percentage of students scoring “proficient and
“advance” levels on CST scores in Mathematics by 5% over 2007-2008
scores.
• Lastly, the PLAS will work to assist the school in showing increases in
stakeholders’ efficacy through annual surveys for parents, teachers, and other
school staff.
To accomplish these goals, the PLAS has set out a clear plan of action to
ensure its collaborative efforts with the school produce targeted results. Described in
their Executive Summary (2007), the PLAS plans to enact a strategy of:
• Improving leadership development for principals and assistant principals
for all schools
• Accelerate student performance through implementing strategic plans for
developing instructional coaching, targeted interventions, and building a
culture of data-driven instructional decision making
• Creating positive learning environments with emphasis on promoting the
idea of going to college as an expected norm for all students.

242
Appendix G Continued

• Increasing family and community involvement through increasing parent
participation and volunteerism by establishing parent centers and clearer
communication with the surrounding community.
• Finally, by streamlining and improving school operations through working
to redesign the district’s ability to support schools with high needs.
While the school elected to become apart of the PLAS program in 2007, the program has
already provided the school with additional funds and professional developments for the
school’s staff and administration. Through these professional development the PLAS
program has worked to increase staff and stakeholder efficacy, by improving
pedagogical practice, parental involvement, and support for the school’s leadership.
With the PLAS relationship with the Mayor’s Office, the program brings political capital
and leverage for additional services from the city.
Utilizing the resources provided to 3rd Street based on the student population,
with Title 1 funds, and PLAS’s assistance the school has begun to revise its vision for
effective teaching and focus for improving student achievement. While it is evident that
the school’s current instructional intervention programs positively correlate with
increasing student achievement, to determine the efficiency the school’s resource usage
patters will be compared to that of Odden, Goetz, and Picus’ Evidence-Based Model
(EBM) (2007).

243
Appendix G Continued
In this case study, the EBM will function as a model for making
recommendations for 3rd Street’s resource usage. The EBM combines current
educational research concerning improving student learning to identify effective
strategies and best practices for efficiently utilizing school resources. In the comparison
between the 3rd Street’s instructional strategies and resource usage to that of the EBM in
the Table 5.1 below, this will be concluded with lessons learned from the contrast and
suggestions for furthering the school’s progress.
Table G-2 3rd Street Elementary’s Evidence Based Model
School Element Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
3rd Street’s–
Current Resource
Status
3rd Street’s – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions

School
Characteristics

Configuration Grades K-5 Pre K - 5 Offers free preschool
School Size 432 550 1.27x Larger than EBM

Core Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
k-3:20
4-5 : 30
1.25x Larger than EBM

Free & Reduced
Price Lunch Count
36.3%
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)

523 This is 2.8 x larger than EBM
which is built on an expected
36% of school’s population or
only 199 students.
Number of ELL
Students
10.6%
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)

207 This is 3.5 x larger than the
EBM which is built on
prototypical 10.6% (58
students)of the schools
population
Personnel
Resources

(measured as FTEs)

1. Core Teachers 24 22 30(-8)

244
Table G-2:Continued
2. Specialist/
Elective
Teachers
20% of Core
Teachers
4.8
0.6 FTE
Dance teacher
Monday &
Wednesday
Music Teacher on
Thursday
6(-6)

Total Teachers

28 22.6 36 (-14)

3. Instructional
Coaches

1/200 students:
2.2
2 2.75(-.75)

4. Tutors 1 per 100 At Risk
Students (Free &
Reduced Price
Lunch)
1.57
0 certified

5(-5)

5. Teachers for ELL
Students
1/100 ELL Students
.46
0
(but 4 ELL aides)

2 (-2)
6. Extended Day 0.25 teacher
positions for every
15 extended-day
students
1.31
0 Currently but the
school plans to
implement before
and after school
programs for FBB
and BB students
1.7(-1.7)
7. Summer School 1 per 15 Students
(Staffing based on
50% of Free and
Reduced Price Lunch
Students)

No summer school
offered
70
(1,050 students)
8. Alternative
Schools
NA

NA NA
9a. Learning- and
Mildly Disabled
Students
2 Teachers per 300
Students

2 Teachers
4 aides
(55 students)
1 (+1)Teachers
9b. Severely
Disabled
Students
100% State
Reimbursement for
Top 1% Minus
Federal Funds
2 Teachers
4 Aides
(32 students)
As needed
10. Services for
Gifted Students
$25 per Student $350
(4 students )
$13,750
11. Substitutes 10 Days per Teacher
@ $100 per Day
Daily Rate = $240

10 Days per Teacher @ $100
per Day
12. Pupil Support
Staff
1.0 FTE positions for
every 100 at-risk
students: 1.32
1 Guidance
1 Nurse
1 Community
Liaison
1 Psychologist
.2 Speech/OT

5(-1))Pupil Support Staff

245
Table G-2:
Continued

13. Non-Instructional
Aides
1 per 200-250
Students

6 4.6 (+1.4)
Table G2 Continued
14 Instructional
Aides
0

5
(Teacher assistants)

0(+5)

15. Librarians/
Media
Specialists

1.0 Librarian 0
1 Library aide
1 (-1)
16. Administrator 1.0 Administrator 1 Principal plus
1 Assistant Principals
0.5 Coordinators

same

17. Secretary 1.0 Senior secretary
1.0 Clerical/data
1 Secretary
1 clerical staff

Same
Non-Personnel
Resources

18. Professional
Development
10 Days Intensive
Professional
Development in
Summer Included in
Teacher Contract

Instructional Coaches
(included in
personnel resources)

Planning & Prep time
2 day intensive buy-
back days for
planning over the
summer

Early dismissal
Tuesdays for
planning and Staff
meetings

PLAS provides
leadership
development for
administrative staff
Provide 10 Days Intensive
Professional Development
Annually

Add Instructional Coaches

$299,920 to Fund
Dollar/Pupil
Resources

19. Technology

$250/Pupil

Very little currently
but school is hoping
to open a computer
lab next year and
bring in APEX
(instructional

$137,000 Annually for
Maintenance and
Replacement

246

Table G2 Continued
20. Instructional
Materials

Formative
Assessments

Library Materials

$165/Pupil

$25/Pupil

$20/Pupil
State-approved Core
Content Materials &
Intervention
Materials

Quarterly Formative
Assessments Using
CST Format
≈ 9 Hours Per
Teacher Developing
& Aligning
Benchmark Exams to
Standards
$41,250 Instructional
Materials

$13,750 Formative
Assessments

$11,000 Library Materials
21. Student
Activities
$250/Pupil Woodcraft Rangers
Youth Services
$137,500
22. Other Healthy Start

Examining the Table 5.2 it is clear there are differences between the school’s
resource usage strategies and the prototypical elementary school of the EBM. The
greatest difference is in the expected student enrollment demographics. More
specifically with an enrollment 1.25 times larger than that of tie ideal elementary
school, the school contends with overcoming the difficulty of addressing the needs of
individual students. While the student population is larger than the prototypical size
suggested by the EBM, the size of the school is comparable to neighboring schools in
the district. To compensate for the differences each of the 22 categories are adjusted
by a factor of 1.25 to generate an expected resource expenditure level for each
category. Through doing so, the last column is used to report the values in which the
EBM would generate if the prototypical school had the same enrollment as 3rd Street.
Before exploring the differences and possible suggestions for improving the
school’s instructional strategies, it is imperative to note that 3rd Street Elementary
currently serves an at-risk population that is three times larger than prototypical

247
Appendix G Continued
school is expected to have. While attempting to overcome the barriers associated with
this population, the school has made specific choices to assist historically low-
performing students improve their achievement levels.
Contending with such a large population of high-need students and the
barriers associated with being at-risk, 3rd Street appears to have chosen to uses
instructional aides rather than hirer more teachers. While the EBM would suggest that
the school hirer eight additional teachers, with limited amounts of resources the
school attempts to use instructional aides to give greater attention to students in
classrooms with higher teacher-to-student ratios. While this decision reduces the price
for bringing additional adults into the classroom, current research and the EBM
suggest that the school would best serve students’ needs by increasing the number of
certified teachers to reduce class size.
Additionally, while examining the differences between the resource usage
patterns of the EBM and that of 3rd Street, it appears that instructional intervention
are focused primarily on remediation efforts for the lowest performing students.
These differences are most evident in lines 4,10, and 19 of the table above. In these
categories of certified tutors, support for gifted student, and technology, expenditures
seem to be significantly less than what the EBM would suggest. With limited
resources it appears that the school’s focus on remediation for their larger populations
of lower performing students. In doing so, this lack of resources supporting gifted or
high-achieving students illustrates possible lowering of expectations for student
learning. While primarily serving a population with historical low achievement, in

248
Appendix G Continued
accordance to the recommendation of the EBM that the school continually raise
student expectations.
Within conversations with the school’s principal, it is clear that she has a
vision and desire to both raise student expectations and improve pedagogical
practices. In addition the school’s current reform efforts have significantly increased
the school’s stakeholders enthusiasm and commitment to improving student
achievement. In contrast to these efforts, the schools resource usage patterns are
limited in addressing the possible means of furthering students achievement by
providing greater support to higher achieving students.

Lessons Learned
While the school is showing consistent progress in increasing AYP and API
scores for the school, but at the same time the school is still a PI3 school aiming to
further student success. To address these goals the school has used Title 1 and PLAS
resources to create a SPSA to organize and prioritize reform efforts. Although student
tests scores exhibit the fact that the school is making progress, the EBM has ten
suggestions for continuing these gains (Odden, Picus, Archibald, Goetz, Mangan,
Aportela, 2007). In table 5.3 the characteristics of schools recognized for being able
to double student achievement through the EBM are placed against suggestions for
increasing success levels at 3rd Street Elementary. After interviewing the school’s

249
Appendix G Continued
principal this table includes the current plans for instructional interventions and
suggestions for possible next steps.
Table G-3 Characteristics for doubling student achievement
Characteristic of Improvement Suggestions for 3rd Street
1.) Conduct Needs Assessment • Through the school’s SPSA the school works to identify
barriers expectations and student outcomes.
• EBM would suggest that these steps are continually repeated
and reevaluated.
2.) Set High Goals • 3rd Street has created a greater buy-in from its teaching staff
in raising expectations but resource usage patterns fail to
support higher achievement
• EBM shows evidence that taking such steps would provide
significant increases in student success

3.) Adopt New Curriculum • The school has committed to rewriting assessments to better
address the expectations and learning styles of high-need
students
• The EBM supports the idea that further alignment of student
curriculum to assessment and expectations will raise student
success rates
4.) Commit to data-driven decision making • The school continually uses formative data, and classroom
assessments to determine intervention strategies and plans for
enrichment programs
5.) Invest in ongoing professional
development
• The school currently uses cyclical PD approach to improve
teaching, and utilizes PLAS PD conferences to further
advance pedagogical practices
• The EBM would suggest that the school continue its current
efforts by instituting a summer intensive training, supporting
teachers going to conferences, and for a greater presence of
instructional leadership in classrooms observing and
critiquing instruction
6.) Focus Class time more efficiently • The school’s current focus on improving ELA and Math
instruction should give the school greater amounts of time are
spent on task.
7.) Provide multiple interventions for
struggling students
• EBM research would support the increase of current efforts of
using strongest teachers in intervention programs, but also
would suggest to lowering the student-to-teacher ratio to 15:1
• Additionally the EBM suggest that it would be more effective
to higher certified teachers, to tutor students instead of using
instructional aids providing supplemental classroom help
8.) Create professional learning
communities
• The EBM would suggest that empowering the school’s SSC
and greater involvement from all stakeholders would generate
greater buy-in and involvement in a professional learning
community
9.) Encourage and empower leaders to
support instructional improvement
• PLAS’s leadership development appears to mimic the
suggested support for site based leaders necessary to improve
instructional practices
10.) Take advantage of external expertise • Here the EBM would suggest that the school doesn’t ignore
the fact that teachers attending conferences and external
professional developments must be empowered and
encouraged to share information and strategies with their
peers, to garnish greater returns for investments in
instructional improvement

250
Appendix G Continued
Recognizing that the steps suggested from schools using EBM to align
resources to efficiently improve student achievement, it is imperative that
longitudinal data illustrates that the school is progressing. In addition, numerous
research studies supported the school’s planned reforms and coincide with the
suggestions of the Doubling Student Performance Policy Report, should serve as a
model for increasing student success (Odden, Picus, Archibald, Goetz, Mangan,
Aportela, 2007). In doing so, these changes should serve as examples for improving
schools serving at-risk populations.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between resource allocation and student achievement in several Program Improvement (PI) schools receiving additional resources and services to increase student achievement. These resources and services include funding teacher positions, student support services, intervention programs, professional developments for staff members, and general equipment and supplies for the school. After analyzing interview and resource usage data, this study compares allocation patterns between five schools and the Evidence Based model constructed by Odden and Picus (2003).

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Aligning educational resources and strategies to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within a site-based managed elementary school: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation and instructional improvement strategies: a case study of schools in a southern California school district

PDF

School level resource allocation to improve student performance: A case study of Orange County and Los Angeles County Title I elementary schools

PDF

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

PDF

A case study of an evidence-based approach to resource allocation at a school for at-risk and incarcerated students in Hawaii

Asset Metadata

Creator Ivey, Raymond, II (author)

Core Title Evidence-based study of resource usage in California’s program improvement schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2010-05

Publication Date 05/15/2010

Defense Date 03/01/2010

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

Tag evidence based study,OAI-PMH Harvest,program improvement schools

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Hocevar, Dennis J. (committee member), Nelson, John L. (committee member)

Creator Email rayivey@mac.com,thebrain1911@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3085

Unique identifier UC1319879

Identifier etd-Ivey-3643 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-347864 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3085 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Ivey-3643.pdf

Dmrecord 347864

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ivey, Raymond, II

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