Making the Golden State glitter again: how the evidence based adequacy model can save struggling schools in difficult times

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content

MAKING THE GOLDEN STATE GLITTER AGAIN:
HOW THE EVIDENCE BASED ADEQUACY MODEL CAN SAVE STRUGGLING
SCHOOLS IN DIFFICULT TIMES

by

Ryan Douglas Smith

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 Ryan Douglas Smith

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Lawrence Picus for all that he has done to help me with
preparing this dissertation – I cannot imagine a better chairperson, and do not think that I
would have made it through this process without you. Your wisdom, encyclopedic
knowledge, patience, and ability to put things into perspective are talents that I can only
wish to have some day. I hope that we will remain in touch for years to come.
Special thanks to both Dr. John Nelson and Dr. Guilbert Hentschke for agreeing
to serve on my dissertation committee. Your insights into this ―business‖ we call
education are invaluable to me, and have left me with much to think about.
I wish that I could add an extra case study to the appendix of this study to thank
my father, Dr. Roy D. Smith. It is difficult to put into words how much he means to me,
and what an important, positive influence he has had on my life. I would not be where I
am today without his love, support, and guidance. It seems like just yesterday that he
helped me begin my career in education by encouraging me to coach a local school
basketball team – how far we have come. Remember the University of San Diego?
Finally, I have the greatest support network that anyone could wish for. I would
like to thank Dr. Benjamin Wolf, Dr. Lorena Sanchez, Dr. Gabriela Mafi, and Dr. Sylvia
Kaufman – all fellow Trojans who encouraged me to start this journey, and helped me
work through the difficult spots. Many thanks also go to Jeff and Catherine Copeland,
Rochelle Wolf, Sally Yakinian, John Oldenburg, Todd Nirk, Christina Stanley, Suzanne

iii
Boxdorfer, Virginia Hobbs, Mary Lou Dorado, Lupe Mantle, and Pam Nelson for
always being there when I needed them, and for making sure that I never took things too
seriously.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
Abstract xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Introduction: California’s Educational Setting 1
Student Achievement in California 4
The Need for Adequacy in Education Funding 6
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 10
Research Questions 11
Importance of the Study 12
Summary of Methodology 12
Limitations and Delimitations 14
Assumptions 15
Definitions 15
Organization of the Study 19

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 21
Introduction 21
The Context of School Finance in California 21
The Future of California School Finance 31
Educational Adequacy 32
Resource Use 48
Research-Based Practices That Improve Student Performance 62
Improving Low-Performing Schools 68
Conclusion 70

Chapter Three: Research Methodology 71
Introduction 71
Research Questions 72
Purposeful Sample and Population 72
Identifying Schools 74
Instrumentation and Data Collection 74
Data Analysis 76
Summary 77

v
Chapter Four: Presentation of Findings 78
Overview of Selected Schools 78
Adequate Yearly Progress and Program Improvement 83
California Standards Tests and Academic Performance Indexes 92
Introduction to the Findings 101
The Start of Reform Efforts 102
Instructional Leadership 105
Curriculum 110
Professional Development and Collaboration 116
Data Use 117
Parent Involvement 117
Instructional Time 118
Intervention Plan 119
School Size, Teacher Allocation, and Class Size 127
Resources for Extra Help 128
Resources for Students with Special Needs 131
Resources for Professional Development 133
Support Staff 135
School Administration 137
Summary 138

Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications 141
Conclusion #1: Actual Resource Use Pales in Comparison to the 144
Evidence Based Model
Conclusion #2: Improvement Strategies Are Not Well-Aligned with 145
the Research
Conclusion #3: The Financial Crisis Likely Has Little Effect on 152
Achievement…So Far
Conclusion #4: There is a Real Need for Quality Intervention 153
Programs
Suggestions for Future Research 156
Concluding Comments 157

References 158

vi
Appendices
Appendix A: Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol 165
Appendix B: Data Collection Protocol 168
Appendix C: Study of School Resource Use and Instructional 177
Improvement Strategies
Appendix D: Case Study: Aero High School 181
Appendix E: Case Study: Big Wave High School 212
Appendix F: Case Study: Cactus Needle High School 246
Appendix G: Case Study: Mallview High School 281
Appendix H: Case Study: Zamboni High School 320

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Comparison of Selected Tax Rates and Expenditure Levels 23
in Selected California Counties (1968 ‐69)

Table 2.2: Evidence Based Model Recommendations for Prototypical Schools 45

Table 2.3: School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators 58

Table 2.4: Factors Affecting Student Achievement 64

Table 4.1: Program Improvement Status of the Selected Schools 79

Table 4.2: School Configurations and Demographics 81

Table 4.3: Adequate Yearly Progress Data, 2007-2009 85

Table 4.4: Proficiency Levels of Significant Subgroups Used to 88
Determine Adequate Yearly Progress, 2006-2009

Table 4.5: Proficiency Levels of Significant Subgroups Used to 89
Determine Adequate Yearly Progress, 2006-2009

Table 4.6: Subgroup API Growth and Performance Gaps Between 2005 98
and 2009

Table 4.7: Instructional Strategies at Each Participating School 108

Table 4.8: Principals’ Perceptions of the Impact of the Financial Crisis 123
Resource Allocation at Their School Sites

Table 4.9: School Size, Teachers, and Class Size of Selected Schools 127

Table 4.10: Student and Teacher Support Resources at the Selected Schools 129

Table 4.11: Resources Allocated for English Learners, Students with 132
Disabilities, and Gifted

Table 4.12: Professional Development Resource Allocation Comparison 134

Table 4.13: Actual Support Staff Resources Compared to Levels 136
Recommended by the EBM

viii
Table 4.14: School Administration Resource Allocation 138

Table A1: Aero High School AYP Criteria, 2002-2009 184

Table A2: Aero High School Graduation Rates, 2003-2009 186

Table A3: Comparison of Actual Resource Use at Aero High School to the 206
Evidence Based Model

Table A4: Big Wave High School AYP Criteria, 2002-2009 215
Table A5: Big Wave High School Graduation Rates, 2000-2001 218
through 2007-2008

Table A6: Comparison of Actual Resource Use at Big Wave High School 241
to the Evidence Based Model

Table A7: Cactus Needle High School AYP Criteria, 2002-2009 249
Table A8: Cactus Needle High School Graduation Rates, 2000-2001 252
through 2007-2008

Table A9: Comparison of Actual Resource use at Cactus Needle High 276
School to the Evidence Based Model

Table A10: Student Demographics at Mallview High School Based, 283
2000-2001 to 2008-2009

Table A11: Mallview High School AYP Criteria, 2002-2009 287
Table A12: Mallview High School Graduation Rates, 2000-2001 290
through 2007-2008

Table A13: Comparison of Actual Resource Use at Mallview High 314
School to the Evidence Based Model

Table A14: Zamboni High School AYP Criteria, 2002-2009 325

Table A15: Zamboni High School Graduation Rates, 2000-2001 328
through 2007-2008

Table A16: Comparison of Actual Resource Use at Zamboni High School 351
to the Evidence Based Model

ix
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: The Evidence Based Model 44

Figure 4.1: ELA Proficiency Levels Used to Determine AYP, 2002-2009 86

Figure 4.2: Mathematics Proficiency Levels Used to Determine AYP, 87
2002-2009

Figure 4.3: Graduation Rates, 2000-2001 to 2008-2009 90

Figure 4.4: California Standards Tests Results, 2006-2009 92

Figure 4.5: Academic Performance Indexes, 2005-2009 95

Figure 4.6: State-Wide and Similar School Rankings, 2004-2008 100

Figure A1: Aero High School AYP Proficiency Rates, 2002-2009 185

Figure A2: Aero High School CST Results 188

Figure A3: Aero High School Academic Performance Index, 2005-2009 190

Figure A4: Big Wave High School AYP Proficiency Rates, 2002-2009 216

Figure A5: Big Wave High School CST Results 220

Figure A6: Big Wave High School Academic Performance Index, 222
2005-2009

Figure A7: Cactus Needle High School AYP Proficiency Rates, 250
2002-2009

Figure A8: Cactus Needle High School CST Results 254
Figure A9: Cactus Needle High School Academic Performance Index, 257
2005-2009

Figure A10: Mallview High School AYP Proficiency Rates, 2002-2009 289

Figure A11: Mallview High School CST Results, 2005-2006 291

x
Figure A12: Mallview High School Academic Performance Index, 295
2005-2009

Figure A13: Zamboni High School AYP Proficiency Rates, 326
2002-2009

Figure A14: Zamboni High School CST Results 331
Figure A15: Zamboni High School Academic Performance Index, 333
2005-2009

xi
ABSTRACT

Faced with an unparalleled financial crisis, educators in the State of California are
faced with the challenging task of educating an increasingly diverse student population
toward mastery of some of the highest standards in the nation. As educators and policy
makers struggle to find ways to ensure that schools in the Golden State are adequately
funded, more attention is being paid to what the existing literature says about resource
allocation and student achievement. This research study reviews the resource allocation
patterns and instructional improvement strategies observed at five Southern California
high schools, and compares the findings to an research-based model known as the
Evidence Based Model. All five of the schools selected for this study were identified by
the California Department of Education as Program Improvement schools due to not
making Adequate Yearly Progress. All of the schools were found to be lacking adequate
resources for educating the students that they serve and an overall lack of effective
strategies for raising student achievement.
1

CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Introduction: California’s Educational Setting
In many ways, California is truly a land of extremes. California has the largest
student population in the nation (approximately 6.4 million in 2006) and the most
rigorous academic standards of all states (Finn, Julian, & Petrilli, 2006; National Center
for Education Statistics [NCES], 2009). As if that were not in and of itself enough of a
challenge to contend with, consider who attends public schools in the Golden State. In
2006, California schools served one of the most diverse student populations in the nation:
50% of students was Hispanic/Latino, 30% White, 12% Asian, and 8% Black (NCES,
2009). Nearly half of California’s students speak a language other than English at home,
and approximately 25% is classified as English Learners (EL) – over one third of the
nation’s EL students is educated in the state (EdSource, 2008). Finally, almost 50% of
students was eligible for free/reduced lunch in 2007, whereas about 25% of school
children lives in a family whose head of household is not a high school graduate – both of
these statistics are powerful indicators of student achievement (EdSource, 2008).
In 2008, $72 billion was spent on California’s K-12 schools, with 60% of this
amount coming from state funds (EdSource, 2009a). California currently ranks 34
th
in
per-pupil expenditures ($9,870) according to the National Education Association (NEA)
(2008), well below the national average and the amounts spent by other large states like
New York and Illinois. California schools are staffed poorly when compared to other
2

states as well. In 2006, the number of school personnel (teachers, counselors,
administrators) per 1,000 students ranked near the bottom in comparison with other states
(EdSource, 2008). Finally, teachers in California are well paid with respect to their
colleagues around the nation. Teacher salaries are the highest in the nation overall, and
in the top 10 when adjusted for variation in the cost of living (EdSource, 2008).
California’s school finance system today has been shaped by three major events:
the Serrano v. Priest court decision, Proposition 13, and Proposition 98 (Picus, 2001).
Before the 1970s, California schools were funded primarily by local property taxes,
which resulted in great disparities between the amounts per pupil that districts were
spending (Kirst, Goertz, & Odden, 2007). In essence, school districts located in wealthy
communities could generate substantially more revenue for schools at a lower tax rate
than those located in poorer areas. In 1971, the Serrano v. Priest court decision sought to
remedy this practice by ruling such disparities unconstitutional under the Equal
Protection Clause of the California state constitution, and in response, the legislature,
through revenue limits, controlled the amount of money that school districts could
receive (Timar, 2006).
Not long after Serrano, California voters passed Proposition 13 which set a
statewide property tax rate at 1% of assessed value and limited the value’s growth
(Duncombe & Yinger, 2007; Hill, 1999). Even though it was supposed to be a tax reform
measure, Proposition 13’s passage had a substantial impact on schools beyond
substantially reducing the amount of revenue that could be drawn from property taxes.
This law turned a local tax into a state tax – local governments still collected the tax, but
3

it was apportioned by the state legislature (Picus, 2001). Together, Serrano and
Proposition 13 centralized California’s school finance system.
Proposition 98 was passed by voters in 1988, and guaranteed that a portion of the
state’s general fund (around 40%) be dedicated to funding education (EdSource, 2009b).
Proposition 98 uses three ―tests‖ to determine the amount of money that schools will get
each year; these tests are related to the prior year’s funding level, growth in the economy,
and average daily attendance (EdSource, 2009b). Whereas some celebrate Proposition 98
for providing a minimum funding level for education, others see it quite differently. Kirst
et al. (2007) state that both Proposition 98 and Proposition 13 set a ―de facto ceiling and
floor on total state and local property tax allocation‖ (p. 2). Proposition 98 and
Proposition 13 are also cited as the cause of the substantial increase in categorical
(restricted) funded programs since the 1980s; about 40% of school revenues today must
be used for specific state purposes (Timar, 2006).
Finally, California is also facing a budget crisis of epic proportions. Over the past
few years, the state has reduced education budgets in an effort to remain fiscally solvent.
After closing a $40 billion shortfall in the general fund in February of 2009, California is
now faced with a $21 billion shortfall to wrestle with based upon the Legislative
Analyst’s Office’s (LAO) analysis of the governor’s May budget revision – K-12
education will see its funds significantly reduced (Taylor, 2009b). Schools in the state
have received some help from the federal government’s American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act (ARRA). Largely unrestricted funds titled State Fiscal Stabilization Funds
were doled out to California schools throughout 2009 – totaling nearly $2.5 billion
4

(Lange, 2009). The United States Department of Education (2009) has indicated that
such funds should be used to save and create jobs, improve student achievement, and
increase transparency, reporting, and accountability.

Student Achievement in California
Student achievement in California is mixed at best. Kober, Chudowsky, and
Chudowsky (2008) thoroughly reviewed student achievement in each state since the
federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 was implemented. The No Child Left
Behind Act calls for states to develop standards for both reading and mathematics and
assess student proficiency on an annual basis; the study conducted by Kober et al. (2008)
evaluated California’s improvement from 2002-2007 based on its state standards and
assessment system. The researchers found significant improvements in reading at the
elementary and middle school-levels, but a decline at the high school-level; math
achievement increased at the elementary and high school-levels, but decreased at the
middle school-level. Gains and declines must be put into some context – for example,
high school math achievement was assessed using the California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE), which assesses mainly 7
th
-grade math skills; likewise, middle school math
achievement was measured using algebra test scores only, a test only half of the study’s
8
th
-graders took in 2008 (EdSource 2008; Kober et al, 2008).
Under NCLB, Title 1 schools must make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
Students must meet increasing annual proficiency goals for all students and those in
―significant‖ subgroups and schools must demonstrate overall improvement (California
5

Department of Education [CDE], 2008). Schools that do not make AYP two years in a
row are labeled Program Improvement (PI) and face sanctions over a period of time if
they do not improve (CDE, 2008). In 2008, only about 52% of California schools made
AYP – a significant decrease from 2007’s rate of 67%; likewise, in 2008, only about 59%
met proficiency goals, down from 75% in 2007 (EdSource, 2009a). Of California’s
6,024 Title 1 schools, 2,263 were labeled PI in 2009; over half of these schools have
carried that label for four or more years (EdSource, 2009a).
The National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) also paints a dark
picture of student achievement in California. In 2007, California student achievement in
reading and mathematics in grades four and eight ranked almost near the bottom in
comparison to other states (EdSource, 2008). Notably, when factoring out EL students,
California’s scores are much more in line with the rest of the nation (EdSource, 2008).
The achievement gaps between White students and those who are Hispanic/Latino or
black persists (The Education Trust, 2009).
Finally, California’s students do not fare well in college readiness data. In 2004,
only 25% of high school graduates enrolled directly in a four-year college or university
(EdSource, 2008). In 2007, Only 35% of students completed the coursework necessary
to enroll in the California State University or University of California systems – of this
group, 60% was Asian, 40% White, 25% Hispanic/Latino, and 27% Black (EdSource,
2009a). California students took more Advanced Placement (AP) courses than the
national average and also have a higher passing rate (EdSource, 2008). These courses are
well known for their rigorous content, and can be counted for college credit if students
6

pass the end of course exams. Most Hispanic/Latino and Black students do not take AP
courses, and those who do have extremely low pass rates on the end of course exams
(The Education Trust, 2009).

The Need for Adequacy in Education Funding
An adequate level of funding is defined as the amount of funding required to
ensure that all students are meeting high academic standards (Baker, 2005; Clune, 1994;
Guthrie & Rothstein, 2001; Odden, 2003). Adequately funding schools is a significant
departure from the effort to equalize school finance, which resulted from court cases like
Serrano. A major concern with the equity approach to school finance is that it focuses
primarily on inputs with little or no connection to what is produced (Clune 1994). Even
though most states were able to provide equitable funding to schools and satisfy judicial
mandates, little attention was paid to student outcomes or performance standards until the
1990s. Together with several judicial rulings, the standards-based education movement
focused the school finance debate on student achievement with a particular emphasis on
connecting resources to outcomes (Odden, 2003).
Across the nation, four main methods have been used to estimate adequate
funding levels needed to achieve state performance: (a) the successful district approach,
(b) the cost function approach, (c) the professional judgment approach, and (d) the
Evidence Based approach (Guthrie & Rothstein, 1999; Odden & Picus, 2008). A limited
description of each approach follows with further detail provided in Chapter Two.
7

The successful district approach identifies districts that are successful in ensuring
high student performance on learning standards then determines per-pupil spending in
these districts (Odden, 2003). Odden (2003) has suggested that this approach is limited
by the fact that it is difficult to apply to districts that are unlike the studied district.
The cost function approach uses econometric modeling to attempt to estimate how
much a district needs to spend relative to the average district to ensure students perform
to an identified level (Rebell, 2007). Criticism of this approach focuses on the need for
extensive data on per pupil expenditures, student performance, and school characteristics
across a given state in order to determine average models of spending. Additionally, this
model is restricted in being a district-level analysis tool rather than a school-level
analysis tool. Further, the cost function model is difficult for policy makers, educators,
and the general public to understand (Rebell, 2007).
The professional judgment approach uses the professional judgment of highly
qualified practitioners who are knowledgeable in both effective educational strategies and
resource use (Odden, 2003). Though legislators easily understand the recommendations
of this approach, its reliance on professional opinion rather than research-based practices
has generated criticism (Hanushek, 2006a).
The Evidence Based approach to educational adequacy identifies a set of research
based best practices associated with improving student achievement and applies a cost to
each ingredient (Odden & Picus, 2008). The main advantage to this approach is that it
scrutinizes resource allocation at the school-level using a structure created by Odden,
Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003). Based upon scientific research, the model has
8

established ―prototypical‖ elementary, middle, and high school that can be used by
educators at the school-level to guide their resource reallocation programs (Odden &
Picus, 2008). In addition, the Evidence Based approach presents schools the necessary
ingredients of a sound improvement plan – emphasis on improving instruction in the core
academic areas, support for struggling students led by certified teachers, collaboration,
and professional development.
Research is clear that simply ―throwing money‖ at schools is not going to
improve student performance and close the achievement gap (Archibald, 2006;
Hanushek, 1989; Odden & Archibald, 2000; Slavin, 1999). In the case of California and
many other states facing fiscal crises, extra resources are not going to be coming to
schools any time soon; in fact, the reality is that schools will probably have to do more
with less for some time, reallocating existing resources more wisely. The Evidence
Based adequacy model provides a framework for schools to improve student achievement
without requiring additional resources (Odden & Picus, 2008)
The people of the State of California agree that now is the time for change.
Consider the following findings from a survey of likely voters conducted by the Public
Policy Institute of California by Baldassare, Bonner, Paluch, and Petek (2009):
 61% agrees that more state funding will lead to higher quality public schools;
85% agrees that better use of existing state funds will improve schools.
 56% is worried that the state’s budget crisis will cause major cuts to schools; only
48% would increase taxes to maintain funding at the current levels; during the last
economic downturn, 67% was willing to increase its taxes to support schools.
9

 82% of adults believe that local schools and districts should be able to decide how
to use funds; 71% believe that schools should be more accountable to the state
than they are now.
As stated above, California is a land of extremes – a diverse student body that
presents tremendous challenges, low per-pupil expenditures and staffing, a quirky finance
history, and a collapsing economy can make the vital task of adequately providing for
student needs seem like a pipedream. In times like this, it is important to go back to the
basics. A focus on improving student achievement using the Evidence Based model is
the prescription that California schools can use to fulfill the promise of adequately
educating all students.

Statement of the Problem
Determining a way to adequately fund schools in order for them to educate all
students to high performance standards has become urgent. This effort does not
necessarily mean giving schools more money –rather, this era of high standards and
accountability combined with the constraints of turbulent political and economic waters
demandsthat schools accomplish more with the resources that they are given. The
literature suggests that despite significant increases in per-pupil spending over the years,
student achievement has not kept pace (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997). Schools are simply
not utilizing resources in research-based ways and innovation, and are not concentrating
on improving instruction in the core academic areas (Odden & Picus, 2008).
10

In order to remedy this situation, understanding the specifics of resource
allocation patterns at the school-level is critical– and currently there is not enough data on
this topic (Hartman, Bolton, & Monk, 2001). The Evidence Based approach to adequacy
developed by Odden and Picus (2008) offers researchers a useful tool to collect and
analyze such data at the school-level. This effort is important for two reasons. First, the
Evidence Based model provides educators with specific details about how to allocate
resources in a way that will increase student performance. Second, the recommendations
made by the Evidence Based model approach adequacy from a research-based
perspective.
Finally, California’s unique circumstances leave several unanswered questions.
In the wake of additional cuts to education budgets throughout the state, investigating
whether schools there are truly doing ―more with less‖ or ―more of the same with less‖ is
crucial. In addition, the federal government is providing California schools with billions
of dollars in unrestricted funds. Will schools utilize such money to innovate and improve
student performance in the long term, as the federal government calls for, or will there be
a tendency to use these funds to ―ride out‖ the bad times without really changing
anything? The Evidence Based model will provide the data necessary to answer these
questions.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze school-level data related to
the allocation of resources, and to determine the connection between resource use and
11

student performance. Data from selected individual schools were compared to the
Evidence Based adequacy model in an effort to determine whether schools have aligned
their resources to support best practices for improving student performance identified in
the literature. The intent of this study is to provide researchers, policymakers, and
practitioners with knowledge about how to reallocate resources in a way that will lead to
significant improvements in student performance for all students.

Research Questions
This study addressed the following research questions:
1) What are the current instructional improvement strategies observed at the school-
level?
2) How are the actual resource patterns at the school sites aligned with or different
from the resource use strategies suggested by the Evidence Based Model?
3) How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
plan?
4) How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to California’s
financial crisis and related budget reductions?
5) How are State Fiscal Stabilization Funds, federal relief made available to school
districts as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, being used at
the school-level to cope with state budget reductions?

12

Importance of the Study
This study contributes to the limited body of research available addressing how
resources are allocated at the school-level to increase student achievement. This study
also advances the research base that addresses the effectiveness of the Evidence Based
model as a framework for building adequacy in resource allocation. This study informs
policymakers in California of the adequate level of resources needed by schools in order
to provide an effective instructional program to all students. It also gives policy makers
detailed information on how schools utilize the funds they receive. Findings from this
study can guide school-level practitioners in making decisions about how best to utilize
limited resources to improve student performance, especially in years when schools face
major budget reductions due to a poor economy.

Summary of Methodology
This study provides an in-depth review of resource allocation patterns at the
school-level; therefore, a purposeful sample of five comprehensive public high schools
was selected to participate in this study. Schools were chosen based upon their
identification as Program Improvement (PI) in 2009. PI schools are those that receive
Title 1 funds and have not made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), as required by the
federal No Child Left Behind Act, for two consecutive years. Notably, schools in the
first year of PI status are technically in the third year of not making AYP. The schools
that were selected for this study did not make AYP in 2009. Databases provided by the
California Department of Education were used to identify the schools for this study.
13

According to the California Department of Education (2008), AYP calls for state
high schools to meet or exceed the following requirements:
1) 10
th
-grade proficiency rates on the English language arts and mathematics
portions of the California High School Exit Exam must exceed 33% in 2008 and
about 44% in 2009 school-wide and for significant subgroups of students.
Students with significant cognitive disabilities may be tested using an alternative
assessment, but still must meet the proficiency rates described above.
2) 95% of 10
th
-grade students must be tested; 95% of the students in significant
subgroups must be tested as well.
3) The Academic Performance Index (API) must exceed 620 in 2008 and 650 in
2009; for schools with lower APIs, annual growth of one point meets this
requirement.
4) The graduation rate must meet or exceed 83% in 2008 and 83.1% in 2009.
All researchers who participated in this study attended a day-long training session
in May 2009. During this training, each researcher received data collection protocols and
codebooks, as well as comprehensive instruction in their use. Each researcher collected
and analyzed data using the same protocol and collection instruments in order to allow all
researchers to compare resource use patterns across the schools sampled by other
researchers.
Each school visit consisted of a four-hour interview with the school principal and
other key personnel. Data on resource allocation and the instructional improvement plan
was collected at this time. Existing documents such as the school’s vision and mission
14

statements, single-school plan for student achievement, master schedule, staff roster, and
school budget were collected and examined. Quantitative school resource data were
collected, uploaded into a password protected on-line database, and then compared to the
level of resources the Evidence Based model would generate for the school. Qualitative
data was collected and used to generate a descriptive case study of each school that
depicts how the school uses its resources to support the instructional improvement plan.
The case studies were analyzed and used to make comparisons regarding the similarities
and differences in resource allocation across all of the schools in the study, and to
identify how each school’s resource use is aligned to the research based best practices
that are detailed in the Evidence Based Model.

Limitations and Delimitations
This study included five comprehensive public high schools within the State of
California. Because of the limited size of this study, the unique context of school finance
in California, and the specific characteristics of the student body there, the findings may
be generalizable only to California schools of similar size and demographic. Data
collected for this study are limited to expenditures and resource allocations in the 2009-
2010 school year and are not longitudinal. Finally, the researcher was not able to control
participants’ biases or willingness to participate in the study.

15

Assumptions
It was assumed that the participants in this study answered questions willingly and
honestly during the interviews. Additionally, the researcher assumed that all existing data
collected and analyzed from each school and district was complete and accurate.

Definitions
Academic Performance Index (API): The State of California’s numerical indicator of
student achievement used as a basis for comparative ranking of schools state-wide.
Adequacy: The supply of sufficient resources from the federal and state government to
each school in order to ensure each student achieves mastery of identified performance
standards.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): The federal No Child Left Behind Act (defined
below), which requires students to make annual progress toward proficiency in reading
and mathematics. Graduation rates for high schools and participation rates during testing
are also part of AYP criteria. Both the entire school and significant subgroups of students
must make AYP annually. Finally, ALL students must be proficient in both reading and
mathematics by 2014.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): Federal act designed to provide
stimulus to the economy in the wake of a major economic downturn. The act includes
federal tax relief, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare
provisions, and domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure, including
the energy sector. The nominal value of the measures is almost $800 billion.
16

Average Daily Attendance (ADA): The number of students present on each school day
throughout the year, divided by the total number of school days in a year.
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE): All students must pass this exam in order
to earn a high school diploma. The exam has two parts - the English language arts
portion of the test is based upon 10
th
-grade standards; the mathematics portion is based
upon 7
th
-grade standards with some algebra content. The exam is given to 10
th
-graders;
students who do not pass either section are provided multiple opportunities to retest in
subsequent grades. AYP for high schools is primarily determined by 10
th
grade
proficiency rates on this exam.
California Standards Tests (CSTs): Tests in English language arts and mathematics in
grades 2-11, science in grades 5 and 8-11, and history/social science in grades 8-11,
based on California's academic content standards.
Categorical Funding: Restricted funding from the state or federal government granted to
qualifying school districts for specified purposes.
Certificated/Credentialed Employees: Also referred to as ―licensed‖ employees – staff
and faculty holding appropriate state credentials.
Core Academic Courses: Courses in reading/English language arts, mathematics, science,
history, and foreign language.
Cost Function Approach: Econometric approach to identifying costs associated with
achieving desired/required student achievement outcomes.
17

Economic Impact Aid/Limited English Proficient (EIA/LEP) Funds: California state
categorical funds made available to school districts to support the education of low-
income students and those learning English.
English Learner (EL): Most current designation for students not yet sufficiently
proficient to access and learn from the regular instructional programs offered at the
school. English language proficiency is assessed annually. Students who are reclassified
as proficient in the English language continue to be part of the EL subgroup for testing
purposes until they earn a proficient score on the California Standards Test in English
Language Arts three times.
Equalization: Funds allocated by the legislature to raise districts with lower revenue
limits toward the statewide range.
Equity: The concept of providing students with equal access to a quality education
through an even distribution of resources.
Evidence Based Model: School instructional improvement design grounded in
scientifically based research and widely documented effective practice based on resource
allocation associated with achieving desired/required student achievement outcomes.
Expenditure: Any resource of time, money, or personnel expended to provide students
with instruction, facilities and services.
Fulltime Equivalent (FTE): The ratio derived by dividing the number of work hours
required in a part-time position by the number of work hours required in a corresponding
full-time position.
18

General Fund: The fund used to finance the ordinary operations of school districts.
General funds may be used for any legally authorized purpose.
Mandated Costs: Expenditures that occur as a result of federal or state law, court
decisions, administrative regulations, or initiative measures. School districts may apply
for state funds to reimburse these costs.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): Federal legislation passed in 2001 proposed to
increase accountability for schools in reaching high levels of proficiency for all students.
Professional Judgment Approach: Strategies for improving student performance are
identified by a group of educators and then broken into the components necessary for
implementation at the school-level. Costs are assigned to each component.
Program Improvement (PI): Federal status designation triggering a series of expected
school improvement actions for schools receiving Title I funds that fail to make AYP as
defined by NCLB for two consecutive years.
Revenue Limits: Expressed in dollars per student attending school within a district, and
determined by the prior year’s limit plus an inflation adjustment (i.e. cost-of-living
adjustment or COLA).
Significant Subgroups: Any group of 100 or more students with valid scores or 50 or
more students with valid scores who make up at least 15% of the total valid test scores.
Groups are any ethnic/racial group, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, ELs, and
students with disabilities.
State Fiscal Stabilization Funds (SFSF): Federal funds provided to school districts based
upon need for the purpose of saving and creating jobs, improving student achievement
19

through school improvement and reform, and modernizing and renovating facilities.
These funds are largely unrestricted, and are only expected to be available for two to
three years.
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged: Students who participate in the free/reduced price
lunch program or whose parents are not high school graduates.
Students with Disabilities: A student who receives special education services. Students
who have exited from a special education program are included in this subgroup for
testing purposes for two years after the exit date.
Successful District Approach: Identification of programs, strategies, and resources used
in ―successful districts‖ with the intention of transferring those programs to other schools
to achieve desired/required student achievement outcomes.
Title I: Federal funds for educationally disadvantaged children from the Educational
Consolidation and Improvement Act.

Organization of the Study
This chapter presented the introduction, the statement of the problem, the purpose
of the study, the questions to be answered, the importance of the study, a summary of the
methodology to be used, the limitations, delimitations, assumptions, definition of terms,
and the organization of the study.
Chapter Two of the study presents a review of the literature relevant to school
finance in California, the concept of adequacy, and best practices for improving student
performance.
20

Chapter Three presents the research methodology, the data collection procedures,
and the methods of analysis of the data. Chapter Four reports the findings from the
analysis of the data and the interpretation of those finding in review of the literature.
Chapter Five provides a summary of the results of the study, conclusions, and
suggestions for future research.

21

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction
The ultimate goal of any school finance system should be to provide schools with
the adequate amount of money to ensure that all students are meeting high academic
standards (Odden & Picus, 2008). This chapter provides an overview of the literature
related to school finance, with a focus specifically on the importance of adequately
financing schools, resource allocation trends as they relate to school reform efforts, and
research-based frameworks for reforming schools and leading to increased student
performance. This chapter is divided into four parts: (a) the context of school finance in
California, (b) educational adequacy, (c) resource use, and (d) school reform frameworks
that lead to increased student performance.

The Context of School Finance in California
Until the 1970s, California’s schools were primarily funded by local property
taxes – on average, 60% of school funds came from local property taxes, 34% from state
funds, and the remaining 6% from federal funds; most importantly, almost all of the
money that schools received was in the form of unrestricted revenue (Kirst et al., 2007).
Today, the funding landscape for California schools is radically different. In 2008,
schools received about 22% of their revenue from local property taxes, with 60% coming
from state funds and 9% from federal sources (EdSource, 2009a). Along with this
22

movement toward a centralized school finance system, California’s legislature has
restricted how schools can utilize their resources – on average about 40% of school
revenues is restricted and must be used for state specified purposes (Timar, 2006).
This section explores how California’s centralized system of school finance evolved over
the past four decades, and will analyze the impact that evolution has had on the overall
state of education.
The Move Toward Centralization
Beginning in the 1970s, two major events moved California’s system for
financing public schools from one primarily based upon local property taxes with local
control to one more centralized and state-controlled: (a) the Serrano v. Priest California
State Supreme Court decision and (b) Proposition 13 (Grubb, Goe, & Huerta, 2004; Kirst
et al., 2007; Timar, 2004).
Serrano v. Priest. In 1971, the California State Supreme Court ruled in the
landmark case Serrano v. Priest that the state’s school finance system was
unconstitutional. Because schools were primarily funded by local property taxes at the
time, substantial differences between schools in ―high wealth‖ communities and ―low
wealth‖ communities existed (Hill, 1999). Property taxes were levied based upon the
assessed value of the property, thus schools throughout the state received varying sums of
money to pay for educating students. The court’s decision asserted that the funding
system at the time violated Equal Protection Clause of the California constitution, and
mandated that differences in the general purpose revenue (unrestricted) that schools
receive be mitigated (Duncombe & Yinger, 2006; Timar, 2006).
23

Table 2.1, below, provides an example of the disparities among revenue that
schools were able to generate pre-Serrano. As illustrated, a small district like Emery
Unified was able to generate almost three and half times more revenue than Newark
Unified at a significantly lower tax rate ($2.57 per $1000 in assessed value).
Table 2.1
Comparison of Selected Tax Rates and Expenditure Levels in Selected California
Counties (1968-69)
County ADA Assessed Value
per ADA
Tax Rate Expenditure
per ADA
Alameda
Emery Unified 586 $100,187 $2.57 $2,223
Newark Unified 8,638 6,042 6.65 616
Fresno
Coalinga Unified 2,640 33,244 2.17 963
Clovis Unified 8,144 6,480 4.28 568
Kern
Rio Bravo Elem. 122 136,271 1.05 1,545
Lamont Elem. 1,847 5,971 3.06 533
Los Angeles
Beverly Hills Unified 5,542 50,885 2.38 1,232
Baldwin Park Unified 13,108 3,706 5.48 577
(Adapted from Timar, 2006)

24

Responding to the Serrano decision in 1972, the state legislature developed
―revenue limit‖ controls that sought to limit the amount of unrestricted revenue districts
could receive (Timar, 2006). Each district’s revenue limit was based upon the general
purpose revenue that it received in 1972-1973; in order to close the funding gap between
low-wealth and high-wealth school districts, the state legislature (a) adjusted the revenue
limit each year for inflation at a higher rate for low-wealth districts than high-wealth
districts and (b) increased the amount of overall funding to low wealth districts (Hill,
1999; Timar, 2006). Notably, at the time, voters in local districts could override the
revenue limit (Sonstelie, Bruner, & Ardon, 2000).
The Serrano decision marked a significant milestone in California education
history. In the 1999 Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) report, A K-12 Master Plan, Hill
concluded that the overall governance structure of California schools changed with that
verdict, and that
Two principles evolved from the court opinion that are major structural pillars of
today's school finance system: (1) a goal of equal general purpose funding for
districts (on a per-student basis) and (2) a prohibition on wealth-based differences
in K-12 funding. (p. 9)

Further, the Little Hoover Commission (LHC) (1997) stated that the legislature’s
response to Serrano— enacting a complicated revenue limit system— missed the spirit of
the Serrano decision and did little to help students in large urban school districts (San
Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco), which all have high assessment values but the
largest numbers of at-risk students. The commission also pointed out that the system did
25

not account for the fact that some of the highest spending districts in the state did not
serve wealthy families at all – they were rural school districts with high operating costs
(LHC, 1997).
Proposition 13. Passed by voters in 1978, California’s Proposition 13
dramatically impacted both the state’s school finance and governance system. In
essence, Proposition 13 accomplished three things that greatly affect schools: (a) it set a
statewide property tax rate at 1%, (b) it prohibited local governments from increasing that
tax rate, and (c) it restricted the growth in assessed value for properties that do not change
hands (Duncombe & Yinger, 2007; Hill, 1999). Because school districts had no other
major sources of school revenue, Proposition 13 meant that local school districts were
dependent almost entirely upon the state for revenue (Duncombe & Yinger, 2007). Prior
to the enactment of this law, school districts received a certain amount of state aid based
on a formula, and then raised property taxes to fill in the gap of the revenue limit; the
passage of Proposition 13 turned that situation around, distributing property taxes by
formula and using state aid to fund schools to the revenue limit (Sonstelie et al., 2000).
Proposition 13 also closed the loophole of allowing voters to override the revenue limit
for their district that the state’s funding equalization program had provided (Sonstelie et
al., 2000).
Proposition 13 had at least two major effects on California schools. First, the law
essentially turned the property tax (until then, a local tax used for local purposes) into a
state tax that could be rationed and spent according to the legislature. When combined
with the Serrano decision, along with control over property tax dollars, Proposition 13
26

gave state lawmakers almost total control over how schools receive their revenues (Kirst
et al., 2007). The passage of Proposition 13 also reduced the public demand for spending
on public education. Sonstelie et al. (2000) analyzed the slow decrease in per-pupil
spending in comparison to other services since the passage of Proposition 13. The
authors determined that the movement from a local funding system of schools (through
property taxes) to a centralized statewide system, dropped the public’s desire to spend
additional money on schools at a rate commensurate with the state’s overall decline in
public school spending (Sonstelie et al., 2000). Because Proposition 13 fixed property
taxes, more money for schools would have to come from income taxes, sales taxes, or the
like – an idea not popular with voters. Brewer and Smith (2007) have supported this
notion by indicating that Serrano and Proposition 13 limited the state’s capacity to
increase revenue ―due to a reluctance of elected officials to raise taxes‖ (p. 90).
Proposition 98. Proposition 98 was a change to the California Constitution that
was approved by voters in 1988. The purpose of this legislation was to guarantee a
minimum level of funding for schools that kept pace with growth in the student
population and personal income (EdSource, 2009b). In a LAO report, Hill (2005)
described the important aspects of Proposition 98:
 Test 1: K-14 education must receive a minimum percentage of general fund
revenues – around 40%. This test has only been used once, in the
implementation year of the law.
27

 Test 2: Increases the prior year amount of funding by growth in attendance and
personal income. Generally, this test has been used only in good economic
years.
 Test 3: Increases the prior year amount of funding by growth in attendance and
per capita general fund revenues. Generally this test is used when general fund
revenues fall or grow slowly.
 Suspension: Proposition 98 can be suspended for one year by a 2/3 vote of the
legislature and approval of the governor
 Maintenance Factor: If Test 3 is used or Proposition 98 is suspended, the
amount saved must be paid back beginning in the next year that the general fund
grows more quickly than personal income.
 ―Settling Up:‖ If the Proposition 98 funding level estimate turns out to be too
low, the state must pay back the amount owed.
One of the goals of Proposition 98 was to establish a funding system for schools
that would be stable over time. Unfortunately, this ideal has not been the case; according
to Hill, in 2005 as part of a report for the LAO, changes in Proposition 98 funding were
significantly more volatile than changes in the economy, primarily due to the funding
level’s reliance upon year-to-year changes in the general fund. Critics asserted that
instead of acting as a funding floor, Proposition 98 was actually serving as a funding
―ceiling,‖ for the very reason that the LAO cites as the source of the funding’s volatility –
the connection to annual general fund revenues (LHC, 1997). The Little Hoover
28

Commission indicated that the legislature had little incentive to give schools more money
than required by the statute, and indicated that until the date of their report, school
funding over the Proposition 98 minimum levels was not significant.
Rose, Sonstelie, Reinhard, and Heng (2003) disagreed with the Little Hoover
Commission’s assertions, finding instead that throughout the 1990s, the California
economy was the more likely culprit for low increases in education spending. The
authors claimed the real issue with Proposition 98 was that it focused the legislature on
ensuring schools enough money to satisfy the minimum funding levels of the law instead
of answering the question ―how much funding do schools need to ensure that students are
able to master the state’s academic content and performance standards?‖ (Rose et al.,
2003, p. 55)
Categorical programs. Both Proposition 13 and Proposition 98 gave birth to a
substantial increase in the number of categorical (restricted revenue) programs in the state
of California. In 1980, there were only 17 state categorical funds; currently, there are 100
(EdSource, 2009b; Timar 2006). Grubb et al. (2004) indicated that since Proposition 13
passed, the legislature’s tendency has been to give schools revenue in the form of
categorical grants (200 state and federal), which now account for about 40% of all state
aid. Between 1980 and 2000, the growth in revenue limit share of spending per pupil
increased 8%, whereas the categorical share increased 165% (Timar, 2006).
Timar (2004) has maintained that Proposition 98 is also to blame for the
explosion in restricted funds. In School Governance And Oversight In California:
Shaping The Landscape Of Equity And Adequacy, Timar described how categorical
29

programs have historically been developed since the passage of the law, stating that many
of these programs were born in the weeks leading to the May revise of the state budget.
Timar (2004) explained that during good years, politicians scramble to spend additional
revenue that was not counted on in the original budget, and that back room deals are
often to blame for money being distributed unwisely to schools. Timar went on to say
that due to term limits, politicians must attach themselves to high visibility programs and
initiatives that will assist them in getting elected to another office – thus, instead of
giving schools additional unrestricted revenue, they often provide targeted funds for
specific programs that may appear beneficial for students but in reality do very little to
help them.
There are four major types of categorically funded programs in California:
entitlement, incentive, discretionary grants, and mandated cost reimbursement (Timar,
2006). Entitlement programs typically serve students who fall into certain classifications.
Programs for students with disabilities, English learners, and socioeconomically
disadvantaged students are typically funded through entitlement programs. Incentive
programs are used to encourage districts to participate in a particular program by
providing funding specifically for it. California’s class size reduction program in grades
K-3 is an example of an incentive program. Discretionary programs generally require
school personnel to apply for a grant in order to receive the additional money to
implement the program. Examples of discretionary programs are the High Priority
Schools Grant Program, Partnership Academies, and Advancement Via Individual
Determination (AVID). Funding for discretionary programs generally goes away after a
30

period of time, leaving school districts left to find alternative ways to fund them (Timar,
2006). Mandated cost reimbursement provides districts with funding to pay for the cost
of implementing new programs or maintaining existing ones mandated by state law or
executive order. Mandated cost reimbursement includes reimbursing school districts for
developing School Accountability Report Cards, implementing Safe School Plans, and
administering testing programs.
One of the biggest problems with categorical programs is that they can often be
disjointed, and do not work together to improve student achievement. Timar (2006) has
suggested that even though categorical funds provide a significant amount of money for
school programs, these programs actually compartmentalize schools and don’t work
together to improve learning for all students. In an early study of categorical programs,
Kimbrough and Hill (1983) found that as the number of categorical programs increased,
schools had difficulty implementing those programs, which never effectively served the
students they were supposed to help. One reason for the problems with categorical
programs may again be the manner in which they were developed. Typically, the
programs are conceived individually and thus lack the cohesiveness to create a school-
wide improvement effort from which all students can benefit (Grubb et al., 2004).
Duncombe and Yinger (2007) have maintained that restricted school funding in
the form of categorical programs is responsible for stifling innovation and increasing the
resources dedicated to bookkeeping instead of education. SBecause the cornerstone of
California’s accountability program for schools is the Academic Performance Index (a
composite ranking of student test scores), innovation is exactly what schools need to have
31

in order to improve their standing. The authors show in their findings that categorical
funding does not lead to higher test scores.

The Future of California School Finance
Since the Serrano decision, California has gone from being in the top 10 in the
entire United States in expenditures per pupil to 34
th
in the nation (National Education
Association, 2008). Court decisions, revenue limits, and voter-approved propositions
have all created a school finance system that Kirst et al. (2007) have described as having
―no coherent conceptual basis, is incredibly complex, fails to deliver an equal or effective
education to all children, and is a historical accretion‖ (p. 2). In 2005, California
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger established the Governor’s Committee on Education
Excellence (GCEE), and charged it with the task of studying and making
recommendations on four interrelated areas: (a) finance, (b) governance, (c) teacher
recruitment, education, distribution, and (d) administrator preparation and retention
(GCEE, 2007).
The committee found that California was significantly deficient in all areas of the
study. In Students First: Renewing Hope for California’s Future, the committee made
the following recommendations: (a) strengthen teaching and leadership by creating a
―students-first‖ philosophy in schools, enhancing leadership, creating incentive programs
for teachers and principals, and taking a proactive stance in the recruitment of quality
teachers, (b) ensure fair funding that rewards results by transitioning to a student-centered
funding model that provides additional resources for students that need the most help, (c)
32

streamline governance and strengthen accountability by deregulating the current system
and promoting local autonomy, (d) improve data systems and use them wisely by creating
systems that link, student, teacher, school, district, and state data, and (e) create a
foundation for continuous improvement by adopting a universal preschool program and
expanding full-day kindergarten (GCEE, 2007).
Exactly how these recommendations can be implemented considering California’s
harsh financial landscape today remains unclear. Even after cutting school budgets in the
last few years, the state still has had to make major cuts to remain solvent. After closing
a $40 billion shortfall in the general fund in February of 2009, California was faced with
a $21 billion shortfall to wrestle with based upon the LAO’s analysis of the governor’s
May budget revision (Taylor, 2009b). In order to make up that deficit, the governor
proposed that schools be funded at the Proposition 98 minimum (amounting to a cut of
about $5 billion from what had been planned on), by reducing revenue limits, deferring
payments to subsequent years, and eliminating some categorical programs (Taylor,
2009b).

Educational Adequacy
As the context of school finance in California makes clear, the path set down after
Serrano intended to equalize funding across the state as opposed to determining an
adequate level of funding to raise student achievement, and then provide schools with
that funding. An adequate level of funding is defined as the amount of funding required
33

to ensure that all students are meeting high academic standards (Baker, 2005; Clune,
1994; Guthrie & Rothstein, 2001; Odden, 2003).
The standards movement that has dominated education policy in the United States
for the past 20 years has sought to elucidate what schools are supposed to teach and what
happens if student achievement does not rise. The problem is that this movement has
done nothing to address the necessity of providing schools with adequate support; high
standards and accountability alone do nothing to close achievement gaps (Lee & Wong,
2004). Alexander (2004) has described state accountability programs and the No Child
Left Behind Act as requiring educators to ―do more‖ without providing any additional
resources or direction as to how to improve student achievement. Darling-Hammond
(2004) stated that today’s test-based accountability programs are really the information
piece of a true accountability system. She goes on to delineate that true accountability
systems are ones that invest in providing adequate resources to raise student learning. In
a later paper, Darling-Hammond (2006) has said that failure on the part of the United
States to ―confront the need to make sustained and serious investments in the education
of all of its citizens, or we will, within a short time, witness the contemporary equivalent
of the Fall of Rome‖ (p. 15).
Today’s primary school finance problem is linking school finance to the strategies
needed to accomplish the goal of teaching students to higher standards (Odden & Picus,
2008). In terms of adequacy, Rice (2004) has viewed this link as the balance of equity
and efficiency, stating that ―achieving adequacy, then, involves understanding what
resources (inputs) are needed for a specific set of educational opportunities (processes)
34

that will result in this specified level of knowledge and skills (outcomes)‖ (p. 138). She
elaborated that two conditions must be met for adequacy: (a) states must ensure that
school systems have a level of resources consistent with an adequate education, and (b)
school systems must use those resources efficiently to realize the specified level of
knowledge and skills (Rice, 2004). Of particular importance is the part about outcomes.
Adequacy models seek to provide schools with the resources necessary to achieve
specific educational outcomes (Odden & Picus, 2008). Alexander (2004) has noted that
these outcomes (in the form of standards) must remain relatively stable over time, and
has argued that the best way to prevent standards from gravitating toward ―minimal
expectations‖ is to fund schools adequately.
The concept of adequacy calls for flexibility in the distribution of resources, as
meeting the needs of students with special needs or challenges may require more, less, or
different resources (Odden, 2003). Baker (2005) has recognized this reality by
identifying two standards of adequacy – absolute and relative. Absolute standards of
adequacy concern the overall level of financial support for the overall level of desired
outcomes. Relative standards of adequacy concern the cost differences associated with
ensuring that students with special needs meet high standards. Special education,
services for English Learners, and resources required to challenge gifted students may all
require more resources to help the students achieve at high levels within a typical school
setting.
Over the past decade, the courts have played a large role in advancing the cause of
adequacy in school finance, calling for several states to use adequacy studies to identify
35

ways to raise student achievement. (Baker, 2005; Clune 1994; Hanushek, 2006a; Odden,
2003). Rebell (2007) maintained that these adequacy studies are a key part of school
reform and represent a vast improvement over how school policy has been traditionally
carried out in the past (i.e., through political deals that were rarely based on educational
research). Baker (2005) has echoed Rebell’s sentiments, demonstrating that states can
use cost analysis procedures to estimate the resources necessary to help all students meet
high standards. He also indicated that the courts will be necessary agents in the process
of moving toward an adequate funding system.
Hanushek (2006a) has seen court involvement in the school finance debate,
particularly through its advocacy for adequacy, as a result of poor decisions it made. He
argued that the courts overstepped their bounds by mandating a move toward adequacy,
and thus created policy instead of defending the constitution. Hanushek has voiced
bigger problems with adequacy models. In Courting Failure: How School Finance
Lawsuits Exploit Judges' Good Intentions and Harm our Children, Hanushek (2006a)
described such models as not being fully ―scientific‖ and unable to precisely calculate the
costs necessary to producing specified student outcomes.
Specifically, Hanushek (2006b) harshly criticized the adequacy study conducted
in the State of Washington by Odden, Picus, Goetz, Mangan and Fermanich (2006), a
group of researchers who used an ―Evidence Based model‖ to frame their school finance
reform recommendations (this model is discussed later in this paper). Hanushek (2006b)
claimed that their study did not promote good public policy, had no regard for efficiency
of public expenditures, and selectively chose from available research. Hanushek (2006a,
36

2006b) called instead for schools to focus on developing finance systems that have strong
accountability and on aligning incentives with performance, transparency, and a program
of learning from experience.
Four different approaches have been used to estimate adequate funding levels
needed to achieve specified performance goals: (a) the successful district approach, (b)
the cost function approach, (c) the professional judgment approach, and (d) the Evidence
Based approach (Guthrie & Rothstein, 1999; Loeb, 2007; Odden, 2003). Details about
each methodology’s strengths and weaknesses are accounted for below.
The Successful District Approach
The successful district approach attempts to answer the questions, ―What districts
are achieving their academic goals, how are they doing it, and what resources are
necessary to implement their strategies elsewhere?‖ One major advantage of this
approach is that it is easy for stakeholders (both public and government) to understand.
Studies of this nature used different criteria to evaluate schools, but attempted to account
for differences across schools in the student population and to find schools that are
particularly successful for a given population of students (Loeb, 2007). Such studies
have been conducted in Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, Washington, Colorado, Kansas,
Mississippi, and others (Loeb, 2007; Odden and Picus, 2008).
In California, Perez, Anand, Speroni, Parrish, Esra, Socias, and Gubbins (2007)
conducted a study comparing several schools labeled as ―Beating the Odds‖ (BTO) to
―Low Performing‖ (LP) schools. This study was part of the Getting Down to Facts
project that was a major part of the Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence
37

described above. The researchers investigated 61 elementary schools, 7 middle schools,
and 35 high schools that were classified as BTO for their superior performance on the
California Standards Tests in English language arts and mathematics across all student
subgroups, and compared this sample to a comparable number of LP schools. The
authors of the study found that there were no differences in the number of personnel
serving in BTO and LP schools, but concluded that BTO schools had higher numbers of
experienced teachers and administrators, particularly at the secondary levels; they also
found that LP schools had significantly higher numbers of teachers who did not hold
appropriate credentials.
Perez et al. (2007) also found that high poverty schools in both groups spent more
per pupil than average, but that high poverty BTO schools spent slightly more per pupil
($266) than high poverty LP schools. The key conclusion of the study was that resources
make a difference if utilized properly by qualified people and are focused on improving
student achievement. Notably, however, the researchers did not provide a ―formula‖ for
school improvement. Although they identified several factors related to increased student
performance, they did not specify exactly what the schools were doing with roughly the
same resources as other schools that had earned the Beating the Odds designation.
Several shortcomings are associated with successful district adequacy studies.
First, studies of this nature are generally not specific enough when it comes to describing
how funds should be spent to produce student achievement results (Odden & Picus,
2008). Second, it is difficult to identify effective schools (Loeb, 2007). Schools can be
dynamic with regard to the populations that they serve over time; further, limited data
38

sets render it difficult to determine whether schools are adequately serving certain student
groups. Perez et al. (2007) in the study described above illustrated this point, concluding
that BTO and LP schools were extremely difficult to identify because of the instability in
test scores from year to year. Finally, Odden and Picus (2008) indicated that successful
district studies tend to be generalizable to average sized, suburban districts that serve
homogenous populations, and thus are difficult to apply to large, diverse, urban school
districts.
The Cost Function Approach
These studies have used data on district spending and the educational
achievement of students to determine the cost of reaching standards (Loeb, 2007). Cost
function studies can also be used to calculate the amount of money in addition to base
funds required to educate students with special needs to meet performance standards
(Odden & Picus, 2008). As such, Rebell (2007) explained that
cost function analyses differ from successful school district analyses in that they
involve much more rigorous attempts to determine not only the levels of present
spending that are associated, on average, with a specific set of outcomes, but also
how those levels of spending may vary for districts of different characteristics that
serve different student populations. (p. 1312)

Cost function studies utilize complicated mathematical formulas that can more precisely
identify districts that are successful despite challenges, as well as those that are not
performing well despite favorable circumstances (Rebell, 2007). Cost function analyses
require large sets of data on both spending and achievement to draw conclusions about
appropriate resource allocation patterns, and are thus limited by the amount, quality, and
specificity of data available (Loeb, 2007; Odden and Picus, 2008; Rebell, 2007).
39

As part of the Getting Down to Facts project, Imazeki (2007) conducted an
econometric cost function analysis to quantify the relationship between student outcomes
and costs for districts with a variety of characteristics. Her data analysis utilized
spending data based upon per-pupil general fund expenditures, student demographics,
enrollment data, and achievement data in the form of district Academic Performance
Index scores and California Standards Test results in English language arts and
mathematics. Imazeki’s study estimated that California districts would need an
additional $1.7 billion in order for all of them to reach an API score of 800, and added
that this amount is conservative. Finally, one of Imazeki’s most important conclusions
was that the state significantly underfunds districts with the highest concentrations of
students who need the most help.
Critics of cost function analyses indicate that studies such as Imazeki’s do very
little to explain what schools should do with financial resources in order to improve
student learning (Odden, 2003). Hanushek (2006a) maintained that cost function studies
―inherently fail to provide usable information about the resources that would be required
to meet a given student achievement level, at least when the resources are used efficiently
and effectively‖ (p. 258). He has also pointed out that even if cost analyses are based
upon effective education practice, there is no guarantee that additional money will go
toward faithfully implementing those practices. Others have maintained that such
analyses are not successful at controlling for variables across school districts, and do not
account for issues such as a district’s efficiency at turning an input into an output
(Addonizio, 2003). Finally, such analyses can result in widely varying costs that are
40

extremely difficult to explain to the public and legislatures that control the financial purse
strings of schools in their states (Loeb, 2007; Verstegen, 2007).
The Professional Judgment Approach
The professional judgment approach to estimating adequacy costs is the most
common and widely used. This methodology seeks the input of education professionals
regarding effective educational strategies to support students at all grade levels, including
those with special needs (Odden, 2003). Once strategies are identified, their essential
elements are accounted for (personnel, technology, etc.), assigned a price, and then a total
sum per pupil is estimated (Odden & Picus, 2008). Typically, professional judgment
approaches rely upon a panel of educators to develop criteria for what works well in
schools, consult surveys of educators that elicit information about how best to utilize
resources, or a combination of both (Loeb, 2007). The major advantages of professional
judgment studies are that they (a) pool the collective wisdom of a group of highly
qualified, knowledgeable education professionals, and (b) can properly assess the desired
outcomes of a school that are not easily measured by test scores (Rebell, 2007).
Chambers, Levin, and DeLancey (2007) conducted a professional judgment study
in California as part of the Getting Down to Facts project. The study began with the
development of goals and performance measures that were consistent with those
developed by the state. Next, two panels of educators were developed, each consisting of
a superintendent of schools, principals from each school-level, teachers, and specialists.
The panels were charged with the task of identifying what programs and resources would
be necessary for a ―typical‖ school to achieve the previously identified goals and excel on
41

the performance measures. Each panel was also asked to modify its initial plans to
accommodate for schools that serve large populations of diverse students – for example,
students with disabilities, low socioeconomic status, English learners, and so forth. The
researchers then assigned a cost to each program that the panels specified.
The two professional judgment panels in the study conducted by Chambers et al.
(2007) developed programs that would have required 53% and 71% increases in per-pupil
spending – an additional expenditure of $24 to $32 billion. Along these lines, the authors
found that virtually every California school district would require additional money to
support all of their students. Each panel made similar recommendations that sought to
dramatically modify the way that schools educate students. The panels suggested
reducing class sizes, lengthening the instructional year, and implementing preschool
programs and targeted grade-level interventions, and many others.
There are many problems with the professional judgment approach. Rebell
(2007) has stated that the methodology’s weakness is an inverse of its strength – relying
upon a collection of judgments results is less reliable than a statistical model. He also
indicated that there may be a tendency for such a group of professionals to develop ―wish
lists‖ that are neither practical nor necessary. Loeb (2007) echoes Rebell’s sentiments,
indicating that such studies often ask panels to develop models without regard to budget
or other limitations; as a result, such models may result in what the panel wants as
opposed to what schools need or will ever be able to receive. For his part, Hanushek
(2006a) has taken issue with how panels are developed in the first place. He indicated
that many educators lack the background, experiences, or knowledge base required to
42

develop a model for school improvement. Finally, Verstegen (2007) stated that
professional judgment panels are only effective when they are composed of qualified
education professionals who base their decisions on well-established research.
Evidence Based Approach
The fourth approach to assessing adequacy in school finance is the Evidence
Based approach, which is the focus of this research study. This methodology selects
research or other Evidence Based educational strategies, assigns a price to them, and then
aggregates them to identify adequate school site, district, and state expenditure levels
(Odden & Picus, 2008). This approach attempts to provide schools with specific details
about strategies that have proven effective in raising student achievement, as well as clear
information about what resources must be used to implement those strategies. Odden et
al. (2005) describe the three sources that the evidence for this model comes from:
1) research with randomized assignment to the treatment;
2) research with other types of controls and procedures that can help separate the
impact of the treatment; and
3) best practices either as codified in a comprehensive school design or from studies
of impact at the local district or school-level.
The Evidence Based model has been used to evaluate and develop adequate school
finance systems in Kentucky, Arkansas, Arizona, Wyoming, and Washington (Odden &
Picus, 2008). Work in these states has been successful in determining the level of
funding needed to implement any research-based strategy schools may need to impact
student learning (Odden & Picus, 2008).
43

Researchers who use the Evidence Based approach to finance adequacy have built
this model around research from Odden (2009) that identifies 10 effective, research-based
practices that can double student performance: (a) conduct a needs assessment, (b) set
high goals for student performance, (c) adopt a rigorous, standards-based curriculum, (d)
commit to data-driven decision making, (e) invest in on-going and effective professional
development, (f) use instructional time wisely, (g) provide multiple interventions for
struggling students, (h) create professional learning communities, (i) empower leaders to
support instructional improvement, and (j) promote family engagement. Based upon
these practices, these researchers have established ―prototypical‖ elementary, middle, and
high schools to illustrate the staffing and resources necessary to produce the desired
outcome of increasing student performance (Odden & Picus, 2008). The staffing and
programs are illustrated in Figure 2.1, below. As Figure 2.1 displays, a key aspect of the
funding model is reduced class sizes in the core academic areas – 15:1 in grades K-3,
25:1 in 4-12. From there the model provides a certain amount of specialist teachers based
upon student enrollment, extended support for struggling learners that includes tutoring
by certified teachers and support for English learners, resources for specialized academic
programs, and ample opportunities for professional development in the form of
instructional coaches, trainers, and ten extra days of professional development. Table
2.2, below, presents specific details about staffing and resources in each type of school
setting – elementary, middle, and high school. Most useful about the Evidence Based
model is that it can be scaled as appropriate for larger schools. The staffing and resource
ratios can easily be applied to accommodate larger or smaller schools.
44

Figure 2.1
The Evidence Based Model
(Modified from Picus et al., 2008)

Instructional
Materials
Pupil Support:
Parent/Community
Outreach/
Involvement
Gifted
Tutors and pupil support:
1 per 100 at risk
Elem
20%
Middle
20%
High School 33%
The Evidence Based Model:
A Research Driven Approach to Linking Resources to Student Performance
K-3: 15 to 1
4-12: 25 to 1
State and CESAs
District Admin
Site-based Leadership
Teacher
Compensation
ELL
1 per
100
Technology
45

Table 2.2

Evidence Based Model Recommendations for Prototypical Schools
School Element Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools
School Characteristics
School Configuration
Prototypic School Size
Prototypic Class Size

Full Day Kindergarten
Number of Teacher work
days
% Disabled
% Poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
% ELL
% Minority
K-5
432
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
Yes
200 teacher work days
including 10 days for
intensive training
12.0%
50%

10%
30%
6-8
450
6-8: 25

NA
200 teacher work days
including 10 days for
intensive training
12.0%
50%

10%
30%
9-12
600
9-12: 25

NA
200 teacher work days
including 10 days for
intensive training
12.0%
50%

10%
30%

46

Table 2.2, Continued
Evidence Based Model Recommendations for Prototypical Schools
Personnel Resources
1. Core teachers
2. Specialist teachers
3. Instructional
facilitators/mentors
4. Tutors for struggling
students
5. Teachers for ELL
students
6. Extended day
7. Summer School
8. Learning and mildly
disabled students

9. Severely disabled
students

10. Teachers for
gifted students
11. Vocational
education

24
20% more: 4.8
2.2
One for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
An additional 1.0 teachers
for every 100 ELL students:
0.43
1.8
1.8
Additional 3 professional
teacher positions
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds

$25/student
NA

18
20% more: 3.6
2.25
One for every 100
poverty students: 2.25
An additional 1.0
teachers for every 100
ELL students: 0.45
1.875
1.875
Additional 3
professional teacher
positions
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds

$25/student
NA

24
33% more: 8.0
3.0
One for every 100
poverty students: 3.0
An additional 1.0
teachers for every 100
ELL students: 0.60
2.5
2.5
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds

$25/student
No extra cost

47

Table 2.2, Continued
Evidence Based Model Recommendations for Prototypical Schools
Personnel Resources
12. Substitutes
13. Pupil support staff

14. Non-instructional
aides
15. Librarians/media

16. Principal
17. School Site
secretary
18. Professional
development

19. Technology
20. Instructional
materials
21. Student activities

5% of lines 1-9
1 for every 100
poverty students: 2.16

2.0

1.0

1
1.0 secretary and
1.0 clerical
Included above:
Instructional facilitators
Planning & prep time
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
$250/pupil
$140/pupil

$200/pupil

5% of lines 1-9
1 for every 100
poverty students & 1.0
guidance/250 students
2.0

1.0

1
1.0 secretary and
1.0 clerical
Included above:
Instructional facilitators
Planning & prep time
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
$250/pupil
$140/pupil

$200/pupil

5% of lines 1-9
1 for every 100
poverty students & 1.0
guidance/250 students
3.0

1.0 librarian and
1.0 library technician
1
1.0 secretary and
2.0 clerical
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators
Planning & prep time
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other
PD expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
$250/pupil
$175/pupil

$250/pupil
(Reprinted from Odden & Picus, 2008)
48

The Evidence Based approach to school finance adequacy is not without its
critics. As mentioned earlier in this paper, Hanushek (2006b) harshly criticized the
adequacy study (Evidence Based) conducted in the State of Washington for not
considering the full body of research or offering any evidence to support that it is an
effective way to manage resources and improve student achievement. Loeb (2007) and
Verstegen (2007) concur with Hanushek, indicating that there is not enough research to
support it. In fact, evidence may indicate that it is not as easy to implement as it may
appear. The Evidence Based Model described above was recently implemented in
Wyoming. Picus, Odden, Aportela, Mangan, and Goetz (2008) were asked to audit the
implementation of the model, and found that schools there were utilizing resources in
considerably different ways for which the model called. In particular, the researchers
found fewer core teachers, fewer certified teachers, less pupil support, more specialist
teachers, and more instructional aides (Picus et al., 2008).

Resource Use
The allocation and use of resources has become a very important topic in school
finance as policymakers seek to address the issue of adequate school funding, and find
themselves dealing with rough economic conditions, especially in California. Hanushek
and Rivkin (1997) analyzed 100 years of data related to per-pupil expenditures in the
United States, and found that from 1890-1990, real dollars per pupil increased by about
3.5% annually. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
(2009), increases in resources slowed down during the first half of the 1990s, but then
49

began rising once again and increased at a rate close to the one reported by Hanushek at
the turn of the century. After adjusting for inflation, the NCES reports that per-pupil
spending in the United States climbed to almost $9,400 per pupil in 2005-2006. The
National Education Association (2008) estimates that per pupil spending rose to almost
$10,000 in 2007-2008.
Despite significant increases in funding per pupil over an extremely long period
of time, commensurate improvements in student performance have not occurred
(Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997). Where has this additional money gone? What has it been
used for? How can current resources as well as new ones be utilized properly to raise
student achievement and adequately fund schools? The answers to these questions will
be investigated in the sections below.
Where Has the Money Gone?
Odden and Picus (2008) reported that additional money that has been spent on
education has not been spent in a manner consistent with improving student achievement.
The authors explained that information about the use of resources is available as
expenditures by function: instruction, instructional support, administration, student
support, operations and maintenance, and transportation and food services. An analysis
of NCES (2009) data revealed that expenditures along these functions have been
remarkably consistent over time – just over 60% for instruction, 5% for instructional
support, 5% for student support, 5% for site administration, 5% for district
administration, 10% for operation and maintenance, and less than 10% for transportation,
food, and other services.
50

Because expenditure distribution patterns appear to be consistent year after year,
investigating how resources within each category are being allocated is crucial–with
careful attention to what is directly related to improving instruction and thus
performance. Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) found that the increasingly resources were
being utilized to hire additional teachers to teach noncore subjects or to reduce class
sizes, provide special education services, modestly raise teacher salaries, and hire
nonteaching personnel. Odden and Picus’ (2008) findings are similar in nature. These
researchers found that most increases in resources were spent in the following areas: (a)
providing teachers with preparation and planning time, (b) increasing specialist staff (i.e.,
teachers of elective classes as well as teachers not assigned to the classroom), (c)
assisting struggling students (in particular, special education), (d) reducing class size, (e)
modestly increasing in teacher salaries, and (f) making a huge increase in instructional
aides. Picus and Odden (2008) conclude that although overall funding has increased,
only small portions of these funds have gone to supporting the core academic areas.
Hannaway, McCabe, and Nakib (2002) found that even though per-pupil expenditures
increased throughout the 1990s nationally, little of the spending was devoted to
instruction. Instead, the researchers indicated heavy increases in spending on pupil
support services, explaining that increased costs associated with providing special
education services may be a reason.
Of particular importance is the finding that additional teachers were hired outside
of the core academic areas. As detailed in the description of the Evidence Based model,
bringing class sizes down to a reasonable level is an important part of the plan. In an
51

analysis of school staffing data, Picus (1993) found that there was a significant
discrepancy between the reported pupil-teacher ratio in schools and the actual class size
ranges. In the case of Boston public schools, Miles (1995) found that class sizes could be
reduced from 22 to 13 if all individuals classified as teachers were returned to the
classroom. Odden and Picus (2008) went further, indicating that ―the percentage of
regular classroom teachers dropped nearly 33% in the latter half of the twentieth century‖
(p. 189). Considering that student achievement has not been correlated with the increase
in per-pupil funding, expenditures that remove teachers from classrooms must be
thoroughly reviewed.
Several researchers have made conclusions similar to those of Hanushek and
Rivkin and Odden and Picus when looking at school finance reform in different states.
For example, Adams (1994) studied school finance reform in Kentucky, and concluded
that overall spending patterns remained largely unchanged. He indicated that school
personnel did benefit from new monies made available to schools in the form of salaries
and benefits. Firestone, Goertz, Nagle, and Smelkinson (1994) studied New Jersey’s
school finance reform programs, and found that only 45% of the money was utilized on
direct education expenses, which included additional teachers, curricular materials, and
so forth. Of particular importance was the study’s finding that all of the schools
receiving additional resources had chosen to hire specialist (elective) teachers who taught
outside of the core academic areas. In a study of schools in New York, Lankford and
Wyckoff (1995) found that significant amounts of new revenue went to supporting
special education programs and significantly increasing teacher salaries over 12 years.
52

Finally, Picus (1994) found that schools in Texas that had received significant amounts of
new revenue used very little of it to bolster the core academic areas.
Picus (1991) investigated the use of resources that resulted from incentive funding
programs in California in the 1980s. He found that the incentives were successful in
getting districts to increase the length of the school day and year as well as to raise
teacher salaries. The researcher also found that the incentive grants were particularly
useful in ensuring that additional resources were allocated to instruction. Perhaps the
most important conclusion of Picus’s study, however, was that as soon as the incentive
money dried up in California, schools reverted to their previous spending patterns.
Goe (2006) studied underachieving California schools that had received
additional resources as part of the state’s Immediate Improvement/Underperforming
Schools Program (II/USP). In particular, the additional funding that the state had
provided to these schools was meant to go directly toward instructional improvement.
Importantly, after several years of studying these schools, Goe found that all of the
schools had difficulty determining the uses of money that would most effectively increase
student achievement. As a result, the money issued to the schools to improve instruction
was spent on things not supported by the research.
Rose et al. (2003) studied California’s class size reduction initiative (CSR) in
grades K-3 in the mid-1990s, looking specifically at which school districts had received
significant amounts of money in order to lower pupil-teacher ratios in those grades to
20:1. During this part of the decade, real spending per pupil in the state increased 20%,
with most of the money going toward CSR. The researchers found that although the
53

initiative was successful at lowering class sizes in grades K-3, it also flooded schools
(especially those in urban areas) with inexperienced teachers. CSR also reduced class
sizes in grades K-3, but appears to have done so at the expense of increasing teacher-
pupil ratios.
Jespen and Rivkin (2002) pointed out that CSR has had some benefit in student
achievement, but not for everyone. Because inexperienced teachers mitigate the benefits
of lower class sizes, the authors explained, students in large urban school districts such as
Los Angeles have not benefited at all from the state’s $1.6 billion annual investment in
the program. Both Rose et al. (2003) and Jespen and Rivkin (2002) agreed that resources
allocated specifically to assist struggling groups of students and underperforming schools
along with decentralized control of those resources would have been a wiser use of funds.
The research on historical patterns of resource allocation may have significant
implications for California schools that receive federal money as part of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Largely unrestricted funds titled State Fiscal
Stabilization Funds were doled out to California schools throughout 2009 – totaling
nearly $2.5 billion, $48.6 billion nationally (Lange, 2009). The United States
Department of Education (2009) indicated that such funds should be used to save and
create jobs, improve student achievement, and increase transparency, reporting, and
accountability, but offered no specifics on how districts should undertake this effort. The
United States Department of Education also made it clear that such funds would probably
not be available for two or three years – very similar to the incentive money that Picus
(1991) studied in California. Picus’s conclusion about schools returning to old spending
54

habits when sources of new money run out as well as the other research presented in this
section demonstrated the need for school districts receiving these funds to use them for
the express purpose of long-term reform that promotes school finance adequacy.
Tracking Resource Use at the School-Level
Because school sites are where resources will ultimately be utilized and student
outcomes produced, studying specifically how schools allocate resources to improve
student performance is crucial. Educators must also be able to determine how well
resource allocation at the school-level is aligned with the goals of reform efforts.
Researchers and policymakers have also taken notice of these important concepts. In
order to properly evaluate resource use at the school-level, Odden and Picus (2008)
identify the data needed:
 staffing and expenditures by program – the regular instruction program;
programs for students with special needs; administration; staff development; and
instructional materials
 staffing and expenditures by educational strategy – class size, professional
development, tutoring, pull-out resource rooms, core versus elective subjects,
and so forth
 staffing and expenditures by content area – mathematics, English Language Arts,
and so forth
 interrelationships among these staffing and expenditure patterns
 relationships of these staffing and expenditure patterns to student performance
55

In order to collect such data at the school level, researchers need a structure by
which to account for, keep track of, and organize the information. Hartman, Bolton, and
Monk (2001) have identified two methods for doing this: the accounting approach and
the resource cost model (RCM). The accounting approach is based upon actual
expenditures as detailed in school accounting records; figures are reported in dollar
amounts. The RCM focuses more on resource consumption as opposed to expenditures
(Hartman et al., 2001). In order to monetize the costs associated with resource allocation,
average prices are applied to the quantity of resources present at the school site (Hartman
et al., 2001).
Odden et al. (2003) presented a third way to report expenditures at the school-
level that in essence combines the accounting and RCM approaches. The authors
proposed an expenditure structure that represents an improvement over others in three
ways: (a) it is specifically designed to report school-level expenditures, (b) it can
differentiate the spending of multiple education units within a school building to account
for ―schools within schools,‖ and (c) it categorizes expenditures in ways that reflect
current thinking about effective instructional strategies and resource use. This school
expenditure structure has been used in conjunction with the Evidence Based model of
adequate funding described above (Odden & Picus, 2008). Odden et al. (2003) have
provide detailed information about each element:
1) Core Academic Teachers – The number of licensed, full-time equivalent teachers
(FTE) who are teaching core academic subjects like reading/English language
56

arts, mathematics, science, and social science as well as special and bilingual
education courses.
2) Specialists and Elective Teachers – The number of licensed teachers who teach
subjects outside of the core.
3) Extra Help— Licensed teachers who work in the capacity of helping struggling
students or those with special needs to learn a school’s regular curriculum. The
strategies that these teachers use are supplemental to the instruction of the regular
classroom. Extra help may take the form of tutoring, math or ELA support
classes, resource rooms, inclusion teachers, extended day or summer programs,
etc.
4) Professional Development: The cost of all items related to the professional
development of the teaching staff. Costs include: time for teacher participation,
trainers and coaches, administration of professional development, materials,
equipment and facilities, travel and transportation, and tuition and conferences.
5) Other Nonclassroom Instructional Staff: Licensed and nonlicensed instructional
staff that support a school’s instructional program. These include program
coordinators (curriculum and technology), substitutes, and instructional aides
other than those working in self-contained classrooms.
6) Instructional Materials and Equipment – Includes books, instructional supplies,
materials, and equipment, as well as computer equipment (hardware and software)
used in the regular education program and all extra help programs.
57

7) Student Support – Includes school-level student support student support staff such
as counselors, nurses, psychologists, attendance monitors, and community
liaisons, as well as expenditures for athletics and extracurricular activities.
8) Administration – Includes all expenditures related to running the administration of
a school, including the principal, assistant principals, clerical staff, administrative
office supplies, equipment and technology, and reserve funds.
9) Operations and Maintenance – Includes the costs of staff, supplies, and equipment
for custodial services, food services, and security, as well as utilities and charges
to the school related to the maintenance of buildings and grounds.
Odden et al. (2003) tested this school-level expenditure structure by using it to
analyze and compare resource allocation patterns in a selected group of elementary and
secondary schools that varied in size, per-pupil spending, amount of students with special
needs, and demographics. The researchers found that this expenditure structure provided
very useful insight about how the schools were allocating their resources. They also
found this information to be of particular importance when used to evaluate whether the
schools were utilizing their resources to support their reform plans appropriately. Finally,
Odden et al. (2003) found this model to be especially helpful in tracking resource use in
schools that had utilized the increasingly popular ―school within a school‖ strategy.
Brinson and Mellor (2005) utilized the expenditure structure created by Odden et
al. (2003) to investigate the resource allocation patterns of 10 elementary schools in
Texas. The researchers found that the use of this structure confirmed Odden et al.’s
assertions about its usefulness for identifying key components of effective instructional
58

delivery. In their study, Brinson and Mellor (2005) found that statistical analyses did not
reveal significant differences between average and high-performing elementary schools;
however, conducting case study analyses of these schools utilizing the expenditure
structure of Odden et al. revealed a lot about the differences between them. Specifically,
Brinson and Mellor (2005) found that the resources allocated toward the following
strategies had a positive impact on student achievement: (a) team teaching, (b) more time
spent on instruction, (c) tutoring, (d) experienced teachers, and (e) higher levels of
teacher compensation. A representation of the structure developed by Odden et al. (2003)
is illustrated in Table 2.3, below.
Table 2.3
School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators
School Resource Indicators
School Building Size
School Unit Size
Percent Low Income
Percent Special Education
Percent ESL/LEP
Expenditures Per pupil
Professional Development
Expenditures Per Teacher
Special Academic Focus of
School/Unit
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Class Periods

Length of Reading Class (Elementary)
Length of Mathematics Class (Elementary)
Reading Class Size (Elementary)
Mathematics Class Size (Elementary)
Regular Class Size (Elementary)
Length of Core* Class Periods (Secondary)
Core Class Size (Secondary)

Noncore Class Size (Secondary)
Percent Core Teachers

*Math, English/LA, Science, & Social Studies

59

Table 2.3, Continued
School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators
School Expenditure Structure
Instructional 1. Core Academic Teachers
- English/ Reading/ Language Arts
- History! Social Studies
- Math
- Science
2. Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning and Preparation
- Art, music, physical education. etc.
- Academic Focus with or without Special Funding
- Vocational
- Drivers Education
- Librarians
3. Extra Help
- Tutors
- Extra Help Laboratories
- Resource Rooms (Title 1. special education or other part-day pullout
programs)
- Inclusion Teachers
- English as a second language classes
- Special Education self-contained classes for severely disabled students
(Including aides)
- Extended Day and Summer School
- District-Initiated Alternative Programs
4. Professional Development
- Teacher Time - Substitutes and Stipends
- Trainers and Coaches
- Administration
60

Table 2.3, Continued
School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators

- Materials, Equipment and Facilities
-Travel & Transportation
- Tuition and Conference Fees
5. Other Nonclassroom Instructional Staff
- Coordinators and Teachers on Special Assignment
- Building Substitutes and Other Substitutes
- Instructional Aides
6. Instructional Materials and Equipment
- Supplies, Materials and Equipment
- Computers (hardware, software, peripherals)
7. Student Support
- Counselors
- Nurses
- Psychologists
- Social Workers
- Extracurricular and Athletics
Noninstructional 8. Administration
9. Operations and Maintenance
- Custodial
- Utilities
- Security
- Food Service

(Reprinted from Odden et al., 2003)
Odden et al. (2008) also utilized the school-level expenditure structure detailed
above to study the resource allocation patterns in 11 elementary schools in four states.
61

Nine of these schools were involved in some type of comprehensive school-wide reform
effort. Importantly, the researchers found that even though achievement improved at all
of the schools studied, the resource allocation patterns of the schools did not align
particularly well with the adopted reform plans. They also found that there were
significant variations in the percentages of core teachers at the schools and amount of
time dedicated to teaching reading, as well as significant amounts of money dedicated to
professional development.
Does Money Matter?
Hanushek (1989) conducted a metaanalysis of several school finance studies, and
came to the conclusion that found ―strong and consistent evidence that expenditures are
not systematically related to student achievement‖ (p. 49). In his research, he elaborated
that across the studies he reviewed, the factors traditionally associated with improving
student achievement (class size, teacher education and quality) have little evidence to
support that they actually do that. Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald (1994) have criticized
Hanushek’s work in this area, taking issue with his methodology. The researchers found
from an analysis of the studies involved that there was indeed a link between
expenditures and student achievement, finding in particular that money does matter.
Specifically, Hedges et al. (1994) revealed that a 10% increase above the national
spending average would result in a significant rise in student achievement. Hanushek
(1994) responded to Hedges et al. by both defending his research and stating that
evidence that schools tend to waste resources is very clear and well-established.
62

Several researchers disagreed with Hanushek’s premise that money does not make
a difference in school achievement, arguing instead that effective resource use is the real
issue. In a study conducted in Nevada, Archibald (2006) indicated that increases in per-
pupil spending led to positive achievement in both mathematics and reading, with results
in reading statistically significant. She goes on to state that these increases were not a
result of simply providing schools with more money. Instead, Archibald said that
increases in student performance are a result of using resources thoughtfully and
purposefully to increase teacher training, focus on improving weak academic areas, and
develop ways to ameliorate student characteristics such as poverty. Along these lines,
Slavin (1999) stated that
it is clear (and obvious) that increased dollars do not magically transform
themselves into greater learning; but it is just as clear (and just as obvious) that
money can make a difference if spent on specific programs or other investments
known to be effective. (p. 522)

Odden and Archibald (2000) agreed with Slavin, adding that the resources that schools
currently have can be used much more effectively to increase student achievement.

Research-Based Practices that Improve Student Performance
A comprehensive review of the literature related to improving student
performance is not possible in the context of this study. This chapter included a brief
discussion of Odden’s (2009) Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance. Odden’s
work is a research-based framework meant to assist educators with initiating the reform
process; it is also a key part of the Evidence Based model for school finance adequacy.
63

This section will begin with a brief description of three additional research-based
frameworks that incorporate best practices from the existing body of literature as it
relates to improving student performance. Most of the frameworks have common
elements.
What Works in Schools
In What Works in Schools: Translating Research into Action, Marzano (2003)
conducted a metaanalysis of 35 years of school improvement research, and identified
factors at the school, teacher, and student levels that affect student achievement. These
factors are illustrated in Table 2.4. The focus of this overview will be on the school-level
factors.

64

Table 2.4
Factors Affecting Student Achievement
Factor Example

School Guaranteed and viable curriculum
Challenging goals and effective feedback
Parent and Community Involvement
Safe and orderly Environment
Collegiality and Professionalism
Teacher Instructional strategies
Classroom management
Classroom curriculum design
Student Home atmosphere
Learned intelligence and background
knowledge
Motivation
(Reprinted from Marzano, 2003)

The most important school-level factor in improving student achievement is
ensuring that schools provide a guaranteed and viable curriculum (Marzano, 2003). A
guaranteed and viable curriculum ensures that students have the opportunity to learn the
standards and that schools properly use instructional time so students can master those
standards.
65

The second factor relates to providing students with challenging goals and
effective feedback (Marzano, 2003). Challenging academic goals that are specific and
attainable must be established for all students, and effective feedback should be both
detailed and formative.
The third factor is parent and community involvement. Marzano (2003) proposed
increasing involvement in schools by establishing communication lines among schools
and parents and the community, establishing multiple opportunities for parents and the
community to be involved in the day-to-day running of the school, and sharing school
governance with parents and the community.
The fourth factor focuses on developing a safe and orderly environment.
Marzano (2003) asserted that this factor is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
raising academic achievement; inattention to this factor risks undermining all other
school improvement efforts.
Finally, the fifth factor, collegiality and professionalism, deals with the manner in
which the school’s staff interact and the extent to which they approach their work as
professionals (Marzano, 2003). In order to build professionalism and collegiality,
Marzano (2003) has acknowledged the importance of involving teachers in the
governance of the school. He also recommends establishing norms of conduct and
behavior and engaging teachers in meaningful staff development activities.
Professional Learning Communities
DuFour and Eaker (1998) have written extensively on the importance of
establishing schools that act as professional learning communities. A professional
66

learning community is a school environment in which educators utilize research and
standards as the basis for decision-making, recognize that they must engage in ongoing
study and practice that characterizes organizations committed to continuous
improvement, and collaborate in a manner that is cooperative, supportive, and allows for
professional growth. The authors contend that from the 1980s onward, reform efforts
triggered by scathing reports like A Nation at Risk or Goals 2000 about the state of
education in the United Sates have been widely unsuccessful. DuFour and Eaker (1998)
cited the following reasons for this disappointing progress: (a) the complexity of the task
of improving schools, (b) misplaced focus, (c) lack of clarity on intended results, (d) lack
of perseverance, and (e) failure to appreciate and attend to the change process.
The first and most important element of a professional learning community is a
shared mission, vision, values and goals (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). DuFour and Eaker
(1998) stated that successful schools must have ―a collective commitment to guiding
principles that articulate what people in the school believe and what they seek to create‖
(p. 25). The mission of a school attempts to answer the question: ―Why do we exist?‖
The vision of a school attempts to answer the question: ―What do we hope to become?‖
The values of a school relate to the behaviors and practices necessary to support the
mission and vision of the school. Finally, establishing goals that are visible, specific, and
clearly related to the change effort are an essential part of the change process.
The second element of a professional learning community is collective inquiry.
DuFour and Eaker (1998) posited that in order for schools to improve, educators must
constantly challenge the status quo, seek new methods to raise student achievement, test
67

those methods, and the reflect on results. The authors state that ―collective inquiry
enables team members to develop new skills and capabilities, which in turn lead to new
experiences and awareness‖ (p. 26).
The third element of a professional learning community is collaborative teams.
DuFour and Eaker (1998) indicated that organizations that base their reform efforts
primarily on enhancing the knowledge and skills of individuals often do not grow as an
organization. Collaborative teams focus on school renewal and a willingness to work
together to continuously improve.
Action orientation and experimentation is the next element of a professional
learning community (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Action orientation refers to turning
aspirations into action and visions into reality; action-oriented schools take immediate
steps to assist students who are struggling, implement effective instructional
methodology, and develop programs to support the learning of both students and
teachers. Schools that act as professional learning communities are not afraid to
experiment. As such, DuFour and Eaker (1998) encouraged educators to develop, test,
and evaluate new ideas related to improving student learning.
The fifth element of a professional learning community is a commitment to
continuous improvement. According to DuFour and Eaker (2008), schools that challenge
the status quo and constantly search for ways to improve consider the following key
questions:
1) What is our fundamental purpose?
2) What do we hope to achieve?
68

3) What are our strategies for becoming better?
4) What criteria will we use to assess our improvement efforts?
Of particular importance in developing this element in a school is ―the recognition of the
fact that the mission and vision of the school are ideals that will never be fully realized,
but must always be worked toward‖ (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 28).
The final element of a professional learning community is a results orientation.
DuFour and Eaker (1998) emphasized that schools must be assessed on the basis of
results rather than intentions. Data must be utilized to evaluate programs for their
effectiveness, provide evidence of progress toward meeting goals, and encourage
continuous improvement.

Improving Low-Performing Schools
In an effort to determine what practices separate high-performing schools from
low-performing schools, Duke (2006) reviewed five studies that focused on identifying
characteristics of successful schools. His analysis of these studies revealed that the
following practices were consistently associated with improving low-performing schools:
1) assistance – Struggling students received prompt assistance.
2) teacher collaboration – Teachers were expected to work together to plan, monitor
progress, and assist struggling students.
3) data-driven decision making – Student achievement data were regularly used to
make decisions regarding resource allocation, student needs, teacher
effectiveness, and other matters.
69

4) leadership – The actions of the principal and teacher-leaders were important in
setting the tone for the school improvement process.
5) organizational structure – Roles of staff members were redefined to support the
school improvement efforts.
6) staff development – Teachers received continuous training in order to sustain the
school improvement efforts.
7) alignment – Tests were aligned with curriculum standards, and standards were
aligned with instruction.
8) assessment – Students were assessed on a regular basis to determine their progress
and learning needs.
9) high expectations – Teachers insisted that students were capable of doing high
quality academic work.
10) parent involvement – School personnel kept parents informed of their students’
progress and shared methods for them to provide support at home. Parents were
also encouraged to participate in the reform effort.
11) scheduling – Daily school schedules were adjusted to allow for extra time in the
core academic areas of reading and mathematics.
In addition to pointing out the characteristics of high performing schools, Duke (2006)
refreshingly evinced the need for researchers to investigate further why some reform
efforts have failed. He contended that the body of research seeking to find answers
related to how schools became low-performing in the first place is deficient, despite
being a vital part of understanding best practices for school reform.
70

Conclusion
This chapter provided a thorough analysis of the literature related to several
aspects of school finance reform. Of particular importance to this study was framing
school finance in the California context, determining the meaning of adequately funding
schools, identifying historical resource use patterns, and reviewing effective practices for
improving schools and student performance. The literature makes clear the need to study
the specific plans to increase student performance that have been put in place at the
school-level, and to determine if they are research-based and effective in achieving
desired outcomes. There is also a need to collect and analyze resource allocation data to
determine whether or not those plans are adequately funded.
The purpose of this study is to identify how underperforming high schools are
allocating their resources to improve student performance, and to determine if their plan
to do so is aligned with best practices from the research. The Evidence Based adequacy
model was used in this study because it encompasses the effective practices that the
research associates with raising student achievement; it also offers a school expenditure
structure and resource indicator that provides clear data on resource allocation patterns
and their alignment with improvement plans. The following chapter will outline the
methodology used in conducting this research study.

71

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction
This chapter describes the design, sample, instrumentation, and data analysis
process of this study. The purpose of this study is to collect and analyze school-level
data related to the allocation of resources, and to determine the connection between
resource use and student performance. An in-depth investigation into resource use at the
school-level is needed in order to guide educators and policymakers as they attempt to
reform school finance programs to adequately fund strategies that will improve the
performance of all students. Further, educators and policymakers in California and other
states facing major budget reductions must understand how current resources may be
reallocated to improve student performance.
This study analyzed how underperforming schools were utilizing their resources
to support instructional improvement, and to determine the effects of major budget
reductions and an influx of money from the federal government. The resource allocation
patterns at the school-level were compared to the Evidence Based Model to ascertain
whether schools are using resources in a manner that aligns with research-based best
practices for improving student performance. The methodology used for this study was
mixed-methods; quantitative and qualitative data were collected from five comprehensive
public high schools located in Southern California. The mixed-methods approach allowed
the researcher to (a) gather quantitative data that shows how funds and personnel are
72

allocated at the school level and (b) gather qualitative data that illustrates how resources
are utilized at the school site to drive the instructional program.

Research Questions
This study addressed the following research questions:
1) What are the current instructional improvement strategies observed 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
plan?
4) How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to California’s
financial crisis and related budget reductions?
5) How are State Fiscal Stabilization Funds, federal relief made available to school
districts as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, being used at
the school level to cope with state budget reductions?

Purposeful Sample and Population
This study focused on the resource allocation patterns and improvement plans of
schools that are underperforming. For this study, a purposeful sample of five
underperforming comprehensive public high schools was identified based upon their
classification as Program Improvement (PI) in 2009. PI identifies schools that receive
73

Title 1 funds and have not made Adequate Yearly Progress as required by the federal No
Child Left Behind Act for two consecutive years. Notably, schools in the first year of PI
status are technically in the third year of not making AYP. The schools that were
selected for this study did not make AYP in 2009, and thus must meet state and federal
goals in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years in order to drop the PI label.
Databases provided by the California Department of Education were used to identify the
schools for this study.
According to the California Department of Education (2008), AYP calls for state
high schools to meet or exceed the following requirements:
1) 10
th
-grade proficiency rates on the English language arts and mathematics
portions of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) must exceed 33%
in 2008 and about 44% in 2009 school-wide and for significant subgroups of
students. Students with significant cognitive disabilities may be tested using an
alternative assessment, but still must meet the proficiency rates described above.
2) 95% of 10
th
-grade students must be tested; 95% of the students in significant
subgroups must be tested as well.
3) The Academic Performance Index (API) must exceed 620 in 2008 and 650 in
2009; for schools with lower APIs, annual growth of one point meets this
requirement.
4) The graduation rate must have met or exceeded 83% in 2008 and 83.1% in 2009.

74

Identifying Schools
The California Department of Education produces an annual database detailing
the PI status of each school in the state. The 2009 database was used to identify five
comprehensive public high schools that are PI status, and did not make AYP in 2009.

Instrumentation and Data Collection
All researchers who participated in this study attended a day-long training session
in May 2009. Data collection protocols and codebooks were distributed at that time and
researchers received comprehensive instruction in their use. All researchers collected and
analyzed data using the same protocol and collection instruments to allow researchers to
compare resource use patterns across the schools sampled by other researchers.
Each researcher was responsible for contacting the principals of the schools
included in his or her sample via telephone, email, and letters. Initial contact was made
to obtain consent to participate, schedule an appointment to conduct an in-person
interview, and to explain the types of existing documents and information that needed to
be obtained before the interview is held. Existing documents that were examined
included: (a) School Vision and Mission Statement, (b) Single School Plan for Academic
Achievement (used to discuss instructional improvement plan), (c) Master Schedule
(used to determine instructional minutes), (d) Staff Roster (used to determine quantity of
staff members), and (e) School Budget (used to analyze how resources are allocated).
Each school visit consisted of a four-hour semistructured interview with the
school principal and any other key personnel. Interviews were conducted in a
75

predetermined format as described by the interview protocol (see Appendix A). Data on
resource allocation and the instructional improvement were collected during the
interview. The quantitative data collected from the interviews were based on the school
expenditure structure and resource indicators developed by Odden et al. (2003). This
framework was the foundation for the data collection protocol (see Appendix B) that was
used to generate a comparison between the actual resources each site has and the level of
resources the Evidence Based Model would generate for each school in this study.
In addition to collecting quantitative data and existing documents, the researcher
collected qualitative data from each interview. Qualitative data was used to generate a
descriptive case study of each site that describes how resources are used at the school-
level to implement and support the school’s instructional improvement plan. The general
categories of qualitative data collection on the school’s instructional improvement plan
included: (a) curriculum and content focus, (b) definition of effective teaching, (c)
instructional vision, (d) assessments, (e) instructional implementation, (f) professional
development, (g) interventions, (h) community involvement, (i) technology, (j)
instructional leadership, and (k) accountability (Picus et al., 2008).
Immediately following each school visit, the researcher entered the quantitative
data into a password-protected, online database. The researcher also wrote a qualitative
case study of each school using predetermined case study protocol (see Appendix C).
Each case study write-up included a description of the school and district, longitudinal
test scores for the school, other school achievement data, key elements of the school’s
improvement process, overall themes of the improvement process, a comparison of the
76

actual resource use in the school to that provided in the Evidence Based Model, lessons
learned, and additional resources the school needs to continue and expand improvement
efforts. Each written case study was uploaded to a password protected on-line database
to enable all researchers associated with this study to access data from all of the sample
schools.

Data Analysis
Each case study included a section entitled ―lessons learned‖ that will be used to
summarize how the school’s resource use and instructional practices compared to those
prescribed by the Evidence Based model. This section of the case study covers the
following eight areas that have been adopted from Odden et al. (2006): (a) focus on
educating all students, (b) data-driven instruction, (c) rigorous curriculum aligned to state
standards, (d) effective professional development, (e) restructure the learning
environment, (f) support for struggling students, (g) effective instructional leadership,
and (h) professional learning communities and opportunities for collaboration. A
comprehensive analysis of what the school is actually doing in each of the areas above is
discussed in each case study. This information was used to determine if and how each
school’s use of resources aligns with the Evidence Based model.
Case study data was also used to make comparisons across all of the schools
sampled in this study. Similarities and differences among the schools’ use of resources
were identified, and the implications of these commonalities and differences are the
subject of discussion. These findings were used to draw conclusions regarding what
77

schools are actually doing with their resources, and to discuss the implications for
practitioners and policy makers.

Summary
This chapter described the methodology that was used to conduct this study.
Sufficient information is provided on the population and sample, instrumentation and
collection tools, and data analysis process to allow future researchers to replicate this
study in other California schools. The next chapter presents the findings related to the
research questions addressed in this study.

78

CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

This chapter presents the findings of the study, beginning with an overview of the
characteristics and performance data of the five schools. More detailed information on
each of the schools is provided in Appendices D through H, which include case studies
on each of the five high schools. The research questions serve as a framework to review
the findings from the schools, and the results are described in the following sections: (a)
an overview of the selected schools, (b) the current instructional improvement strategies
observed at the schools and how resources were allocated to support those strategies, (c)
the impact of the financial crisis, (d) the use of funds from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, and (e) how the actual resource allocation patterns are aligned with or
different from those suggested by the Evidence Based Model.

Overview of the Selected Schools
Each of the schools selected for this study had at least one thing in common –
they had all received Program Improvement (PI) designation by the federal government
for failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress. The five high schools selected had been in
Program Improvement for varying lengths of time, as highlighted in Table 4.1, below.

79

Table 4.1
Program Improvement Status of the Selected Schools
School PI Year Previous PI Year First Year of
PI Status
Aero High School 5 5 1999-2000
Big Wave High School 1 N/A 2009-2010
Cactus Needle High School 3 2 2006-2007
Mallview High School 1 N/A 2009-2010
Zamboni High School 1 N/A 2009-2010

Three of the five high schools (Big Wave, Mallview, and Zamboni) were in the first year
of Program Improvement, meaning that they had failed to make Adequate Yearly
Progress for two consecutive years; Cactus Needle High School was in year three of PI.
Aero High School was technically considered to be in year five of Program
Improvement; however, this information is a bit misleading – year five is the highest
level that can be attained, and the school has been in PI since 1999-2000.
School Configurations and Demographics
Three of the high schools that were part of this study had traditional
configurations, and served students in grades 9-12, with the exception of Mallview and
Zamboni.. Mallview High School was a comprehensive secondary school that served
nearly 1,750 students in grades 7-12. The school was located on a single campus, and
was broken into two divisions of students – a middle school that served about 600
students in grades 7-8 and a high school with an enrollment of 1,150. For the most part,
80

the two divisions operate independently of one another-- each division had separate
administrative staffs, support personnel, and resources, but shared some teachers and
classified staff as well as facilities. The primary reason for this school configuration was
its relatively low enrollment figures – the school district believes this configuration is a
major cost saving measure. Table 4.2, below, presents specific information about each of
the schools, including their configurations and demographics.
81

Table 4.2
School Configurations and Demographics
Category Aero Big Wave Cactus
Needle
Mallview Zamboni
Configuration 9-12 9-12 9-12 7-12 9-12
Enrollment 2,400 2,500 2,600
1,750
(600 7-8 and
1,150 9-12)
4,700
(1,200 9
th
and
3,500 10-12)
Major
Student
Ethnicities

Hispanic/Latino:
78%

African
American:
13%

Hispanic/Latino:
61%

White:
22%

African American:
9%
Hispanic/Latino:
78%

Filipino:
11%

Hispanic/Latino:
56%

White:
28%

Asian:
7%
Hispanic/Latino:
83%

African
American:
11%
%
Free/Reduced
Lunch
80% 49% 60% 70% 93%
% EL 25% 23% 25% 26% 26%
% of Parents
Without HS
Diploma
35% 29% 36% 30% 50%

82

Zamboni High School was a comprehensive high school that served nearly 4,700
students in grades 9-12. The school was split into two distinct divisions—one division
that only served 9
th
-grade students and another that served those in grades 10-12. The
primary reason for this configuration is the immense size of the high school student body
—years ago, district officials who oversaw the school decided that a true 9-12
configuration with an enrollment of this size would be too unwieldy to manage for one
administrative team. As a result, both divisions have their own administrative staffs,
counseling departments, classified staffs, and the like, and are run independently.
In the case of Mallview High School, the data that have been gathered to answer
the research questions comes from the high school division; in the case of Zamboni High
School, the data collected comes from the grades division of the school serving students
in grades 10-12. For both Mallview and Zamboni, information about demographics,
instructional strategies, curriculum, resource allocation, and the like is reported with
respect to these divisions, not the school as a whole. Conversely, Mallview and
Zamboni’s state performance data (AYP information, CST results, API scores, etc.) that
is presented throughout this chapter and in their respective case studies (found in
Appendices D-H) is presented for the school as a whole, which is the way the State of
California reports it.
Three of the five schools served around 2,500 students; at 1,150 high school
students, Mallview was the smallest school in the study, and at 4,700 students in grades
9-12, Zamboni was the largest. All of the schools served significant numbers of
Hispanic/Latino students; three (Aero, Big Wave, and Zamboni) had large numbers of
83

African American students. The amount of students who received Free or Reduced
Lunch ranges from a low of 49% (Big Wave) to a high of 93% (Zamboni). Each school’s
information from the state’s testing program revealed that large numbers of parents have
not earned a high school diploma – about 30% for each school, with Zamboni (50%)
being the exception. Finally, English Learners composed about 25% of the student body
of each high school in the study.

Adequate Yearly Progress and Program Improvement
In California, making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requires high schools to:
1) Test 95% of all 10
th
-graders and those in significant subgroups in both English
language arts and mathematics. In California, the test used for high schools
serving grades 9-12 is the California High School Exit Exam. Because Mallview
is configured as a 7-12 school, its AYP determination includes both 10
th
-grade
scores on the CAHSEE and the CST ELA and math scores of students in grades
7-8.
2) Of the students tested, a certain percentage of them each year must meet a specific
proficiency target on each part of the exam. Significant subgroups of students
(more than 100) must also meet these targets.
3) The school’s overall Academic Performance Index must meet or exceed an
established minimum score or show an increase from one year to the next. In
2002, the minimum API score was 560; in 2009, that score was 650.
84

4) The graduation rate must be 83.1% or show an overall increase from one year to
the next or a positive overall two-year average change.
Schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years become PI; similarly, in
order to escape PI status, schools must make AYP for two consecutive years. In 2007, all
of the schools made AYP except for Aero High School – its English Learners did not
meet the minimum expected proficiency level in English Language Arts; in 2008 and
2009, all of the schools failed to make AYP. One significant detail about the proficiency
targets in both 2008 and 2009: From 2005-2007, the proficiency targets for ELA and
mathematics were about 22% and 21%, respectively. In 2008, the goals jumped to 33%
of students needing to be proficient in English and 32% in math, and a similar increase
occurred in 2009. At this point, the targets will rise annually until 2014, at which time all
students are expected to be proficient in the two subject areas. All of the schools began
missing the student performance expectations when the bar was raised in 2008. Table 4.3,
below, indicates the ways in which the schools in this study failed to make AYP over the
last three years— each school’s case study provides data for several other years as well.

85

Table 4.3
Adequate Yearly Progress Data, 2007-2009
ELA Proficiency Math Proficiency API
Level
Graduation
Rate
Made
AYP? School Year Overall Subgroups Overall Subgroups
Aero
2007       
2008       
2009       
Big Wave
2007       
2008       
2009       
Cactus
Needle
2007       
2008       
2009       
Mallview
2007       
2008       
2009       
Zamboni
2007       
2008       
2009       
 = Met Criteria  = Did Not Meet Criteria
Figure 4.1, below, illustrates the proficiency levels of all students at the five high
schools in both English language arts and mathematics. All schools have shown an
increase in proficiency in English language arts since 2002 – the average improvement
was 22 percentage points. Big Wave High School’s scores in this area improved the most
during this time period, climbing from 22.6% proficient in 2002 to 50.1% in 2009;
however, Mallview showed the least improvement between these years, rising from
86

28.1% to 46.7%. Aero and Zamboni High Schools were consistently the lowest
performing schools in the study in English language arts achievement; however, they
rank second and third in overall improvement in this area behind Big Wave.
Figure 4.1
ELA Proficiency Levels Used to Determine AYP, 2002-2009

Figure 4.2, below, reveals that all of the schools in this study have also shown an
increase in mathematics proficiency since 2002 – the average improvement was 28.5
percentage points. Zamboni and Big Wave showed the most improvement during this
time period, rising about 37 points each to proficiency levels of 46% and 61%,
respectively. With only 18 points of growth, Mallview High School showed the least
improvement. Whereas Big Wave and Cactus Needle had the highest overall proficiency
levels in this subject area, Aero High School had the lowest scores of all of the schools in
the study, reaching 31% in 2009.

10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
2002
(Target
11.2%)
2003
(Target
11.2%)
2004
(Target
11.2%)
2005
(Target
22.3%)
2006
(Target
22.3%)
2007
(Target
22.3%)
2008
(Target
33.4%)
2009
(Target
44.5%)
Percent Proficient
School Wide Percent Proficient - ELA
Aero Big Wave Cactus Needle Mallview Zamboni
87

Figure 4.2
Mathematics Proficiency Levels Used to Determine AYP, 2002-2009

Tables 4.4 and 4.5 display the proficiency levels of all of the subgroups of the
high schools in the study in both English language arts and mathematics over the past
three years. As the performance goals increased annually beginning in 2007, almost all
of the schools’ subgroups missed the expected performance levels in both areas--
with the exception of White students. English Learners consistently missed ELA
proficiency minimums during this period of time across all schools and, along with
African Americans, had the lowest scores of all the subgroups.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2002 (Target
9.6%)
2003 (Target
9.6%)
2004 (Target
9.6%)
2005 (Target
20.9%)
2006 (Target
20.9%)
2007 (Target
20.9%)
2008 (Target
32.2%)
2009 (Target
43.5%)
Percent Proficient
School Wide Percent Proficient - Mathematics
Aero Big Wave Cactus Needle Mallview Zamboni

88

Table 4.4
Proficiency Levels of Significant Subgroups Used to Determine Adequate Yearly Progress, 2006-2009

English Language Arts - % Proficient
2006
Target: 22.3
2007
Target: 22.3
2008
Target: 33.4
2009
Target: 44.5
Subgroup A BW CN M Z A BW CN M Z A BW CN M Z A BW CN M Z
AA 30.9 30.2 28.4 31.8 26.1
HL 34.2 41.6 33.8 28.8 37.2 26.2 34.7 38.7 32.4 34.7 31.1 35.8 43.1 32.8 41.8 35.3 43.3 37.8 38.7 40.3
White 59.7 62 66.4 60.8 60.2 63.3 73.7 62.4
SED 33.8 39.6 32.2 32.2 35.7 23.7 36.1 35.7 32.2 32.8 30.3 34 41 37 39.4 35.6 44.8 38.6 39.3 38.7
EL 25.9 29.1 20.7 21.2 28.2 13.9 20.4 22.6 22.2 18.8 24.5 22.2 21.5 20.4 26.4 31.7 24.6 16.2 25.9 26.3
SWD 11.9 13.9
Note. Highlighted cells indicate that the subgroup did not meet the federal proficiency goal that year

A – Aero; BW – Big Wave; CN – Cactus Needle; M – Mallview; Z - Zamboni

AA – African Americans; HL – Hispanic/Latino; SED – Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
EL – English Learners; SWD – Students with Disabilities

89

Table 4.5
Proficiency Levels of Significant Subgroups Used to Determine Adequate Yearly Progress, 2006-2009
Mathematics - % Proficient
2006
Target: 20.9
2007
Target: 20.9
2008
Target: 32.2
2009
Target: 43.5
Subgroup A BW CN M Z A BW CN M Z A BW CN M Z A BW CN M Z
AA 24.7 24.3 28.7 25.2 23.5
HL 29.8 46.2 36.6 29.2 41 31.3 37.9 46.1 28.4 46.7 30.5 46.2 41.8 30.1 43.6 29.3 55.8 49 37.7 47.6
White 61.5 53.4 63.8 51 60.5 57.3 73.7 57.2
SED 29.1 44.1 35.9 32.8 39.7 31.4 41.3 43.9 29.9 43.9 31.5 46.7 41.6 31.8 41.3 30.6 58.4 50.3 38.6 45
EL 25.7 37.2 29.3 25.8 33.5 21.9 25 35.4 23 37.2 28.6 37.4 25.8 21.8 30.5 31.2 43.1 33.3 30.1 37.3
SWD 11.3 7.9
Note. Highlighted cells indicate that the subgroup did not meet the federal proficiency goal that year

A – Aero; BW – Big Wave; CN – Cactus Needle; M – Mallview; Z - Zamboni

AA – African Americans; HL – Hispanic/Latino; SED – Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
EL – English Learners; SWD – Students with Disabilities

90

As mentioned above, a school’s graduation rate is also a factor in determining
Adequate Yearly Progress. Earlier in this section, Table 4.3 showed that both Aero and
Zamboni High Schools failed to make AYP partly due to not meeting this criterion. Aero
High School has the lowest graduation rate of all of the schools in the study – about 62%
for the class of 2008; at 90%, Mallview High School had the highest rate that year.
Figure 4.3 , below, reveals a disturbing trend – the graduation rates of all of the schools
have dropped significantly since 2001. Aero and Big Wave each saw 12% drops in the
numbers of students graduating since that year; the other schools also saw decreases
ranging between 6 and 8%.
Figure 4.3
Graduation Rates, 2000-2001 to 2008-2009

60
70
80
90
100
Aero Big Wave Cactus Needle Mallview Zamboni
91

All of the school principals expressed concern about the decrease in graduation
rates, and were fearful that the trend may continue. The principals stated that too many
students were earning failing grades and thus winding up off track for graduation.
Exacerbating this situation at all of the campuses was a lack of unit recovery options—all
of the districts had too few spots in alternative education programs, and summer school
programs, the major vehicle for unit recovery, were scaled back dramatically as a result
of California’s financial crisis. As a result, most of the schools in this study were
developing programs to help students recover units lost throughout the school year, and
were focusing efforts on creating or refining intervention plans to help students who
failed classes as soon as possible.
Part of the reason that many students were receiving failing grades had to do with
an inability to strongly correlate grades with data. Most of the principals indicated that
student grades are composed of vague performance indicators such as homework
completion, class participation, notebook organization, and the like; too few teachers
were actually grading based upon student mastery of or progress toward the standards.
The principal at Mallview High School stated that several students were failing courses in
the core academic areas despite having proficient or advanced scores on the California
Standards Tests or the standards-based quarterly benchmark exams that his school
utilizes. The principal at Big Wave High School echoed these sentiments, adding that his
teachers believed that the failing grades were a result of their ―high expectations for
student performance‖ and not a result of their failure to teach the students effectively.

92

California Standards Tests and Academic Performance Indexes
Figure 4.4, below, illustrates the overall results on the California Standards Tests
for English Language Arts, history, mathematics, and science from 2006-2009. Mallview
and Big Wave High Schools were the highest performers in each subject area according
to this measure; Aero High School had consistently been the lowest rated school based
upon CST scores in each subject area. Performance in almost every category had
improved at each school during this time period.
Figure 4.4

California Standards Tests Results, 2006-2009

20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2006 20007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
English Language Arts
Aero Big Wave Cactus Needle Mallview Zamboni
93

Figure 4.4, Continued

10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
History
Aero Big Wave Cactus Needle Mallview Zamboni
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
Mathematics
Aero Big Wave Cactus Needle Mallview Zamboni
94

Figure 4.4, Continued
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
Science
Aero Big Wave Cactus Needle Mallview Zamboni
95

Figure 4.5, below, shows the Academic Performance Indexes (API) for each of
the schools. The API attempts to quantify in a single number student performance on the
California Standards Tests and California High School Exit Exam; the State of California
expects each school and its subgroups to work toward achieving an API score of 800 over
time. Student results on the CSTs are weighted the most heavily in the calculation, with
significant points being awarded for students who achieve proficiency in any of the
subject areas tested or pass the CAHSEE.
Figure 4.5
Academic Performance Indexes, 2005-2009

Each school realized increases in its school-wide API since 2005, with Big Wave
improving the most and becoming the highest performing school based on this measure
in the study – an increase of 79 points over five years, earning a 2009 API of 738. In
2005, Mallview High School had the highest API (712), but has only increased 25 points
600
625
650
675
700
725
750
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Aero Big Wave Cactus Needle Mallview Zamboni
96

during this time frame; at 25 points of improvement over the last five years, Mallview
and Aero are the least improved schools in this study. Aero was the lowest performing
school of the group, and was about 50 API points below the next lowest two schools,
Cactus Needle and Zamboni.
Table 4.6, below, presents the API scores of the key subgroups for each of the
schools – all of the schools had significant numbers of Hispanics or Latinos, English
Learners, and Students with Disabilities. Virtually all subgroups saw improvements to
their APIs between 2005 and 2009, with increases ranging between 16 and 89 points.
Three schools had significant amounts of White, Asian, or Filipino students. In 2009, all
of these groups had earned an API above or close to the state performance goal of 800.
Across the board, the performance of Students with Disabilities was abysmal in
comparison to other subgroups-- almost all of their APIs in 2005 and 2009 were less than
500. English Learners were the next lowest performing group at each of the schools.
Table 4.6 also demonstrates the achievement gaps that exist within each of these schools.
Despite reform efforts, the achievement gaps between the highest and lowest performing
subgroups actually increased between 2005 and 2009 in most cases. At Aero High
School, the gap between the API scores of Hispanic/Latino and African American
students was only one point in 2005; by 2009 that discrepancy had grown to 13 points.
At Big Wave High School, the difference between the API score for White students and
all other subgroups had increased during that time period; at Zamboni High School, the
gap between Hispanic/Latino students and all other subgroups also widened between
97

2005 and 2009. In all cases except Aero High School, the achievement gaps between
English Learners and other subgroups continued to grow over the years; the gap between
these students at Aero closed by 10 points.
98

Table 4.6
Subgroup API Growth and Performance Gaps Between 2005 and 2009

Subgroup
(In order of highest
2005 API)
2005
API
2005 Gap
Between
Highest
Subgroup
2009
API
2009
Gap
5 Year
API
Growth
Gap

Change
Aero
Hispanic/Latino 599 - 629 - +30 -
African American 598 1 615 14 +17 +13
English Learners 579 20 613 16 +34 -4
Students with Disabilities 425 174 465 164 +40 -10
Big Wave
White 724 - 813 - +89 -
African American 677 47 739 74 +62 +27
Hispanic/Latino 621 103 706 107 +85 +4
English Learners 598 126 642 171 +44 +45
Students with Disabilities 437 287 512 301 +75 +14
Cactus Needle
Filipino 767 - 806 - +39 -
Hispanic/Latino 617 150 665 141 +48 -9
English Learners 569 198 585 221 +16 +23
Students with Disabilities 364 403 424 382 +60 -21

99

Table 4.6, Continued
Subgroup API Growth and Performance Gaps Between 2005 and 2009
Mallview
Asian 850 - 864 - +14 -
White 768 82 789 75 +21 -7
English Learners 653 197 648 216 -5 +19
Hispanic/Latino 648 202 695 169 +47 -33
Students with
Disabilities* NA NA 460 404 NA
NA
Zamboni
Hispanic/Latino 643 - 692 - +49 -
English Learners 618 25 638 54 +20 +29
African American 580 63 602 90 +22 +27
Students with Disabilities 416 227 440 252 +24 +25
*Students with Disabilities were not a subgroup at Mallview in 2005
100

The State of California gives its schools two rankings – a Statewide Ranking that
compares the school to all others and a Similar Schools ranking that compares it to those
with similar demographics. Because the rankings are based entirely upon API scores, the
only way to rise in the rankings is to increase this figure. Figure 4, below, exhibits the
rankings of each of the schools in the study between 2005 and 2006 (a 10 is the highest
possible ranking).
Figure 4.6
State-Wide and Similar School Rankings, 2004-2008

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Statewide Rankings
Aero Big Wave Cactus Needle Mallview Zamboni
101

Figure 4.6, Continued

Introduction to the Findings
This section will provide a discussion of the study findings as they relate to each
of the five research questions. The research questions will be answered using data found
in the five case studies located in Appendices D-H. The information found in the case
studies is a result of individual school interviews conducted throughout the fall of 2009
and early 2010.
What are the Current Instructional Improvement Strategies Observed at the School
Level?
How are Resources Used to Implement the School’s Instructional Improvement
Plan?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Simlar School Rankings
Aero Big Wave Cactus Needle Mallview Zamboni
102

This section will address both of these research questions beginning with a brief
description of the impetus behind the improvement process at each school. Details about
each school’s efforts in the following areas will be presented:
 instructional leadership – including details about instructional delivery and lesson
design
 curricular improvements – including information about strategies to improve
performance in English language arts and mathematics, raise CAHSEE
proficiency, and to assist English Learners and Students with Disabilities
 professional development and collaboration
 use of data
 parent involvement
 instructional time
 intervention plans to help struggling students

The Start of the Reform Efforts
With the exception of Aero, each of the schools in the study began the process of
reforming its instructional programs as a result of its respective district’s leadership. Big
Wave High School’s improvement efforts were born out of dissatisfaction with low
achievement for many years – the community had grown tired of a failure to see an
improvement in this school’s performance data and rankings, and demanded that the
Sandy Beach Unified School District develop a plan to change the situation. As a result
103

of community pressure, the district applied for funds made available to support struggling
schools through the State of California’s Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program
(II/USP) Grant. Receiving these funds forced the district and school to work together to
develop a three-year plan to raise the API and meet specific annual growth targets. In
order to send a message to the faculty and staff at Big Wave High School that the district
was serious about fixing things, the Sandy Beach’s superintendent involuntarily
transferred half a dozen of Big Wave’s perceived worst teachers.
The impetus for Cactus Needle’s improvement plan came from its district’s
struggle to keep students from fleeing to a very successful nearby California School
District of Choice as well as other area school districts that offered magnet programs.
Because the school and the district were both in Program Improvement, great concern
had arisen amongst the leadership of Cactus Needle’s district, the Mountain Shadow
Unified School District, that the community believed the schools were not providing a
high-quality education to students. The district’s focus on improving test scores to make
AYP and to get off of the PI list has served as a driving force for Cactus Needle’s reform
efforts.
Guided by strong district leadership, both Mallview and Zamboni High Schools
approached the task of school improvement by dramatically changing the structures of
how they serve their students. Through funds made available from a federal grant,
Mallview High School implemented Small Learning Communities (SLCs) that were
meant to provide students with a meaningful connection to the school. The school
currently has four SLCs focused on a specific theme ranging from a concentration on
104

visual and performing arts to engineering. Along with the creation of the SLCs, elements
known to improve student learning have also been put in place – collaboration time,
teacher teams, intervention plans, and the like. Similarly, Zamboni High School’s reform
efforts have been centered on the implementation of Professional Learning Communities.
The focus of this school’s principal has been to work with his staff to effectively use
collaboration opportunities, change instructional time to increase student learning, and to
develop instructional and curricular teams.
Notably, Zamboni’s efforts to improve the instructional program seem to be
undermined by its current configuration. As the campus essentially operates as two
separate schools (a 9
th
-grade division and one that serves grades 10-12) yet is held
accountable as one entity, a lack of articulation between the two divisions has created
many problems. The principal of Zamboni’s 10-12 division described a lack of
consistency in student expectations, instructional philosophy, and coherency in
curriculum and intervention programs as being serious barriers to the reform process.
Like Zamboni, Mallview had a unique configuration serving students in grades 7-
12 through two separate divisions housed on one campus; however, the problems that
Zamboni experienced with consistency between the two divisions did not exist at
Mallview. The principal of the school indicated that the middle school and high school
staffs embraced the opportunity to work closely together to develop, and created some
meaningful programs to support students throughout the secondary grades.
Aero High School was the only school in the study that has not received a strong
push from its district to initiate substantial school reforms. Part of the reason may stem
105

from distractions caused by a turbulent climate surrounding Aero’s district, the Wright
Union High School District. Wright’s superintendent was unexpectedly fired in 2007
when it was revealed that the district was on the brink of bankruptcy and state takeover.
The district’s top leadership positions have seen people come and go over the past few
years, resulting in a lack of a consistent vision, guidance and support, and stability. As a
result of the district’s schools failing to improve over several years, the county office of
education was forced to become involved in assisting the district with developing an
improvement plan. Unfortunately, the leadership at Aero High School mirrored that of
the district – at the time of this study, the principal was the third person to hold that
position in the last four years, and at least one or two of the four assistant principals have
turned over every year.

Instructional Leadership
Each of the principals indicated that routine classroom observations were a vital
part of their instructional leadership. Most of the principals stated that they try to visit
classrooms at least once a week, and often make use of a protocol to record what they
observe. They also mentioned that they expected their assistant principals to monitor
classroom instruction on a regular basis; however, the principals often did not have
enough time to accomplish this task due to the difficulty of managing the day-to-day
operations of a large high school. All of the principals expressed the importance of
providing teachers with meaningful and immediate feedback on what they have observed
on these visits.
106

The two lowest performing schools in the study (Aero and Zamboni) had
implemented the fewest number of meaningful instructional strategies. In the case of
Aero High School, the Students Will Be Able Too... (SWBAT) statements that must be
posted in every classroom have little meaning if they are not backed up with sound
instructional techniques. At least part of Aero’s deficiency in this area can be attributed
to a lack of consistent leadership and a failure to establish a clear instructional vision.
Zamboni’s principal communicated several strategies that he would like to see in
each classroom every day (learning goals, student collaboration, and academic
vocabulary), but has not yet been able to make this vision a reality. He also indicated that
change in this area will be a challenge for him as the district has never focused its reform
efforts on instructional improvement, opting instead for broader structural change like the
development of Professional Learning Communities. The two strategies that have been
implemented involve the use of formative assessments to analyze student progress toward
the standards throughout a lesson, and the mainstreaming of more Students with
Disabilities into general education classes through the development of courses cotaught
by a teacher from both areas.
Not surprisingly, the most improved school in the study, Big Wave High School,
had the largest number of instructional strategies in place. Its principal indicated that the
beginnings of his school’s reform efforts were focused on creating the structures
necessary for supporting teaching and learning –in recent years, the concentration has
shifted to providing teachers with the tools necessary to help all students achieve at high
levels.
107

Both Big Wave and Cactus Needle High Schools had taken steps to eliminate
remedial courses and to open access to rigorous courses such as honors or Advanced
Placement for all students. Generally, these courses have high expectations for student
performance, and were well-aligned to college expectations; in the case of Advanced
Placement courses, students can earn college credit if they pass an exam at the end of the
course. By encouraging students to take these courses, these schools are following the
current research that indicates the importance of setting high expectations for student
learning (Duke, 2006; Marzano, 2003; Odden, 2009).
Interestingly, Mallview High School was the only school in the study that had
adopted a school-wide instructional strategy to improve the achievement of English
Learners. The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) is an instructional
strategy with several key components including building background, comprehensible
input, and student interaction. Considering that the EL subgroup was part of the reason
that all of the schools are in Program Improvement, that more strategies had not been
implemented specifically to address their performance is surprising. Table 4.7, below,
outlines the specific instructional strategies in place at each of the schools that
participated in this study
108

Table 4.7
Instructional Strategies at Each Participating School
School Major Instructional Strategies Currently in Place
Aero SWBAT Statements – Students will be able to… - posted in every classroom
English Language Arts and mathematics teachers are being trained in Direct
Interactive Instruction delivery
Comprehensive plans to deal with student attendance issues and behavior problems
Big Wave Elimination of all courses that are not college preparatory
Open access to honors and Advanced Placement courses
Clear learning objectives in every classroom every day
Formative assessments to check for understanding
Explicit teaching of academic vocabulary in the core academic areas
Routine ―walk through‖ visits into classrooms involving both teachers and
administrators
Classroom management training for all staff members

109

Table 4.7, Continued
Instructional Strategies at Each Participating School
School Major Instructional Strategies Currently in Place
Cactus Needle Expectations for all lessons: learning objectives, checking for understanding,
connection with prior knowledge, and student engagement
Core teachers are being trained in Explicit Direct Instruction delivery
Thinking Maps
AVID instructional strategies – interactive note taking and Socratic seminars
Increased access to honors, Advanced Placement, and International Baccalaureate
programs
Mallview SIOP – Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
Emphasis on differentiated instruction for specific groups of students including
formative assessments, questioning techniques, connecting with prior knowledge, and
cooperative learning
Explicit teaching of academic vocabulary in the core academic areas
Crosscurricular lessons
Technology – classrooms are well equipped with document cameras, Smart Boards,
and the like
Zamboni Formative assessments to check for understanding
Mainstreaming of Students with Disabilities into general education courses through
courses co-taught by both a general education and special education teacher
110

Curriculum
All of the schools had taken steps to develop and implement pacing guides for
each of the courses within the core academic areas. The pacing guides were aligned to
the state standards, and pay particular attention to the standards that are assessed most
frequently on the California Standards Tests. Each principal indicated that his/her
teachers had faithfully implemented these guides, and stated that they adjust them on an
annual basis if necessary. Two of the principals expressed concerns that their teachers
may be ―too good‖ at following the pacing guides, explaining that they are concerned that
teachers may rush through certain topics in order to keep up with the recommended
sequencing.
With the exception of Cactus Needle, all of the schools had implemented common
benchmark assessments in the core subject areas to monitor student progress toward the
standards throughout the school year. Each of these schools had quarterly exams aligned
to the sequencing of the pacing guides and assess the state standards. Teachers were able
to access the results of these assessments through student information systems, and use
the data to identify students who need more support, which standards need to be retaught,
and identify the strengths and weaknesses of the instructional program. Other than the
benchmark exams, additional common assessments such as chapter tests were not in
place at most of the schools.
English Language Arts
Three of the schools (Aero, Big Wave, and Cactus Needle) provided students who
struggle with reading an instructional program that is meant to build up their skills over a
111

period of one or two years – Read 180 and Fast Track are the programs being used to
accomplish this. The major problem with such programs is that they are intended to only
build reading levels up to 7
th
grade – thus a 9
th
-grade student who is reading at a 5
th
-grade
level really has no chance to get to grade level by the end of his/her high school years.
This problem was compounded by the increasing difficulty of the California English
Language Arts standards between 8
th
and 9
th
and 10
th
and 11
th
grades; further, the schools
typically do not place students in English courses based upon their levels – for example, a
10
th
-grader takes 10
th
-grade English regardless of his/her ability to achieve at that level.
Aero High School’s approach to English language arts instruction for struggling
students was particularly troubling: 9
th
-grade students enrolled in Read 180 and 10
th
-
grade students who find themselves in a Studio course (a course created by the teachers
there) do not receive any exposure to the grade-level standards at all – thus, a 9
th
-grade
student in Read 180 will not have an 9
th
-grade English class as well. This structure at
least partially explains why the school’s CST and CAHSEE scores in ELA are quite
low—many students are not given the opportunity to learn or be exposed to the
appropriate grade level standards for up to two years.
Mallview High School offered no English language arts support curriculum.
Zamboni offered an additional period of support to students identified as below grade
level in the subject, but the principal indicated that the course is not effective in
improving reading or writing skills and will be scrapped.

112

Mathematics
With the exception of Aero High School, none of the schools in the study offered
any mathematics course lower than Algebra 1. This set-up partly has to do with the State
of California’s designation of prealgebra as a 7
th
-grade course; in addition, the API of
high schools that offer such remedial math courses is negatively affected, providing a
strong incentive not to allow such offerings. All of the principals expressed concern
about math achievement at their schools, noting the following:
1) CST scores in math are quite a bit lower than those in English language arts.
CAHSEE proficiency rates in math are higher than those ELA; however, this
statistic is not surprising – the CAHSEE math test covers mostly 7
th
and 8
th
-grade
math standards.
2) Math courses have the highest failure rates of all the core subject areas, affecting
both graduation and college eligibility rates.
3) There do not seem to be any effective intervention programs for raising student
achievement in mathematics at the high school level.
All of the schools seem to have struggled with finding effective ways to increase
math achievement. Each school in this study provided students not successful in Algebra
1 with an extra period of support for the course; however, none of these courses has a
well-established curriculum for the class, and the principals could not identify the
differences in the instructional strategies that are used in them. Only Mallview High
School used a computer-based program to assist students in building math skills during
113

the support class; ALEKS is a program that uses artificial intelligence to identify a
student’s strengths and weaknesses and then builds a custom curriculum for him or her.
Aero and Zamboni had a long-standing practice of not allowing students to move
forward in a course or to a different one without a grade of C or better. This pacing
stemmed from the belief that a C grade is an indicator of mastery of the subject matter.
Both principals indicated that this practice has caused many problems at their schools.
For example, Zamboni’s principal shared with the researcher a transcript of a student who
has taken the first semester of Algebra 1 four times because he was not allowed to move
forward due to a grade of D each time. In Aero’s case, this practice was particularly
troubling considering the school was the only one in the study that offers prealgebra.
Many students there took prealgebra for two or three years before finally taking an
Algebra 1 course – which is part of the reason why the school’s graduation rate is so low.
English Learners
All of the schools offered similar programs to support students who speak little or
no English. The school offered multiple periods of instruction through their English
Language Development (ELD) programs that are meant to build speech, language, and
reading skills. All of their ELD programs utilized a state-approved curriculum geared to
build English fluency within three to four years. Aero, Big Wave, and Cactus Needle
offered sheltered courses in the math, history, and science to help students who were
learning English have access to the state standards.

114

Special Education
With the exception of Aero High School, all of the schools in the study had made
efforts to mainstream Students with Disabilities into general education courses. The
schools that had taken this route established collaborative relationships between the
special education and general education departments, by which a teacher from the former
department supported the mainstreamed students in the regular classes. Mallview and
Zamboni High Schools had taken this model a step further by actually establishing
general education courses that were cotaught by both types of teachers; responsibilities
for teaching, planning, and assessing are shared equally. In all of the schools, many of
the Students with Disabilities were provided a period of support that is designed to assist
them with their work.
Students who were not mainstreamed receive their core academic instruction in
special education versions of the courses – for example, English 1, 2, 3, 4, World History,
Algebra 1, and so forth. Generally, these course offerings were not taught by a highly
qualified teacher, and were not well aligned to the courses offered to general education
students. All of the principals indicated that the expectations for student performance in
special education courses were quite low, and that the teachers there did not utilize the
same instructional materials.
CAHSEE Specific Interventions
Considering that Adequate Yearly Progress is determined primarily by 10
th
-grade
scores on the California High School Exit Exam, one would expect each of the schools in
the study to have had several programs meant to bolster student performance on this test.
115

Big Wave, Cactus Needle, and Mallview all began preparing 10
th
-grade students for the
CAHSEE in English and math courses several weeks before the exam was administered
in March. The materials used to do so are a collection of sample problems made
available by the California Department of Education, curriculum purchased from test
preparation companies or county offices of education, and other items gathered by
teachers over the years. Many of the instructors had also been provided training on how
to teach their students test-taking strategies, such as eliminating obviously wrong answers
and informed guessing.
Both Big Wave and Cactus Needle took CAHSEE preparation for this key group
of students a step further by offering preparation to specific groups of 10
th
-graders
outside of the classroom as well. Both schools identified English Learners who may be
able to pass the exam or earn a proficient score if given additional support. Big Wave
removed these students from an elective class for six weeks leading to the test, and
provided them with an intensive test preparation seminar that focuses on building reading
and writing skills; the school did not offer intensive preparation in mathematics. Cactus
Needle utilized its tutorial period to work with these students.
Aero and Zamboni High Schools offered no programs to bolster 10
th
-grade
student achievement on the CAHSEE. Both principals indicated that future reform
efforts would include plans to help students prepare for the exam.
Finally, all of the schools offered courses to 11
th
and 12
th
-grade students who have
not passed the CAHSEE. Some of the schools provided classes during the regular school
day in order to help these students; other schools only offered the classes after school or
116

on the weekends. Usually, these courses utilize materials that have been purchased from
a test preparation company like Princeton Review. The State of California has provided
categorical funding for schools to offer these programs to students who have struggled to
pass the test.

Professional Development and Collaboration
Each of the schools provided its teachers at least four days of professional
development per year; however, few of these days can actually be used for professional
development. Through their respective collective bargaining agreements, some of the
schools were obligated to use a few of these days to provide teachers an opportunity to
prepare for the upcoming school year, tie up loose ends between semesters, and work
with their departments on business that may or may not be related to teaching and
learning. The principals were all expected to work closely with their teaching staffs to
determine how best to use the days that are available for professional development.
Each of the schools created time in its schedules to allow teachers to work
together. Aero and Cactus Needle had collaboration time set aside on a biweekly basis;
the other schools each dedicated up to 45 minutes a week for this purpose. The principals
all indicated that this time is quite valuable for the staff as it provides an opportunity for
them to discuss student data, plan lessons, and share information about teaching
strategies. In all cases, the principals of the schools indicated that the use of this time is
typically left to the departments to decide, although they do review the agendas and
minutes.
117

Data Use
All of the schools utilized student information and data management systems such
as Edusoft, Data Director, or Power School. These systems were used to organize and
access state and local assessment data and demographic information. Most of the
principals reported that their staffs did not utilize these tools properly or frequently
enough for them to be an effective part of the reform process. Mallview’s leader was the
only one who indicated that his staff regularly accessed, interpreted, and used data to
make decisions about the instructional program properly. All of the principals expressed
the need for additional professional development relating to maximizing the benefit that
these tools can provide.
Finally, Zamboni was the weakest school in the study with respect to this issue.
The student information system that the district adopted was far too complex to be of any
practical use to the school’s leadership or staff – the principal stated that reform efforts
had been hindered by an inability to access data to validate or debunk current
instructional practices in a timely manner.

Parent Involvement
All of the principals indicated that parent involvement had dropped off
significantly at their schools over many years, and they were working hard to build it
back up. In particular, the schools had difficulty engaging the parents of English
Learners, many of who are recent immigrants to the United States or may be unfamiliar
with the school system. In order to change this situation, most of the schools were
118

offering courses for parents designed to provide them with relevant information about
how they can help their student succeed, graduation requirements, college admissions,
and support services. Some of the schools utilized outside agencies to provide these
courses to parents whereas the others used their administrative and guidance teams. All
of the principals stated that they believe that this approach to teaching parents more about
their schools has been effective in helping parents feel more comfortable with the
education system.
A couple of the schools started holding meetings for the parents of 9
th
and 10
th
-
grade students who had multiple Ds or Fs in courses and were at risk of not graduating on
time. Big Wave and Mallview reported that these evenings had been successful in
providing parents with the tools that they need to closely monitor their students’ progress
as well as to find out what support is available. Both principals indicated that many of
the parents of these students did not realize the impact that failing classes can have on a
student’s graduation status and college options. Finally, all of the schools had the
traditional programs to help engage parents – back to school night, open house, school
site council, and so on.

Instructional Time
Only Cactus Needle and Zamboni High Schools had taken steps to provide more
instructional time for students struggling to meet state standards. Cactus Needle offered a
25-minute tutorial period four days per week; Zamboni High School offered a 30-minute
119

tutorial period three days per week. Both principals were very pleased about the
feedback they had received from students, parents and, teachers about the tutorial—
all were very happy that students had an opportunity during the school day to receive
extra help in their classes. Another benefit of this instructional time was its use to
prepare students for upcoming exams. Cactus Needle used this tutorial period to work
with EL students on CAHSEE preparation for several weeks leading to the test.
With the exception of Aero High School, all of the schools in the study had
traditional bell schedules with classes that met every day for about an hour. Aero High
School had the most unique bell schedule in the study – a ―tumbling‖ block schedule.
Essentially, the first five class periods met three days per week for 95 minutes; the sixth
class period of the day met every day for 57 minutes. Due to this unusual schedule, some
students may have a core academic class that meets three days per week for 95 minutes
whereas other students may have a class that meets every day for 57 minutes. The
principal indicated that this schedule has caused many problems both for teachers who
have to essentially prepare a variety of lessons throughout the week and for the students.

Intervention Plan
All of the principals indicated that student failures are a source of major concern.
Students who fail multiple courses can quickly find themselves off track for graduating
with their class. As California’s financial crisis has developed, school districts are
finding it difficult to offer alternative education programs aimed at credit recovery. Each
of the schools in the study started to develop and implement plans to identify students at
120

risk of not graduating early on in their high school years, and provided them with support
to change the situation.
Tutoring was available at all of the schools for students who needed additional
support. Aero, Big Wave, and Mallview all utilized a number of teachers to work with
students in the core areas before and after school as well as on the weekends. As
described above, Cactus Needle and Zamboni had altered their weekly bell schedules to
provide support during the school day.
Big Wave, Mallview, and Zamboni approached credit recovery in unique ways.
These schools offered students the chance to recover credits needed for graduation
through various online programs-- Mallview actually had a number of credit recovery
classes during the school day. Zamboni High School offered extended learning
opportunities for students before or after school; essentially, a student could retake a
course he or she had previously failed outside of the school day throughout the year. All
of these actions had taken place due to cuts to the traditional credit recover mechanism –
summer school. Only Aero and Cactus Needle had yet to implement alternative methods
for credit recovery.
Most of the schools supported numbers of students through specific programs
meant to provide them with closer monitoring. All of the schools except Zamboni
developed programs aimed specifically at supporting 9
th
-grade students. These programs
generally provided the students with a period of support, a common set of teachers who
worked together and frequently collaborated, and additional resources for parents. The
educators who worked with these students act as mentors, worked hard to motivate them,
121

provided them with both academic and emotional support, and encouraged them to attend
college.
A few of the schools also saw AVID as a key component of student support. The
AVID program enlists college students from local schools to assist students who need
help in the core academic areas. The principals reported that the AVID program had
been a big success in terms of helping make students and community members aware of
how to prepare for college. In addition, many of the AVID strategies (Cornell note
taking, classroom inquiry techniques, etc.) were utilized throughout their campuses, and
had received much-needed buy in from all teachers.
How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to California’s
financial crisis and related budget reductions?
Table 4.8, below, summarizes the principals’ perceptions of the impact of
California’s financial crisis on their school sites. With the exception of Mallview High
School, all of the schools experienced a reduction in personnel including reductions in
teaching, classified, guidance, and administrative staffs. Mallview’s principal indicated
that even though he had not experienced losses in staffing at this point, he was positive
that reductions are on the horizon; in particular, he believed that his classified staff would
be significantly reduced and that all of his temporary or probationary teachers would be
eliminated. All of the principals expressed concern about future cuts to their staffs,
stating that they were fearful that the worst was yet to come with regard to budget cuts
and the impact on school site staffing. Aero, Big Wave, and Mallview High Schools
indicated that class sizes in the core had increased significantly in the past year – the
122

student-teacher ratio at each of these schools had risen to about 30-1. In the case of
Mallview High School, class sizes reduction efforts in 9
th
-grade English language arts
classes were eliminated for the 2009-2010 school year – class sizes jumped from 20-1 to
the core average of about 30-1. All of the principals stated that they were concerned that
class sizes would continue to increase as districts attempted to avoid teacher layoffs.
They also mentioned that their districts were in a difficult position on this issue as their
collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) called for maintaining certain staffing levels;
for example, Mallview’s CBA called for teachers to have no more than 180 students, and
Aero’s CBA capped class sizes at 36:1
123

Table 4.8
Principals’ Perceptions of the Impact of the Financial Crisis Resource Allocation at
Their School Sites
Aero
Reduction in teaching staff – 4 FTE positions; 100.8 FTE remaining
Reduction in secretarial/clerical staff – 5 FTE positions; 14 FTE remaining
Reduction in counseling staff – 4 FTE positions; 5 FTE remaining
Class sizes increased from about 25-1 in the core to 29-1
All funding for athletics and extracurricular activities cut
Instructional materials and professional development budgets eliminated at the site level
Big Wave
50-65% reduction in the site budget
Money to pay teachers for time devoted to tutoring, curriculum development, professional
development, and the like significantly reduced
Elimination of 20-1 class sizes in 9
th
grade ELA courses
Maintenance of technology and infrastructure greatly reduced or delayed
Cactus
Needle
Reduction in teaching staff – 4 FTE positions; 88.4 FTE remaining
Reduction in counseling staff – 1.8 FTE positions; 5.2 FTE remaining
Classified staff reductions have taken place over the past few years; retiring employees not
rehired, and newer employees released; hiring freezes
Reduction in services such as summer school
Creative use of categorical funds to pay for personnel
Morale extremely low

124

Table 4.8, Continued
Principals’ Perceptions of the Impact of the Financial Crisis Resource Allocation at
Their School Sites
Mallview
Class sizes raised from about 26:1 in the core to about 30:1
Impact of financial crisis on site funds difficult to determine – principal indicated that the district
has always held back significant amounts of money from the school, making it difficult to
determine just how bad the situation is
Reduction in services such as summer school
Morale extremely low
Zamboni
Reduction in administrative staff – 1 FTE assistant principal; 4 FTE assistant principals
remaining
Classified reductions have taken place over the past few years – 3 FTE secretaries and clerks in
the past year, 16 FTE remaining; retiring employees not rehired, and newer employees released
Creative use of categorical funds to pay for personnel

125

Two of the principals (Cactus Needle and Zamboni) described the need to
creatively use categorical funds to maintain current staffing levels. In order to keep an
assistant principal, Cactus Needle had to fund part of this position through Title 1
monies; as a result, this assistant principal was referred to as a ―Learning Director,‖ and
had major responsibilities relating to English Learners and socioeconomically
disadvantaged students as well as the typical assignments of a site administrator.
Zamboni’s principal utilized Title 1 and EIA/LEP monies to maintain services, and as a
result had to shift more responsibilities to these positions. Both of the principals
expressed great concern over using categorical funds to pay for positions, stating that
tying up the money into personnel prevented them from using it for things like
professional development or instructional materials.
Finally, the financial crisis and budget reductions had a significant impact on
morale at the school sites; the principals of Cactus Needle and Mallview explicitly
pointed this result out to the researcher. Cactus Needle’s principal described the financial
crisis as being a major distraction for his staff, taking quite a bit of attention away from
the focus on school improvement. He felt that his teachers seemed to be more worried
about layoffs, reductions in compensation, and the prospect of being required to do more
with less. Mallview’s principal expressed similar concerns, noting that his district’s
decision to issue Reduction in Force notices to teachers last year significantly disrupted
his staff’s attention to teaching and learning.

126

How are State Fiscal Stabilization Funds, federal relief made available to school
districts as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, being used at the
school-level to cope with state budget reductions?
Each principal indicated that his/her school did not directly receive funds made
available to their school districts in the form of the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds as
part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. They all stated that this money
was utilized by their districts to save as many teaching and staff positions as possible. As
described in Chapter Two, The United States Department of Education stated that these
largely unrestricted funds should be used to save and create jobs, improve student
achievement, and increase transparency, reporting, and accountability. Apparently, the
schools and districts selected for this study never made it past the saving and creating
jobs purpose.
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?
This section describes how well the resource levels observed at the schools sites
support the instructional improvement plans as compared to the levels suggested by the
Evidence Based Model (EBM). The resource indicators are broken down into six
categories: (a) school size, teacher allocation, and class size, (b) resources for extra help,
(c) resources for students with special needs, (d) professional development, (e) support
staff, and (f) school administration.

127

School Size, Teacher Allocation, and Class Size
According to the Evidence Based Model, the size of a prototypical high school is
600 students – Table 4.9, below, exhibits the total enrollment of all of the schools in the
study. The schools in the study ranged from 2 to 6 times the suggested enrolment of the
prototypical high school. The Evidence Based Model defines the core academic subject
areas as English language arts, mathematics, science, history, and world languages. The
model suggests that class sizes in the core be set at a student-teacher ratio of 25-1. Table
4.8 indicates that all of the schools in the study have class sizes in these areas that are
substantially higher than the recommended levels.
Table 4.9
School Size, Teachers, and Class Size of Selected Schools
Core Class Size Core Teacher FTEs Specialist Teacher FTEs
School Enrollment
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
(75%)
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
(25%)
Actual
School
Aero 2,400 25 29 96
74.6
(74%)
32
26.2
(26%)
Big Wave 2,500 25 32 100
65.4
(70.5%)
33.3
27.4
(29.5%)
Cactus
Needle
2,100 25 32 84
60.6
(68.5%)
28
27.8
(31.5%)
Mallview 1,150 25 30 46
28
(71%)
15.3
11.6
(29%)
Zamboni 3,500 25 30 140
75.2
(66%)
46.6
38.8
(34%)
128

The EBM suggests that a school have 24 core teachers for every 600 students, an
amount that should be about 75% of the total number of teaching full-time equivalents.
All of the high schools were significantly understaffed in comparison to the levels
proposed by the EBM. The largest school in the study, Zamboni High School, had just
over half the number of core teachers suggested by the model; the school that came
closest to meeting the core staffing levels of the EBM was Aero High School. All of the
schools fell short of the suggested 75% of FTEs being dedicated to core teachers – Aero
came the closest (74%) whereas Zamboni was the furthest from the target (66%).
The EBM defines specialist teachers as those who work with students in music,
arts, physical education, and other elective areas; the model suggests 8 specialist teachers
for every 600 students, and recommends that these teachers compose about 25% of the
teaching full-time equivalents. All of the schools had fewer specialist teachers than
suggested, but the disparity was not that great – with 27.8 FTE specialist teachers, Cactus
Needle came closest to the EBMs recommended level of 28. Each school had greater
percentages of FTE specialist teachers than suggested by the EBM – these amounts of
these teachers ranged from 26% (Aero) to 34% (Zamboni) of FTEs.

Resources for Extra Help
In almost every category, the schools in this study did not have adequate
resources to support struggling students or to assist teachers with improving their
instruction. Table 4.10, below, displays the resource allocations suggested by the EBM
and compares them with the actual resources identified at each school.
129

Table 4.10
Student and Teacher Support Resources at the Selected Schools

Tutors Instructional Facilitators Extended Day FTEs
Summer School
FTEs
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
Aero 19.2 0 12 0 16 1.3 16 5.2
Big
Wave
12.3 0 12.5 0 10.2 2.5 10.2 6
Cactus
Needle
12.6 0 10.5 0 10.5 0 10.5 5.3
Mallview 8 0 5.8 1.4 13.4 1.3 13.4 N/A
Zamboni 29 0 17.5 3.6 24 0 24 10.5

The Evidence Based Model recommends that certificated teacher tutors work with
students throughout the school day in order to assist them with mastering the standards;
the goal is to help a student who is deficient in a skill get back on track immediately. The
EBM suggests one teacher tutor for every student who qualifies for free/reduced lunch.
None of the schools in the study had any teachers acting in this role.
Instructional facilitators are teachers or outside consultants who work directly
with teachers to improve instruction. The EBM recommends one facilitator for every 200
students. Only Mallview and Zamboni had teachers working in this capacity; however,
most of their focus was on the managerial aspects of particular programs like ELD or
SLCs. Regardless, the number of instructional facilitator FTEs that Mallview and
Zamboni had (1.4 and 3.6, respectively) fell well short of the EBM’s suggested staffing
130

levels. The other schools in the study did not have any teachers or consultants working in
this capacity.
In order to assist students who need help mastering the standards outside of the
regular school day, the EBM calls for staffing extended day and summer school
programs. Each of the schools (except for Cactus Needle) offered extended day learning
opportunities to students. Generally, these programs take the form of tutorial sessions
held before and after school by certificated teachers in the core subject areas; the amount
of time that teachers provide to students ranges from one to two hours for at least four
days per week. The actual amount of resources dedicated to this pales in comparison to
the levels suggested by the EBM. Cactus Needle did not offer an extended day program,
opting instead to utilize its tutorial period (held during the school day) to support
struggling students. Zamboni High School offered no tutorial support outside of the
school day; its extended day program was actually a credit recovery mechanism where
students retake courses that they have failed.
Summer school programs at each of the schools sites were also significantly
understaffed in comparison to the levels suggested by the EBM. During their interviews,
each of the principals expressed concern over future reductions to summer programs, and
discussed the serious impact that this would have on students who attempt to recover lost
units for graduation. The EBM indicates that the programs currently in place are
operating with inadequate resources at this point – further reductions in this area would
significantly hinder the abilities of the schools to assist students who need help to meet
the standards, opportunities to get back on track for graduation, as well as chances for
131

academic enrichment. Mallview High School was the only school in the study that did
not offer a summer school program; its school district opted to hold single summer
program for all students in the district at another school site.

Resources for Students with Special Needs
All of the schools in this study were in Program Improvement in part due to the
performance of English Learners; likewise, as discussed earlier in this chapter, the
achievement of Students with Disabilities at the schools was abysmal compared to all
other subgroups regardless of the assessment measure. The Evidence Based Model
provides schools with additional staffing to support these important groups of students.
Table 4.11, below, shows the EBM’s recommended resource allocation levels compared
with the actual levels at each school site. The model calls for 1 FTE teacher to support
every 100 English Learners, and provides 4 teachers for every 600 students to support
students with mild learning disabilities.

132

Table 4.11
Resources Allocated for English Learners, Students with Disabilities, and Gifted
Teachers for EL
Students
Learning and Mild
Disabled Students
Funds for Gifted
Students
School EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
Aero 6.1 2.8 16 7 $60,000 $14,000
Big Wave 5.8 2.8 16.7 7 $62,500 $10,910
Cactus
Needle
5.8 5 14 10.4 $52,500 $11,000
Mallview 3 1.4 7.6 4 $28,750 0
Zamboni 9 4.8 23 12.2 $87,500 $46,190

Table 4.11 reveals that all of the schools are significantly understaffed in their
support for EL and special education students. In both cases, the schools generally only
had about half the number of teachers working with these at risk students that the EBM
recommends. Cactus Needle High School came the closest to meeting the suggested
resource allocation levels with 5 FTE teachers for EL students (5.8 recommended) and
10.4 for Students with Disabilities (14 recommended).
The Evidence Based Model provides schools with $25 per pupil enrolled to
support gifted students. Table 4.10 shows that all of the schools fall well short of the
funds prescribed by the model. Each of the schools offered honors, Advanced Placement,
133

or International Baccalaureate programs to motivated high achieving students; however,
the schools made these programs available to all students.

Resources for Professional Development
The Evidence Based Model provides schools with the resources required to
provide ongoing professional development throughout the year. The model allocates
$100 per pupil for schools to pay consultants, send teachers to conferences, provide
release time for staff development, and the like. Table 4.12, below, displays the funding
allocation suggested by the EBM and compares it to the actual amounts that the schools
in the study have budgeted for this purpose. All of the schools had insufficient funds to
support an ongoing professional development program. Interestingly, Aero High School,
the lowest performing school in the study and the one with the fewest instructional
strategies in place, was the closest to the EBMs suggested funding levels for a school of
its size. Notably, the principals of all of the schools indicated that they have the ability to
use certain categorical monies for professional development purposes when appropriate.

134

Table 4.12
Professional Development Resource Allocation Comparison

Funds for Professional
Development
Number of Days For
Professional
Development
Number of
Teaching Days
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
Aero $240,000 $150,000 10 4 190 180
Big Wave $250,000 $16,948 10 5 190 180
Cactus
Needle
$210,000 $71,526 10 4 190 180
Mallview $115,000 0 10 6 190 180
Zamboni $350,000 $20,000 10 4 190 180

The EBM also provides teachers with 10 days of intensive training during the
summer months, and recommends 190 days of actual classroom instruction. Once again,
the actual resource allocations observed at the site level fall short of these guidelines.
Three of the five schools had four professional development days built into the school
year – Big Wave and Mallview were the exceptions with five and six, respectively.
Notably, in all cases only one or two of these days are actually used for professional
development purposes; due to contractual obligations, many of these days are left to
teachers to use for preparation for the upcoming year, transitions between grading
135

periods, and department business. Finally, California Education Code calls for a school
year to be at least 180 days in length (although districts feeling the pinch of the financial
crisis can reduce this by up to five days until 2013) – none of the schools in the study
exceeded that amount, and fall two weeks short of days suggested by the EBM.

Support Staff
Pupil support staff includes counselors, nurses, psychologists, and other direct
service providers. Once again, when compared to the EBM, none of the schools had
allocated enough resources in this area. The EBM suggests one support provider for
every 100 students who qualify for free/reduced lunch and one guidance counselor for
every 250 pupils enrolled. Figure 4.13, below, displays the amount of actual amount of
pupil support staff at each school in comparison with the staffing levels called for by the
Evidence Based Model. The model would provide all of the schools with significantly
more personnel dedicated to helping students in this area; most notably, Zamboni High
School would see its allocation triple if the EBM were put into place.

136

Table 4.13
Actual Support Staff Resources Compared to Levels Recommended by the EBM

Pupil Support Staff
FTEs
Librarians and Techs
FTEs
Secretaries and Clerks
FTEs
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
Aero 28.8 10 8 1 14 16
Big Wave 22.3 13 8.4 1 16.7 10
Cactus
Needle
21 10.2 7 1 14 20
Mallview 14.6 6 4 2 7.8 9
Zamboni 43 14.6 11.6 1 23.3 16

Table 4.13 also highlights the number of librarians and library techs in place at
each school. Every school had one librarian; Mallview was the only school that has a
library tech, as the other schools eliminated this position in recent years due to budget
reductions. The Evidence Based Model would provide each school with significantly
more support in these areas.
Finally, the Evidence Based Model suggests that schools receive one secretary
and three clerical staff for every 600 students. Interestingly, Table 4.13 shows that the
schools are much closer to meeting the EBM’s recommended allocation levels in this
category than almost all of the others. Aero, Cactus Needle, and Mallview actually
137

exceeded the prescribed levels of secretaries and clerks, whereas Big Wave and Zamboni
were within 7 FTE. This finding is interesting considering that the principals in the study
have described their classified staffs as operating at ―bare bones‖ levels and have stated
that their office workers are now asked to do more with less.

School Administration
The Evidence Based Model recommends that each high school employs one
principal, and provides assistant principals at a ratio of 600-1. Table 4.14, below,
displays the resources allocated to school administration. All of the schools had one
principal, falling in line with the suggestions of the Evidence Based Model. With regard
to assistant principals, Big Wave, Cactus Needle, Zamboni fell short of the EBM’s
staffing suggestion in this area (displayed in Table 4.13). Aero and Mallview had 1 FTE
more assistant principals than recommended by the model. These are interesting findings
considering that all of the principals described the difficulties that their administrative
teams have had with finding time to both lead their school’s instructional program and
manage their day to day operations. The EBM suggests that there are staffed adequately
for these tasks.

138

Table 4.14
School Administration Resource Allocation
Principals Assistant Principals
School EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
EBM
Suggests
Actual
School
Aero 1 1 4 5
Big Wave 1 1 4.2 3
Cactus
Needle
1 1 3.5 3
Mallview 1 1 2 3
Zamboni 1 1 5.8 4

Summary
This chapter presented the findings for each of the five research questions
addressed by this study. Each of the schools that participated in the study was in
Program Improvement – three of the schools (Big Wave, Mallview, and Zamboni) were
in the first year, Cactus Needle was in its third year, and Aero had been in Program
Improvement for a decade. The schools all served significant numbers of
Hispanic/Latino students, English Learners, students who qualify for free/reduced lunch,
and Students with Disabilities. About one third of most of the high schools studied
139

served parents who never graduated from high school – at 50%, Zamboni’s levels far
exceeded this average percentage.
The achievement results of the schools were a mix of encouraging progress in
some regards and disappointment in others. Overall proficiency levels on the California
High School Exit Exam, California Standards Tests scores, and Academic Performance
Indexes had all increased over the years. Unfortunately, these trends did not apply to all
students in every one of the schools. The achievement of English Learners and Students
with Disabilities was quite low when compared to other subgroups, achievement gaps
that existed within each school had actually increased in most cases, and graduation rates
are falling.
All of the schools had taken action to reform their instructional programs and
ultimately escape Program Improvement. In most cases, the schools adopted school-wide
instructional strategies, created collaborative opportunities for students, attempted to
engage parents, and developed intervention plans to support struggling learners. Much of
the work that has been done appeared to fall in line with the research on improving
student performance by Odden (2009) and others; however, the depth and breadth of the
implementation of the strategies, combined with budget reductions and inadequate
resources seem to have had a limiting affect on the efforts that have been made.
Each of the schools in the study had been affected by California’s financial crisis
in different ways ranging from losses in personnel to low morale. Some of the schools
had already seen reductions in teaching, guidance, and classified staffing levels; all of the
principals indicated that further cuts in these areas were looming. Class sizes at each of
140

the schools had risen in the core subject areas as result of site and district-wide layoffs
due to reductions in funding. The leaders of each school site indicated that services such
as summer school had been greatly reduced or eliminated all together; money that used to
be available for professional development purposes has dried up; and certain categorical
funds were being infringed upon to maintain current resource levels. The State Fiscal
Stabilization Funds that were provided to each school district as part of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act did not make it to the site level – the districts kept this
money to save as many certificated and classified positions as possible.
Using resource allocation levels suggested for a prototypical high school by the
Evidence Based Model, makes it apparent that none of the schools has adequate resources
to support the learning of all students – in virtually every category the schools were
underfunded and understaffed. None of the schools had enough teachers in the core
subject areas, enough support for students during the day, after school, or in the summer,
and did not provide teachers with professional development activities throughout the
school year. Of particular concern was the major discrepancy between actual resources
in place at the schools and the levels recommended by the EBM to support the most at
risk students – English Learners and Students with Disabilities.
Considering California’s current financial climate, imagining that the schools in
this study will ever be provided with the resources supported by the literature to
adequately educate all students is difficult. Chapter Five discusses this issue further,
providing additional summary, conclusions, and suggestions for further research.

141

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The overall purpose of this study was to examine how Program Improvement
High Schools are allocating their resources to escape that label and raise student
achievement, and then to compare those trends with the Evidence Based Model – all
within the context of the turbulent financial crisis that the State of California is going
through. Below is a summary of each part of the study.
Chapter One provided a brief overview of the context of education reform in the
Golden State; with significant amounts of minority students, English Learners, and
growing numbers of students who are in poverty, the state’s school system faces many
challenges. When coupled with the state’s financial crisis, the task of educating all
students to top rate standards is quite daunting. The state received an influx of largely
unrestricted federal money in the form of State Fiscal Stabilization Funds as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, which was meant to save jobs and
lay the groundwork for innovation, but this study found that the schools and districts
primarily used this money for the former.
This chapter also provided information about the history of California’s school
finance system, which has been described by Timar (2006) as ―one that has been cobbled
together by various pressures…and is missing an underlying framework or set of
principles to guide it‖ (p. 31). These ―pressures‖ refer to various court rulings (e.g.,
Serrano v. Priest) and various legislative moves enacted by the legislature (revenue
142

limits, categorical funding) and the people directly (Propositions 13 and 98). A need to
establish a system that allocates adequate resources is called for in this section, and
describes the Evidence Based Model as being a research based approach to making this a
reality.
The research questions that guided the study were the following:
1) What are the current instructional improvement strategies observed 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
plan?
4) How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to California’s
financial crisis and related budget reductions?
5) How are State Fiscal Stabilization Funds, federal relief made available to school
districts as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, being used at
the school-level to cope with state budget reductions?
Chapter Two reviewed the literature around California’s school finance history
and its impact on resource allocation, the concept of educational adequacy, resource use,
and school reform frameworks that led to improved student achievement. The focus of
this study, the Evidence Based approach to educational adequacy was discussed at length.
The Evidence Based Model is largely based upon the work of Odden and Picus (2008),
and identifies several research-based strategies, assigns a price to them, and then
143

aggregates them to identify adequate school site, district, and state expenditure levels. In
the case of the EBM, the strategies for raising student performance are largely based on
the work of Odden (2009), which identifies 10 practices that can double achievement.
Chapter Three described the methodology of the study as well as how the schools
were selected to participate. The schools that were selected for this study had to receive
federal Title 1 funds and be identified as Program Improvement for not making Adequate
Yearly Progress as required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. In order to make
AYP, high schools in California must meet specific school wide and subgroup
proficiency goals on both parts of the California High School Exit Exam, meet or exceed
a graduation rate of 83.1% or show an improvement over two years, and meet or exceed a
minimum Academic Performance Index or show annual improvement.
To answer the research questions, interviews with site principals were conducted
along with a review of documents. Both quantitative and qualitative data were gathered
using protocols based on the work of Odden et al. (2003) and Picus et al. (2008). Case
studies for each school were developed and can be found in Appendices D through H.
Chapter Four presented the findings of the study by analyzing the case studies of
each school. This section began with an overview of each of the schools, including
specific information about the demographics they serve, achievement data, and
information about the history and culture of the school and the district that it operates in.
Following this, Chapter Four presented the findings related to each of the research
questions, providing detailed information about the instructional improvement strategies
present at each school, resource allocation, and the impact of California’s financial crisis
144

and the influx of federal dollars. The chapter concludes with a thorough comparison of
the resource allocation patterns that are in place at the selected schools and the levels
called for by the Evidence Based Model.
The remaining parts of this chapter will focus on the conclusions of the study and
suggestions for further research.

Conclusion #1: Actual Resource Use Pales in Comparison to the
Evidence Based Model
None of the schools’ resource allocation patterns compared favorably to those
recommended by the Evidence Based Model in virtually any area. The schools had fewer
core and specialist teachers, higher class sizes, and significantly lower funds for
professional development and instructional materials. All of the schools were
significantly understaffed when it came to working with the two student groups that have
shown the lowest achievement on all measures – English Learners and Student with
Disabilities. The EBM’s allocation patterns are based upon research based practices that
are known to improve student performance; it is difficult to imagine achievement for
groups like these rising without more teachers and staff paying attention to them.
The level of student support available at each of the schools is also disappointing
when considering what the Evidence Based Model would provide. None of the schools
utilized certificated teacher tutors to work with students during the school day, making it
difficult to work with students who are struggling as soon as they are identified. The
extended day programs of each of the schools were inadequately staffed, as were the
145

summer school programs that are vital for keeping some students on track to graduate.
The overall staffing levels for guidance counselors and other pupil support staff also fall
well short of prescribed levels.
Finally, none of the schools has adequate support for classroom instruction; only
two of the schools in the study had any instructional facilitators at all. These
professionals are vital for assisting with the implementation of certain instructional
strategies used in classrooms and can enhance support provided by the school’s
leadership team. All of the principals indicated that it is difficult for them and their
leadership teams to break away from the management aspects of operating large high
schools – instructional facilitators and mentors would help this situation by providing
more people to watch over instruction.

Conclusion #2: Improvement Strategies Are Not Well Aligned with the Research
Odden (2009), Marzano (2003), and Duke (2006) all conducted metaanalysis
studies of effective strategies to improve student achievement, as identified by the
literature. The findings of these researchers had several common elements: high
expectations for student performance, data-driven decision making, ongoing professional
development, interventions for struggling students, effective use of instructional time,
distributed leadership, and family engagement. Each of the case studies revealed that
most of the schools had strategies in place that supported the research’s common
elements; however, in most cases, the depth and breadth of the implementation of these
strategies impair their effectiveness. Evidence from the schools that participated in this
146

study regarding the strategies described above (with the exception of interventions for
struggling students which has its own section in this chapter) is discussed further here.
High Expectations for Student Achievement
A review of the rigor of the course of study offered at each school or related data
such as college readiness or participation in programs like Advanced Placement are
beyond the scope of this study. An analysis of student work or the quality of instruction
that is offered on a day-to-day basis was also not a focus of this study. Due to these
limitations, measuring the level of expectations that each of the schools has for student
achievement is difficult; likewise, this study is unable to make a judgment on just how
rigorous the courses being offered to students really are.
Nonetheless, some data indicates that each of the schools has high expectations
for students. Except for Aero High School, each of the schools has eliminated remedial
courses in the core academic subject areas; Aero High School still offers English
language arts courses that are not based on grade level standards to 9
th
and 10
th
-graders.
The schools are offering courses that are aligned with the California State standards and
evidence in the form of CST results and API scores imply that the student mastery of
these standards is increasing. Each of the schools also offers honors and Advanced
Placement programs for students, and the principals all indicated that increasing access to
these classes has been a priority for their schools.
Unfortunately, Students with Disabilities who receive academic instruction in
special education classes are not held to the same expectations as other students.
Although almost all of the schools has made efforts to move significant numbers of these
147

students into general education courses with support, the ones who are left behind are
receiving instruction that is often not standards-based, well-aligned with the curriculum
being offered to general education students, or taught by highly qualified teachers.
Considering that Students with Disabilities are the lowest performing subgroups at each
of the schools on most measures, this situation needs to be dealt with immediately if the
schools intend to ensure that all students are learning.
Data-Driven Decision Making
Almost all of the schools have the ability to access student data through various
student information systems. Zamboni High School was the only one that had difficulty
obtaining data due to an inadequate system. Both administrators and teachers at these
schools can access assessment results (both state and local) and demographic
information, and manipulate that information into useful forms. Despite this ability, most
of the principals indicated that the teachers do not necessarily have the background or
training necessary to determine what data is useful or to interpret what it means.
Professional development surrounding the use of data has not been a key part of any of
the schools’ professional development plans in recent years. For the schools that
participated in this study, access to data has not yet resulted in changes in practices.
Ongoing Professional Development
As discussed above, none of the schools has adequate resources to provide
ongoing professional development opportunities for students. Although most of the
schools has a budget set aside to provide training for teachers or can access categorical
funds for this purpose, none of the schools had a specific professional development plan
148

in place that focused on improving instructional delivery or other related strategies. In
fact, only three of the schools studied had instructional strategies in place that required
ongoing professional development in years past – Big Wave (academic vocabulary),
Cactus Needle (Thinking Maps), and Mallview (SIOP).
Each of the schools has a number of days dedicated to professional development
through their collective bargaining agreements with the teachers--ranging from four to six
days. In reality, most of these days are not used for professional development purposes at
all, as most of them are contractually dedicated to providing teachers with opportunities
to plan and prepare for the start or end of the school year as well as to transition between
terms. Each of the principals expressed frustration that they could not use more of these
days to help teachers implement new instructional strategies.
Finally, each of the schools has created collaborative opportunities for teachers
throughout the school year. Most of the schools leave the use of this time to the
departments to decide; as a result, time does not appear to be used in ways that the
research suggests that it should – for example, analyzing student data, discussing
effective instructional strategies, and aligning curriculum and assessment to the
standards. The principals indicated that the use of this time is largely spent on
department business that often is not student centered.
The Effective Use of Instructional Time
Only two of the schools (Cactus Needle and Zamboni) have found ways to
provide students with more time to access the core academic standards. Both of these
schools have created tutorial periods during the school day for students to receive
149

additional instruction and receive help when they are struggling. Students who attend
these tutorial sessions have the opportunity to work one on one with a teacher or work in
small group settings.
Despite the creativeness of this use of time, a few problems with their
implementation exist. First, the tutorial periods largely appear to be used for busy work –
for example, students are assigned for not completing homework or making up tests.
Second, the programs are largely reactionary as opposed to proactive in identifying
students who need help. The principals of both of these schools reported that students are
forced to attend tutorial periods when their grades sink to a certain level – but the
research supports identifying students who need help before their grades begin to fall.
Finally, students who do not have to attend a tutorial session are allowed to use this time
however they choose. There must be something that these students achieving at or above
grade level can do during this time to enrich their knowledge of the standards or prepare
them for other educational opportunities.
All of the schools in the study follow traditional bell schedules with class periods
that last about an hour. Some of the schools offer students who are struggling in English
language arts or mathematics with two or three periods of those subjects – these
intervention strategies will be discussed later in this chapter.
Finally, the schools have not put enough emphasis on the core academic subject
areas. As described earlier, the Evidence Based Model suggests that schools have 24
core teachers for every 600 students, composing 75% of all teaching FTEs. All of the
schools fell well short of the overall number of core teachers recommended by the model.
150

With the exception of Aero High School, all of the schools had a lower percentage of
core FTEs than the level called for by the research supporting the Evidence Based Model.
Achievement in the core subject areas could be much greater at each of these schools
with the proper resources in place.
Distributed Leadership
All of the principals expressed a desire to be in classrooms on a regular basis to
monitor instructional practice; unfortunately, they all reported the difficulty of making
this desire a reality as the nature of their positions requires them to be pulled in many
different directions. The assistant principals who are responsible for evaluating teacher
performance and assisting with the implementation of instructional strategies and
curriculum also have a difficult time breaking away from the management tasks
associated with operating large high schools to monitor what is taking place in
classrooms.
The research suggests that these schools need more assistance with monitoring the
instructional program. None of the schools makes use of instructional coaches to work
closely with teachers to implement strategies to improve student achievement or feedback
that is not a direct part of their evaluation. Two schools (Mallview and Zamboni) have
instructional facilitators in place, but their roles are focused more on management than
instructional leadership. Without more resources to support the development and
implementation of new instructional strategies based on research, these schools will
struggle with substantially raising student achievement.

151

Family Engagement
All of the schools have taken significant steps to involve families in the education
of their students, and their actions fall in line with the research. Most of the schools are
offering courses for parents designed to provide them with relevant information about
how they can help their student succeed, graduation requirements, college admissions,
and support services. Some of the schools utilize outside agencies to provide these
courses to parents whereas the others use their administrative and guidance teams. All of
the principals stated that they believe that this approach to teaching parents more about
their schools has been effective in helping parents feel more comfortable with the
education system.
The schools have also focused on specific groups of students, providing their
families with information targeted at helping their student’s needs. For example, the
schools are reaching out to the parents of 9
th
and 10
th
-graders with multiple D’s or F’s
and truancies by hosting mandatory evenings that provide resources for both academic
and psychological support as well as parenting strategies. Other schools have provided
opportunities for the parents of English Learners who are often immigrants to the United
States and speak little English to become more familiar with the school or pursue their
own education.

152

Conclusion #3: The Financial Crisis Likely Has Little Effect on Achievement
…So Far
In each of the schools studied, the principals reported that they have been affected
by the financial crisis in a variety of ways, ranging from reductions in both teaching and
classified staff, rising class sizes, and reductions in programs like summer school;
however, determining whether or not the financial crisis had any impact on student
achievement remains difficult. Part of the reason for this informational gap may lie with
the Evidence Based Model. Even if the reductions had not taken place at the schools in
the past few years, the resource allocation levels of each of the schools would still be a
far cry from what a research based approach to the matter like the Evidence Based Model
would call for. For example, Cactus Needle High School reported that it reduced its
teaching staff by 4 FTEs, leaving 88.8 FTEs. Even with those teachers restored, Cactus
Needle would still be significantly under the EBM’s prescribed staffing level of 112
teaching FTEs.
Granted, additional reductions (eliminating 20 more FTE teachers in the example
above, for argument’s sake) would most likely have a negative impact on performance.
However, the level of cuts at this point do not seem to have made a difference, as every
school in the study has shown some improvement over the past few years on almost
every assessment measure—which is not to say that Hanushek’s (1989) generalization
that there is no systematic link between the amount of money spent and student
achievement is correct. Nonetheless, this information seems to confirm the findings of
other researchers who have found that the thoughtful use of funds combined with strong
153

leadership is what makes a difference (Archibald, 2006; Odden & Archibald, 2000;
Slavin, 1999). The Evidence Based Model provides such a mechanism to thoughtfully
utilize resources to improve student achievement. The reason that Big Wave High
School has shown significant improvements (but is still in PI) and Aero has not has more
to do with how the schools have approached the reform process than with the resources
they have received – Aero and Big Wave’s resources are actually more similar than
different.
Finally, as a result of the financial crisis, California schools will probably not
have enough resources to align well with the allocation patterns suggested by the
Evidenced Based Model for quite some time. The promise of additional funds from the
federal government may be used to help schools innovate, but so far the money provided
to the districts of the schools studied went primarily toward saving positions to maintain
the status quo. The real tragedy of the financial crisis in California is that it may further
delay real attempts to reform the school finance system from one that is hampered by
revenue limits, funding levels that fluctuate year to year, and categorical restrictions to
one that provides adequate resources year after year.

Conclusion #4: There is a Real Need for Quality Intervention Programs
All of the schools except Zamboni provided opportunities for students to improve
their skills in English Language Arts and mathematics. To address students who struggle
in ELA, some of the schools offered Read 180; the problem with this program is its
limitations – it is only designed to improve the reading levels of students up to 7
th
grade,
154

and it does not assist students who may be struggling with related concepts such as
writing. If a student is in 9
th
grade and reading at a 5
th
-grade level, he or she is not likely
to ever be able to master high school standards with this intervention method. Other
schools have utilized additional class periods to support students in this subject area, but
it was not clear exactly what they were provided with or how these classes were taught
differently. In fact, some of the principals expressed the concern that such intervention
periods were taught ―louder and slower‖ than the others.
Quality math intervention programs are also lacking at all of the schools. Most of
the schools have offered students in Algebra 1 a support period. Like the ELA support
classes, the schools in this study do not seem to have much of a curriculum in place for
these courses. Once again, the principals expressed concern that the instructional
approaches in these courses were not that different. Only one school in the study made
the use of a computer program to assist students struggling with mathematics, and
reported positive results.
The penalty that California high schools face if they offer prealgebra courses
exacerbates the situation, thus, only one of the schools is offering this type of course.
The scores of students who take the General Math CST are dropped two performance
levels when the Academic Performance Index, giving schools a strong incentive not to
offer these classes. If a 9
th
-grade student has a difficult time multiplying and dividing,
that student is going to take an Algebra 1 course at each of the high schools in the study
and probably most schools throughout the state. Even with a support period, it is difficult
155

to see how such a student would be able to succeed, let alone complete an additional
math course like geometry in order to graduate.
There is a clear need for each of the schools in this study to develop quality
intervention programs for these core subject areas. The students who are not performing
at grade level need to be offered programs that will build their skills quickly and enable
them to master the appropriate high school standards. Once again, the impact that
providing adequate resources to schools would have on helping struggling students
cannot be overstated. The Evidence Based Model would provide each of the schools
with certificated teacher tutors, expanded extended day programs, additional pupil
support staff, and more teachers for at risk groups like English Learners. These
additional resources could be used to frame an intervention program that accomplishes
the tasks needed to help ensure that students master grade level standards and remain on
track for graduation.
It is also likely that providing adequate levels of resources to schools will lead to
fewer students needing an intervention in the first place. Considering that all of the
schools in this study are experiencing declining graduation rates, this notion has serious
implications. The Evidence Based Model would provide support for students who fail
courses because they do not have the skills to be successful as well as those who have
personal issues that distract them. If resources are in place to help students throughout
the school year, intervention programs such as summer school may not be needed or their
purpose can go from remediation and credit recovery to enrichment. Taking this notion a
step further, if the EBM were put into place within a school system, the amount of
156

students who enter high school behind grade level would be dramatically reduced, as
there would be enough support along the way to help them.

Suggestions for Future Research
Based on the findings of this study, the following suggestions are made regarding
future research in this area:
1) This study examined the instructional improvement strategies of Program
Improvement high schools, finding that earning Program Improvement status was
a major impetus for initiating the reform process at each of the schools. For
schools like Aero High School that have been in PI for many years, additional
research is needed to investigate the impact that this has had on teacher morale,
efficacy, and motivation.
2) Schools that continue to advance in Program Improvement face sanctions that
may include restructuring as a charter school. Additional research is needed to
study schools that have been restructured, and to determine how well their
approaches to instructional improvement aligns with the research and whether or
not their resource allocation patterns compare any more favorably to those
prescribed by the Evidence Based Model.
3) A couple of the principals in this study expressed concern over utilizing
categorical funding to maintain present staffing levels. As a result of the financial
crisis, California has allowed school districts flexibility in using categorical
monies for any purpose (Taylor, 2009a). Additional research is needed to study
157

how districts have used this flexibility and the impact that it has on student
achievement.
4) California is set to receive additional federal dollars as part of President Obama’s
education reform initiatives. Additional research will be needed to see if such
funds are used to move toward adequately funding schools and implementing
research based practices known to improve student achievement.

Concluding Comments
This study concentrates on the efforts that five Program Improvement high
schools have undertaken to increase student achievement. The study found that despite
significant efforts to reform instructional programs, none of the schools has adequate
resources to raise achievement substantially. The Evidence Based Model provides
policymakers with a framework for rethinking how schools like these are funded by
proposing a research-based approach to resource allocation; however, it is unlikely that
such a model will ever be fully implemented, as the state grapples with record budget
deficits and reductions in education funding for years to come. The benefit of the No
Child Left Behind Act and its Adequate Yearly Progress and Program Improvement
provisions is that it has brought to the attention of educators, legislators, and parents just
how broken California’s education system is. The researcher is optimistic that the
difficult financial times that the Golden State is going through may give birth to a new
model of school finance that efficiently utilizes resources with a focus on adequacy.

158

REFERENCES
Adams, J. E. (1994). Spending school reform dollars in Kentucky: Familiar patterns and
new programs, but is this reform? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
16(4), 375-390.

Archibald, S. (2006). Narrowing in on educational resources that do affect student
achievement. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(4), 23-42.

Addonizio, M. F. (2003). From fiscal equity to educational adequacy: Lessons from
Michigan. Journal of Educational Finance, 28, 457-484.

Alexander, N. A. (2004). Exploring the changing face of adequacy. Peabody Journal of
Education, 79(3), 81-103.

Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3), 259-
287.

Baldassare, M., Bonner, D., Paluch, J., & Petek, S. (2009). Californians and education.
San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

Brewer, D., & Smith, J. (2007). Evaluating the "Crazy Quilt"; Educational governance in
California. Retrieved from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/
cafinancestudies.htm.

Brinson, V., & Mellor, L. (2005). How are high performing schools spending their
money? A case study. Retrieved from http://www.nc4ea.org/files/Atlantic.pdf.

California Department of Education (2008). 2008 Adequate Yearly Progress report
information guide. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ayp/.

California Department of Education (2009). 2009 State Program Improvement summary.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/tistatesum09.asp.

Chambers, J., Levin, J., & DeLancey, D. (2007). Efficiency and adequacy in California
school finance: A professional judgment approach. Retrieved from
http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance-studies.htm.

Clune, W. H. (1994). The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance. Educational
Policy, 8(4), 376-394.

159

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Inequality and the right to learn: Access to qualified
teacher in California's public schools. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1936-
1966.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Securing the right to learn: Policy and practice for
powerful teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 13-24.

Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington: National Education
Service.

Duke, D. (2006). What we know and don't know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 729-735.

Duncombe, W., & Yinger, J. (2007). Understanding the incentives in California's
education finance system. Retrieved from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/
cafinancestudies.htm.

EdSource (2008). How California compares. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/pub_howCAcompares9-08.html.

EdSource (2009a). Resource cards on California schools. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/pub_resourcecards.html.

EdSource (2009b). Proposition 98 sets a minimum funding guarantee for Education.
Retrieved from http://www.edsource.org/pub_prop98.html.

Education Trust (2009). Education watch: State Report, California. Retrieved from
http://www.edtrust.org.

Finn, C. E., Julian, L., & Petrilli, M. J. (2006). The state of state standards. Washington
DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Firestone, W. A., Goertz, M. E., Nagle, B., & Smelkinson, M. F. (1994). Where did the
$800 million go? The first years of New Jersey's quality education act.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(4), 359-347.

Goe, L. (2006). Evaluating a state-sponsored school improvement program through an
improved school finance lens. Journal of Education Finance, 31(4), 395-419.

Governor's Committee on Education Excellence (2007). Students first: Renewing hope
for California's future. Retrieved from http://www.everychildprepared.org.

160

Grubb, W. N., Goe, L., & Huerta, L. A. (2004). The unending search for equity:
California policy, the "improved school finance," and the Williams case. Teachers
College Record, 106(11), 2081-2101.

Guthrie, J. W., & Rothstein, R. (1999). Enabling adequacy to achieve reality: Translating
adequacy into state school finance distribution arrangements. In H.F. Ladd, R.
Chalk, & J. S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues
and perspectives (pp. 209-259). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Hannaway, J., McKay, S., & Nakib, Y. (2002). Reform and resource allocation: National
trends and state policies. Developments in School Finance, 1999-2000.
Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of
Education, 57-76.

Hanushek, E. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance.
Educational Researcher, 18(4), 45-65.

Hanushek, E. A. (1994). An exchange: Part II: Money might matter somewhere: A
response to Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald. Educational Researcher, 23(4), 5-8.

Hanushek, E. (2006a). Courting Failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges’
good intentions and harm our children. Stanford: Hoover Press.

Hanushek, E. (2006b). Is the “evidence based” approach a good guide to school finance
policy? Retrieved from http://www.effwa.org/pdfs/hanushek.evidencebased
.final.pdf.

Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (1997). Understanding the twentieth-century growth in U.S.
school spending. Journal of Human Resources, 32(1), 35-68.

Hartman, W. T., Bolton, D. G., & Monk, D. H. (2001). A synthesis of two approaches to
school- level financial data: the accounting and resource cost model approaches.
Selected papers in school finance. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.

Hedges , L. V., Laine, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994). An exchange: Part I: Does money
matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on
student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23(5), 5-14.

Hill, E. (1999). A k-12 master plan. Sacramento, CA: LAO Publications.

Hill, E. (2005). Proposition 98 primer. Sacramento, CA: LAO Publications.
161

Imazeki, J. (2007). Assessing the costs of K-12 education in California public schools.
Retrieved from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance-studies.htm.

Jespen, C., & Rivkin, S. (2002). Class size reduction, teacher quality, and academic
achievement in California public elementary schools. San Francisco, CA: Public
Policy Institute of California.

Kimbrough, J., & Hill, P.T. (1983). Problems of implementing multiple categorical
programs. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Kober, N., Chudowsky, N., & Chudowsky, V. (2008). Has student achievement
increased since 2002? State test score trends through 2006-2007. Washington,
DC: Center on Education Policy.

Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. H. (1995). Where has the money gone? An analysis of
school spending in New York. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
17(2), 195-218.

Lange, S. (200). Notice of the second apportionment for the State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. California Department of
Education. Retrieved http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r14/sfsf08apptltr2.asp.

Lee, J., & Wong, K. K. (2004). The impact of accountability on racial and socioeconomic
equity: Considering both school resources and achievement outcomes. American
Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 797-832.

Little Hoover Commission (1999). Dollars and sense: A simple approach to school
finance. Retrieved from http://www.lhc.ca.gov/studies/143/report143.pdf.

Loeb, S. (2007). Difficulties of estimating the cost of achieving education standards
(Working Paper 23). Stanford, CA: School Finance Redesign Project.

Kirst, M., Goertz, M., & Odden, A. (2007). Evolution of California state school finance
with implications from other states. Retrieved from http://irepp.stanford.edu
/projects/cafinance-studies.htm.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Miles, H. K. (1995). Freeing resources for improving schools: A case study of teacher
allocation in Boston public schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
17(4), 476-493.
162

National Center for Education Statistics (2009). Digest of education statistics, 2008.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009020.pdf.

National Education Association. (2008). Rankings and estimates: Rankings of the states
2008 and estimates of school statistics 2009. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org
/home/32073.htm.

Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.

Odden, A. (2009). Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2000). Reallocating resources: How to boost student
achievement without asking for more. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditure structures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education
Finance, 28, 323-356.

Odden, A., Goertz, M., Goetz, M., Archibald, S., Gross, B., Weiss, M., & Mangan, M. T.
(2008). The cost of instructional improvement: Resource allocation in schools
using comprehensive strategies to change classroom practice. Journal of
Education Finance, 33(4), 381-405.

Odden, A., & Picus, L. O. (2008). School Finance: A policy perspective (4th ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Fermanich, M., Seder, C., Glenn, W., & Nelli, R.
(2005). An Evidence Based approach to school recalibrating Wyoming’s block
grant school funding formula. Retrieved from
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2006/interim/schoolfinance/Recalibration/WY%20Rec
aFinal.pdf.

Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Mangan, M. T., & Fermanich, M. (2006). An
evidence based approach to school finance in Washington. Submitted to the
Washington Learns steering committee, Olympia, WA. Retrieved from
http://washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/EvidenceBasedReportFinal9-11-
06_000.pdf

163

Perez, M., Anand, P., Speroni, C., Parrish, T., Esra, P., Socias, M., & Gubbins, P. (2007).
Successful California schools in the context of educational adequacy. Retrieved
from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance-studies.htm.

Picus, L. O. (1991). Incentive funding programs and school district response: California
and Senate Bill 813. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(3), 289-308.

Picus, L. O. (1993). The allocation and use of educational resources: District level
evidence from the Schools and Staffing Survey. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov
/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/26/53/4b.pdf.

Picus, L.O. (1994). The local impact of school finance reform in four Texas school
districts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(4), 391-404.

Picus, L.O. (2001). Educational governance in California: Defining state and local roles.
In J. Sonstelie and P. Richarson (Eds.), School finance and California’s master
plan for education (pp. 9-25). San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of
California.

Picus, L. O., Odden, A., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. T., & Goetz, M. (2008). Implementing
school finance adequacy: School-level resource us in Wyoming following
adequacy-oriented finance reform. Retrieved from
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2008/interim/schoolfinance/resources.pdf

Rebell, M. A. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement and judicial review: A
proposal for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. Teachers
College Record, 109(6), 1303-1373.

Rice, J. K. (2004). Equity and efficiency in school finance reform: Competing or
complementing goods? Peabody Journal of Education, 79(2), 134-151.

Rose, H., Sonstelie, J. Reinhard, R., & Heng, S. (2003). High expectations, modest
means: The challenge facing California’s public schools. San Francisco, CA:
Public Policy Institute of California.

Slavin, R.E. (1999). How can funding equity ensure enhanced achievement? Journal of
Education Finance, 24(4), 519-528.

Sonstelie, J., Brunner, E., & Ardon, K. (2000). For better or for worse. School finance
reform in California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

Taylor, M. (2009a). Overview of the 2009-2010 May revision. Sacramento, CA: LAO
Publications.
164

Taylor, M. (2009b). The fiscal outlook under the February budget package. Sacramento,
CA: LAO Publications.

Timar, T. B. (2004). School governance and oversight in California: Shaping the
landscape of equity and adequacy. Teachers College Record, 106(11), 2057-2080.

Timar, T. B. (2006). Financing K-12 education in California: A system overview.
Retrieved from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance-studies.htm.

United States Department of Education (2009). State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Retrieved
from http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html.

Verstegen, D. A. (2007). Has adequacy been achieved? A study of finances and costs a
decade after court-ordered reform. Journal of Education Finance, 32(3), 304-327.

165

APPENDIX A
OPEN-ENDED DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLSCHOOL 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 plans to improve 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?
 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?
 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)
 Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy?
 How did you know that the instructional strategies were being
implemented?
166

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

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

2. 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?)

3. ―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)

4. Parent outreach or community involvement

5. Technology

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

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. How have budget reductions affected your improvement plan?

167

G. How has federal money been used to cope with the budget reductions?
Has the influx of federal dollars changed the allocation of resources to
support the improvement plan?

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

168

APPENDIX B
DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
School Profile
School Name School’s State ID
Number

Address

City State Zip
CA
Phone Fax

Website

NOTES:

School Contact (1)
Title
Principal
Honorific First Name Last
Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

School Contact (2)
Title

Honorific First Name Last
Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address
169

NOTES:

School Contact (3)
Title

Honorific First Name Last
Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

District Profile
District Name

District State ID

District Contact (1)
Title
Superintendent
Honorific First Name Last
Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

170

District Contact (2)
Title

Honorific First Name Last
Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

District Contact (3)
Title

Honorific First Name Last
Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment

Grade Span

Number of At-Risk Students*
*Collect from district
Number of ELL/Bilingual Students

Number of High Mobility Students*
*Collect from district
Number of Students Eligible for Free- and Reduced-Price Lunch
(FRL)
171

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
(Self-contained Regular
Education)
FTEs

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

English/Reading/L.A.

History/Soc. Studies

Math

Science

Foreign Language

172

NOTES:

Specialist and Elective Teachers
/Planning and Prep
FTEs
Art

Music

PE/Health

Drama

Technology

Career & Technical Education

Drivers Education

Study Hall

Athletics

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Description:

NOTES:

Library Staff
FTEs
Librarian

Library Media Specialist

Library Aide

NOTES:

173

Extra Help I FTEs or Dollars ($)
Certified Teacher Tutors

Non-Certified Tutors

ISS Teachers

ISS Aides
Title I Teachers

Title I Aides

ELL Class Teachers

Aides for ELL

Gifted Program Teachers

Gifted Program Aides

Gifted Program Funds
$
Other Extra Help Teachers
Other Extra Help Teachers Funded with Federal Dollars:

Other Extra Help Classified Staff

Other Extra Help Classified Staff Funded with Federal
Dollars:

NOTES:

174

Extra Help II FTEs
Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for severely disabled students)

Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers

Special Ed. Resource Room Teacher

Special Ed. Self-contained Aides

Special Ed. Inclusion Aides

Special Ed. Resource Room Aides

NOTES:

Extra Help III
Number of Extended Day Students

Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program minutes
Teacher Contract Minutes per Week
minutes
Extended day Teachers

Extended Day Classified Staff

Description of Extended Day Classified Staff

Minutes per Week of Summer School
minutes
Length of Session (# of Weeks)
weeks
School’s Students Enrolled in Summer School
All Students in Summer School

Summer School Teachers

Summer School Classified Staff

NOTES:

175

Other Instructional Staff FTEs and Dollars ($)
Consultants
(other than pd contracted services)
$
Building substitutes and other substitutes

Other Teachers

Other Instructional Aides

Funds for Daily Subs

$
NOTES:

Professional Development Dollars ($) and FTEs
Number of Prof. Dev. Days in Teacher Contract

Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time)

$
Instructional Facilitators/Coaches

Trainers/Consultants $
Administration

Travel

$
Materials, Equipment and Facilities

$
Tuition & Conference Fees

$
Other Professional Development

$
Other Professional Development Staff Funded
with Federal Dollars:

NOTES:
Student Services FTEs
Guidance

Attendance/Dropout

Social Workers

176

Nurse

Parent advocate/community liaison

Psychologist

Speech/O.T./P.T.

Health Asst.

Non-teaching aides

Other Student Services

Description Of Other Student Services Staff:

NOTES:
Administration FTEs
Principal

Assistant principal

Other Administrator

Description of Other Administrator:

Secretary

Clerical staff

Technology Coordinator/ I.T.
Security
Custodians
NOTES:

177

APPENDIX C
STUDY OF SCHOOL RESOURCE USE
AND INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES

CASE STUDY WRITE-UP FORMAT
I. Background on the school & school district including:
a. Whether they're rural/urban/suburban
b. Makeup of the district: # of elem/mid/high schools
c. Approximate number of students in the district & school, rounded to the
nearest 50 per school, and 100 per district.
d. Description of students (approximate number or percentage of FRL, ELL,
special education, etc.) in the district & school
e. One sentence on the improvement process
f. One sentence on the purpose of the case study.

II. Test Scores
a. Longitudinal API scores (1999-2000 through 2007-08)
b. Longitudinal STAR results (2000 through 2008)
c. CAHSEE (if appropriate)

III. Other Data
a. Other pertinent data from School Accountability Report Cards (copies of
past report cards if available)
b. Program Improvement Status
c. AYP status/progress
d. Other California Program participation information and evaluation results

IV. Introduction of the key elements of the improvement process
a. How/why it started
b. This should be in "story" form with specific examples that gives a big picture
description of what happened
c. Identify what resources it took (people & dollar resources).

V. Themes of the improvement process
a. Whatever the themes were, make sure that you not only describe them, but
also tie them to any outcome measures that resulted from the efforts
b. Order the themes in the way that they happened so that the story flows
c. Identify what resources it took (people & dollar resources).

178

VI. Compare the actual resource use in the school to that provided in the Evidence
Based Funding Model using the following table.
a. The far left column, “Source from EB Funding Model,” maps where on the
EB Finance Model (which is on the web board for download) you can find
the quantities to populate the “EB Funding Model” Column
b.
Staffing Category

EB Funding
Model

Actual

Core Academic Teachers
Specialist & Elective
Teachers

Alternative Teachers/
Small School Teachers

LIBRARY STAFF

- Librarian/Media Specialist
(Certified)

- Library/Media Tech Aides
(Non-Certified)

EXTRA HELP

- Certified Teacher Tutors for
English Language Learners

- Certified Teacher Tutors for
At-Risk Students

- Non-certified Tutors

0
- Resource Room Teachers
(non-special education)
0
- Resource Room Aides (non-
special education)
0
- Special Education Teachers

Fully Funded
- Special Education Aides

Fully Funded
- Gifted & Talented Teachers

0
- Gifted & Talented Aides

0
- Gifted & Talented Funds

$ $
179

- Extended Day

- Summer School

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

- Total # of Professional
Development Days
10
- Instructional Facilitators
- Teacher Time (Substitutes &
Stipends)

$

$
- Trainer/Consultant Funds

$
- Materials, Equipment &
Facilities
$
- Travel & Transportation

$
- Tuition & Conference Fees $
Other Instructional Staff

- Building Substitutes &
Other Substitutes
0
- Instructional Aides

0
- Supervisory Aides

Student Support

- Counselors

- Nurses

- Social Workers

- Psychologists

Fully Funded
- Speech/ OT/ PT

Fully Funded
- Health Assistant

0
Administration

180

- Principal

- Assistant Principal
- Secretary

- Clerical

VII. Lessons Learned
a. The findings from the Washington Successful Districts Study provide a good
framework for summarizing what happened*:
http://www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/SuccessfulDistReport9-11-
06Final.pdf
1. Focus on Educating all Students
2. Use Data to Drive Decisions: Definition is “A process of making
decisions about curriculum and instruction based on the analysis of
classroom data and standardized test data. Data-driven decision making uses
data on function, quantity and quality inputs, and how students learn to
suggest educational solutions. It is based on the assumption that scientific
methods used to solve complex problems in industry can effectively evaluate
educational policy, programs and methods.” (Cite:
http://www.k12.wy.us/FP/title3/Glossary.pdf, which was developed by The
National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.)
3. Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum & Align to State Standards
4. Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional
Development
5. Restructure the Learning Environment
6. Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
...all of which were implemented with:
7. Instructional Leadership and
8. Professional Learning Communities.
*Of course you can only include those that were part of the district's improvement
process.

End with the additional resources that would be needed to continue & expand their efforts.

181

APPENDIX D
CASE STUDY: AERO HIGH SCHOOL
School Overview
Aero High School is a comprehensive public high school that serves nearly 2,400
students in the Wright Union High School District, an urban Southern California school
district. Aero High School primarily serves minority students; its enrollment is 78%
Hispanic/Latino and 13% African American. 80% of the school’s students qualify for
Free/Reduced Lunch, and about 25% are classified as English Learners. According to
information gathered by the state’s testing program, about 35% of the parents of Aero
students are reported to have graduated from high school; likewise 35% never finished
high school. The district serves approximately 7,300 students in grades 9-12, and its
demographics closely mirror those of Aero High School’s.
Throughout the 80’s and 90’s, Aero High School enjoyed close proximity to
several of the world’s top aerospace corporations. As these companies consolidated and
―downsized,‖ they relocated to other parts of the country, taking approximately 200,000
high paying skilled jobs with them. As a result, the population that both the Wright
UHSD and Aero High School service have changed dramatically over the past few
decades.
Aero High School’s enrollment has declined steadily over the past several years
partially due to the virtual disappearance of the aerospace industry by the end of the late
1990’s. In 2000, the school served over 3,000 students – today it serves 2,400 students,
and this figure is expected to continue to decline in the coming years. Another reason for
182

this decline in enrollment is attributed to the current financial crisis. Due to the
downshift in the economy, tourism to the areas near Aero High School is down
tremendously; many of the school’s families who work in this industry have been forced
to leave the area.
The poor performance of the school has not helped the enrollment situation either.
Many students are opting to enroll in local charter schools or find unique ways to enroll
in the schools of surrounding school districts. Aero High School has a Statewide
Ranking of 2 out of 10 and a Similar Schools Ranking of 3. The district is in the third
year of Program Improvement – in 2009, none of its subgroups met the minimum
proficiency levels in either ELA or mathematics required to make Adequate Yearly
Progress.
Over the past several years, the Wright UHSD has been plagued with many
problems. Two of the district’s three comprehensive high schools are ranked near the
bottom of the state’s overall and similar school rankings, and have been in Program
Improvement for more than a decade. Complicating matters, the district’s superintendent
was unexpectedly fired by a volatile governing board in 2007; it was later revealed that
the school district was on the brink of bankruptcy, and narrowly avoided state takeover
the following year. As a result of this instability, several of the district’s top educational
leaders have come and gone since the superintendent’s dismissal. The net result of this
chaos has been a lack of leadership and direction provided to the district’s three
comprehensive high schools. Fortunately, many of Wright’s issues seem to have
stabilized – the interim superintendent had the ―interim‖ tag removed from his title, an
183

assistant superintendent with a history of reforming underperforming schools has been
brought in, and the district is now solvent.
Unfortunately, Aero High School’s leadership over the past few years has
mirrored the high turnover at the district office. The current principal is the third person
to lead the school in four years. The remaining portion of the school’s leadership team
(composed of three assistant principals and two deans) has also turned over on a regular
basis. The assistant principal with the longest tenure at the school has been there for two
years.

Program Improvement and Adequate Yearly Progress
Aero High School has been a Program Improvement school since 1999-2000,
failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress for two consecutive years since earning the
label. For high schools in California, AYP requires schools to:
1) Test 95% of all 10
th
graders and those in significant subgroups in both English
Language Arts and mathematics. In California the test used is the California High
School Exit Exam.
2) Of the students tested, a certain percentage of them each year must meet a specific
proficiency target.
3) The school’s overall Academic Performance Index must meet or exceed an
established minimum score or show an increase from one year to the next. In
2002, the minimum API score was 560; in 2009, that score was 650.
184

4) The graduation rate must be 83.1% or show an overall increase from one year to
the next or a positive overall two-year average change.
Schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years become PI; similarly, in order to
escape PI status, schools must make AYP for two consecutive years. Table D1 below
provides a summary of all of the available AYP data for Aero High School.

Table A1
Aero High School AYP Criteria, 2002-2009
Year
% Tested
Overall %
Proficient ELA
Subgroup %
Proficient ELA
Overall %
Proficient Math
Subgroup %
Proficient Math
API
Graduation Rate
Made AYP
2002 Yes Yes No No No N/A N/A No
2003 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
2004 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2005 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No
2006 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2007 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
2008 Yes No No Yes No Yes No No
2009 Yes No No No No Yes No No

Aero High School made AYP only twice in the past eight years (2004 and 2006).
The school’s English Learner subgroup has consistently failed to meet the minimum
185

proficiency levels for ELA several times during this time span, and has recently failed to
meet the criteria for mathematics as well. In 2008, the proficiency targets for both ELA
and mathematics increased from about 22% to about 33%; in 2009, the target increased to
about 44%. As the goal increased, other subgroups joined the EL grouping in not making
AYP in both ELA and mathematics. Figure A1 illustrates the proficiency levels of Aero
High School students over the years.
Table A2 outlines Aero’s graduation rates for the past several years. Alarmingly,
the number of students earning a diploma has dropped significantly since 2001. The
decreases in graduating students is attributed to a number of factors: too many students
receiving failing grades in required coursework, few opportunities to recover lost
graduation credits, and a lack of alternative education options. The Wright UHSD
graduation rate in 2007-2008 was 67%, not a significant difference from its 2000-2001
rate of 64.7%.
Figure A1
Aero High School AYP Proficiency Rates, 2002-2009

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2002
(Target
11.2%)
2003
(Target
11.2%)
2004
(Target
11.2%)
2005
(Target
22.3%)
2006
(Target
22.3%)
2007
(Target
22.3%)
2008
(Target
33.4%)
2009
(Target
44.5%)
Percent Proficient
Percent Proficient - ELA
Overall Hispanic/Latino African American
SED English Learner
186

Figure A1, Continued

Table A2
Aero High School Graduation Rates, 2003-2009
Class of Graduation Rate
2000-2001 74.1%
2001-2002 60.3%
2002-2003 67.4%
2003-2004 66%
2004-2005 69%
2005-2006 66.7%
2006-2007 65.3%
2007-2008 62.3%

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2002
(Target
9.6%)
2003
(Target
9.6%)
2004
(Target
9.6%)
2005
(Target
20.9%)
2006
(Target
20.9%)
2007
(Target
20.9%)
2008
(Target
32.2%)
2009
(Target
43.5%)
Percent Proficient
Percent Proficient - Mathematics
Overall Hispanic/Latino African American
187

Aero’s principal believes his school’s decreasing graduation rate is directly related to a
combination of factors. First, he indicated that too many teachers are failing students at
alarming rates. He described a math teacher, for example, who failed 65% of her Algebra
1 students at the end of the first semester last year. Second, he indicated that student
attendance has always been an issue at the school, stating that, ―students seemed to be
everywhere but in class.‖ The data seems to confirm this – during the 2004-2005 school
year, the truancy rate for the school was an astounding 92.5%. Fortunately, the principal
and his predecessors have taken action to resolve this situation, bringing the percentage
of truant students down to 44.5% in 2008-2009. Third, the district’s lack of alternative
programs designed to help students recover lost graduation units is not adequate to serve
the large numbers of students who need it.
More information about Aero High School’s plan to deal with its dwindling
graduation rate is presented later in this paper.

California Standards Tests and Academic Performance Index
Student performance on the California Standards Tests at Aero High School has
risen over the past five years, but not by very much as illustrated in Figure D2.
Proficiency levels in 2009 on all four of the CST exams are still quite low: 25.6% in
ELA, 24.3% in history, 14.1% in mathematics, and 22.1% in science.

188

Figure A2
Aero High School CST Results

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
CST Results - All Students
ELA History
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
CST Results - ELA
Student Subgroups
Hispanic/Latino African American
SED English Learner
Students with Disabilities
189

Figure A2, Continued

Figure A2 also illustrates the performance of the school’s subgroups
(Hispanic/Latino, African American, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED), English
Learners, and Students with Disabilities) on the CST ELA and mathematics exams.
Analyzing the subgroup performance on these tests reveals two things about student
performance at Aero High School. First, the subgroups mirrored the school wide trend –
slight improvement over the past five years, with achievement remaining quite low in the
most recent year. Second, significant achievement gaps exist at this school, even though
the data for all students is very low. While Hispanic/Latino and African American
achievement is quite comparable in both subject areas, English Learners and Students
with Disabilities perform far worse. In fact, the school did not have one student with a
disability earn a proficient score in mathematics for three years.
0
5
10
15
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
CST Results - Mathematics
Student Subgroups
Hispanic/Latino African American
SED English Learner
Students with Disabilities
190

Figure A3 demonstrates that the school’s Academic Performance Index has only
increased 25 points over the past five years – this is not a surprising result considering
that the API is primarily composed of CST scores. All of the school’s subgroups have
improved by nearly that many points as well. It is worth noting that both the English
Learner and Students with Disabilities subgroups grew more over the past five years (34
points and 40 points respectively) than the other subgroups; however, the API for English
Learners is still lower than those of Hispanic/Latino students and African Americans, and
there is a large achievement gap between Students with Disabilities and all other student
groups.
Figure A3
Aero High School Academic Performance Index, 2005-2009

Finally, it is important to note that school wide API shown in Figure A3 is higher
than that of any of the subgroup scores in the school – an indication that some students
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
640
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
School Wide Hispanic/Latino
African American SED
English Learners Students with Disabilities
191

groups are performing at higher levels. The school serves students who are White,
Filipino, Asian, and Pacific Islander; however, there are not enough of these students for
the California Department of Education to generate an API report.

Instructional Improvement Program
As described above, the leadership at both Aero High School and the Wright
Union High School District has essentially been a ―revolving door‖ for many years. The
lack of stable leadership and vision has cost Aero High School and its students dearly –
the school has been in Program Improvement since 1999-2000, and could be forced to
close and reopen as a charter school if things are not turned around. The new principal of
Aero High School was asked about his specific plans to raise student achievement and
lose the PI label. The details of this plan are outlined below.
Instructional Leadership
The biggest instructional expectation that the current principal has called for in
each classroom on a daily basis is the posting of a SWBAT statement – SWBAT is an
acronym for ―Students will be able to…‖ The purpose of these statements is to help
teachers identify both long and short term objectives, connect their lesson to a standard,
and make students aware of what they are expected to accomplish. The principal felt as
though these statements were being posted regularly in just about every academic
classroom. The principal indicated that he attempts to visit classrooms on a regular basis
(at least once a week). He has developed an open-ended protocol form to identify what
he sees when he conducts short walk through visits. The SWBAT statements are a large
192

part of this form. If teachers do not have a SWBAT statement or it is not clear, the
principal takes the time to follow up with his teachers.
Aside from the SWBAT statements, the principal did not indicate any specific
instructional strategies that he is expecting to see on a regular basis in classrooms. The
staff has not been trained to implement any specific strategies during his tenure, and he
was confident that they had not been offered any instructional professional development
by previous administrations. The principal did indicate that the new Assistant
Superintendent of Education Services was making professional development centered on
instruction a priority. In the spring and summer of 2010, several teachers would be
trained in Direct Interactive Instruction (DII) training by an outside consultant. DII is an
instructional program that seeks to improve student achievement by calling on teachers
to: (a) set specific goals and objectives for an entire class of students as well as
individuals, (b) develop a sense of inquiry in the classroom, (c) provide collaborative
opportunities for students, and (d) increase the amount of formative assessments to drive
instruction in the core.
Neither the school nor the district has instructional facilitators or coaches who are
meant to work with teachers to improve instruction. Aero’s principal indicated that the
district once had a number of people serving as coaches – these educators were released
from their classroom duties to perform this function. Unfortunately, difficult budget
conditions eliminated all of these positions.
It is important to note that two of the biggest issues that have impeded
improvement plans have been student attendance and behavior. Details on student
193

attendance were described above. In order to improve this situation, the administrative
team along with two deans implemented a clear attendance and tardy policy that outlined
consequences for students who did not comply. This policy included multiple parent
contacts throughout the day related to attendance, following through on consequences
like detentions and Saturday Schools, and the use of local law enforcement to assist in
finding truant students and returning them to school. The use of these interventions has
cut the truancy rate nearly in half.
Discipline has also been a major issue at the school over the years, as the campus
has endured numerous fights and other acts of student violence. In 2004-2005, 395
students were suspended and 27 were expelled – nearly all of these punishments were
related to violence or drugs. The administration at the school has taken several steps to
deal with this situation. School rules and procedures were reviewed and rewritten by a
team of administrators and teachers. Students and parents had to sign an affidavit
acknowledging that they were aware of the school rules and consequences. Outside
agencies were brought in to help students work through problems with one another, and
educate them about the dangers of drugs and gangs. The school district and city worked
out an agreement to post a police officer on the campus full time.
As a result of these efforts, the suspension rate in 2008-2009 was 25% lower than
2004-2005 and far fewer students have been expelled. The principal feels like the school
has finally calmed down student behaviors enough that teachers and administrators can
both focus on student learning.

194

Curriculum
Teachers in the core academic areas are currently utilizing pacing guides that are
aligned with the state standards. These pacing guides were developed by the district
involving teacher-leaders from each of the district’s school sites. The principal felt as
though most of the teachers in the departments were faithfully utilizing these tools.
Interestingly, he felt as though the pacing guides may be too ambitious – i.e. he expressed
a sense that the pacing guides were a bit too broad overall and failed to emphasize the
standards that the California Standards Tests address the most. The principal felt that his
teachers covered too much material too quickly, and as a result the students wind up with
knowledge that is not very deep. The principal indicated that at this time there are no
plans to revise these documents.
The district purchased quarterly benchmark exams in the four core academic areas
listed above from an outside consultant. Since the benchmark exams were created by an
outside agency independent of the district’s development of its pacing guides, there is a
disconnect between what the students should be learning from quarter to quarter and what
they are assessed on from quarter to quarter. The principal indicated that at this time
there are no plans to deal with this issue. The school’s ELA and math departments have
worked to develop common assessments (chapter tests, quizzes); however, the principal
expressed doubt that these were being used consistently in each subject area.
The principal felt very confident that his teachers were aware of the California
State standards for their subject areas. He expressed doubt, however, in their knowledge
of what standards are assessed most frequently or carry the most weight on the CST
195

exams. Aero’s principal also indicated that the ELA and math teachers probably did not
know specifically what the CAHSEE assessed or what they needed to do to prepare their
students for it.
English Language Arts
In order to help students who have low ELA skills, the school offers two
programs: Read 180 for those students who have a reading level below 7
th
grade and
Studio for those students whose reading level is at the 7
th
or 8
th
grade level. Read 180 is a
computer based program that is designed to increase reading skills up to the 7
th
grade
level within a specified period of time; if faithfully implemented, students are exposed to
at least two hours per day with the program. Studio is a program that was developed by
the district’s ELA teachers – students are taught basic reading skills with materials that
the teachers have weaved together over time; unlike Read 180, this program is not
computer based. Aero High School currently offers 18 sections of Read 180 for 9
th
and
10
th
grade students. It is important to note that those who take Read 180 or Studio do not
receive explicit exposure to the 9
th
or 10
th
grade California ELA standards at all. In
essence, a student could take one of these programs at Aero for two years and never be
exposed to the standards that they are expected to learn. This would help to explain the
low CST scores in ELA as well as low scores on the ELA portions of the CAHSEE for
many students. The Studio program exposes the students to the appropriate grade level
standards, but the principal expressed a concern that the teachers were simply instructing
―louder and slower‖ as opposed to really building skills.

196

Mathematics
To improve math achievement, Aero High School provides some of its students
enrolled in Algebra 1 with a support period. The principal indicated that this support
period did not have well developed curriculum, and that he feared that the math teachers
were using this period in conjunction with the students’ Algebra 1 class to teach ―louder
and slower.‖ It is important to note that the school has a long history of not allowing
students to move to the next semester of Algebra 1 or out of Algebra 1 without a grade of
―C‖ or better. The result of this has been a large number of students taking Algebra 1 for
up to three years. It is also important to note that a large number of the school’s students
are taking a pre-algebra course. Pre-algebra is a 7
th
grade course in California; Aero
High School currently offers 26 sections of pre-algebra – over 1/3 of all math classes.

English Learners
Aero High School services English Learners differently depending upon their skill
levels. For students who speak little or no English, the school offers multiple periods of
instruction through its English Language Development (ELD) program to students that
are meant to build speech, language, and reading skills. The school also offers sheltered
sections of mathematics, science, and history in order to help these students learn the
material. The ELD program at Aero utilizes a state approved curriculum that is geared to
build English fluency within three to four years.
197

There is not currently a plan in place to specifically address the achievement gap
of English Learners who are not a part of the ELD program (the vast majority of EL
students).
Special Education
Aero High School offers special education versions of all of the academic courses
offered – i.e. English 1, 2, 3, 4, Algebra 1, World History, etc. Most students with
disabilities at Aero receive the majority of the core academic instruction in a special
education setting taught by a special education teacher. According to the principal, most
of the teachers of these classes are not highly qualified to teach their specific subject
areas. He also indicated that these classes are not aligned with the curriculum and
instruction occurring in their general education counterparts, that collaboration between
special and general educators is lacking, and that instructional materials are not being
utilized with fidelity.

CAHSEE Specific Intervention
At this time, the only explicit preparation that Aero High School is providing its
students is targeted at 11
th
and 12
th
graders who have not passed the exam. Last year, the
school offered weekend tutorial sessions provided by an outside consultant. There has
been and currently is no formal plan to address 10
th
grade performance on this exam or to
prepare 9
th
graders for the exam. This lack of focus on the CAHSEE is a major reason
why the school has failed to make AYP consistently as a school or by subgroup.
198

The principal did indicate that his English teachers would be going to a training
provided by the county office of education to help them understand what the CAHSEE is
assessing as well as instructional strategies to build student skills.

Professional Development and Collaboration
The school district provides teachers with four days per school year of
professional development training. Traditionally, the purpose of these days has been left
to the sites to determine. Teachers at Aero High School have used this time to grade
papers, prepare lesson plans, and hold department meetings. The school’s principal plans
on using these days in the future to emphasize instructional improvements, discussions
about achievement data, and curriculum alignment.
Twice a month, the students at Aero High School are released early for school in
order for the teachers to collaborate. The principal indicated that the topics that are
discussed at these sessions are left to the departments to decide. He stated that he does
not feel that the faculty is utilizing this time appropriately, and that he would like to see
them use the time to analyze student data, discuss instructional strategies, and align
curriculum.

Data Use
Aero High School uses Power School as its student information system. The
school has also made Data Director available to its teachers. The principal indicated that
the use of this tool to access student assessment data and information is spotty at best
199

amongst the staff. He stated that professional development is needed to help them learn
how to use the program as well as what to use it for.

Parent Involvement
The principal indicated that parent involvement at the school has traditionally
been very low. The school offers all of the traditional and typical opportunities for
parents to visit and interact with the school – state mandated committees like school site
council, annual evening events like back to school night, etc. A few years ago, the
district attempted to make parent involvement a priority in its school reform plan. Aero
High School established a parent center that was led by full time classified staff member.
Unfortunately, this position has been cut due to budget problems.
Aero High School participates in a county office of education program know as
Homework 101. This program is meant to teach parents about the local system, how they
can support their student, and provide information about colleges and careers. The
courses are offered to parents on the weekends for free, are taught in the home languages
of the parents, and childcare is provided. Those parents who attend all of the sessions are
presented with a certificate at a ―graduation‖ ceremony.
Aero High School also utilizes an automated phone system to inform parents
about events that are happening at the school. The principal indicated that he sends
messages out every Sunday to inform parents about various topics such as testing
schedules, events, and the like. He also stated that the teachers have the ability to send
200

messages about their students’ performance in their classes using this system as well, but
few actually do.

Instructional Time
The bell schedule at Aero High School is reviewed and revised by both the
teachers and administrators on an annual basis as outlined in the collective bargaining
agreement. A peculiar class schedule has been implemented at Aero High School starting
this year that is referred to as a ―tumbling modified block.‖ The majority of students at
Aero attend six classes per day. The first five classes of the day meet three times per
week for 95 minutes; the sixth class meets every day for 57 minutes.
Due to this unusual schedule, some students may have a core academic class that
meets three days per week for 95 minutes while other students may have a class that
meets every day for 57 minutes. The principal has indicated that this schedule has caused
many problems for both teachers who have to essentially prepare a variety of lessons
throughout the week and the students.

Intervention Plan
As mentioned earlier in this case study, Aero High School has a major problem
with making sure that its students graduate on time. The principal indicated that too
many of his students are failing their classes and thus losing credit that is required for
graduation.
201

For students who are struggling in classes, tutoring is offered after school by five
certificated teachers, but attendance is not mandatory. A traditional summer school
program is available for students to repeat a core academic class if they failed it. 11
th
and
12
th
graders who are credit deficient are sent to the district’s continuation program when
space is available; the principal indicated that there are limited spots for the students who
need this service, and as a result some students are ―stuck‖ at Aero with no chance to
graduate. As a result many of these students simply stop coming to school. Finally,
counselors meet with their students and their parents at least once a year to discuss
graduation requirements and their progress toward them, but that is about it.
Aero High School does not have a comprehensive plan in place to prevent or deal
with student failure from the moment that they step on campus. At this point in time,
there is no coordinated effort to develop a Response to Intervention model that involves
teachers, counselors, and parents to solve this problem.
AVID
Aero High School offers several sections of AVID program to help support
students who have the potential to attend a four year university. The school currently
offers seven sections of AVID and releases a teacher to serve as coordinator one period
per day. The AVID program makes use of college students from local schools to assist
with the program. The principal reports that the AVID program has been a big success in
terms of helping make students and community members aware of how to prepare for
college. The AVID strategies (Cornell note taking, classroom inquiry techniques, etc.)
have not yet been implemented school wide.
202

Cougar Academy
Aero High School has attempted to help at-risk 9
th
graders by providing them with
a program known as the Cougar Academy. This program is a partnership with the
school’s Navy Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC), and provides the
students with a common set of teachers in ELA, mathematics, and science; students
enrolled in the program are also enrolled in the ROTC program. It is the principal’s hope
that the Cougar Academy will provide these students with a sense of belonging at the
school, and that they will benefit from the attention that a group of teachers will be
paying toward them.
California Partnership Academies
The principal of Aero High School indicated that he will be submitting an
application to receive state funds to develop several academies at school. These
academies will seek to provide 10
th
-12
th
grade students with a career pathway in a field
that is interesting to them. If the grant is approved, the school will be responsible for
building a program that incorporates partnerships with local businesses, provides students
with a common set of teachers who plan, collaborate, and monitor their success, and has
accountability mechanisms in place to ensure that the money is being used wisely. The
academies that are being proposed are in the following areas: information technology,
forensic science, international business, and visual/performing arts.
Aero believes that these academies will help keep students interested in school,
and provide them with a connection that will help lower the dropout rate and improve
graduation statistics. It is also the hope of the principal that the academies will help curb
203

the exodus of students leaving both Aero High School and the Wright Union High School
District.

The Impact of the Financial Crisis and Federal Dollars
The budget crisis hit Aero High School the hardest in the form of school
personnel. For 2009-2010, the school lost 9 teachers and classified staff members, as
well as 4 guidance counselors. Considering the school and district’s declining enrollment
patterns, it is quite possible that the school would have had to reduce staff by the numbers
at some point in the future anyway. The principal indicated that the worst part about
losing the teachers and counselors was that they were a good, young group of educators
who were really good for the students. He mentioned that he wished he could choose
who stayed and who had to leave when such cuts were required – he indicated that there
were plenty of veteran teachers who he would like to jettison from his staff. As a result
of losing teachers, class sizes have risen from about 25-1 in the core to 29-1.
The principal mentioned that the district no longer funds athletics and
extracurricular activities due to the budget crisis, calling on its schools to find ways to
raise the money in order to participate. This has been particularly difficult for the
students at Aero High School as the community is low income and local businesses have
been hard hit by the recession. The district requires students to pay a transportation fee if
they compete on an athletic team – mechanisms are in place to assist students who are not
able to afford it.
204

Finally, the principal mentioned that his budgets for instructional materials and
professional development are nonexistent, and have been for quite some time. It is
unclear whether or not this represents a real problem for the school as a sound plan is not
currently in place to determine how such money would be spent if it was in place.
The principal indicated that federal State Fiscal Stabilization Funds that the
district received as part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act have not been
provided to the school. He indicated that the district kept all of this money in an effort to
save as certificated and classified positions as possible and balance the budget.

Resource Comparison to Evidence Based Model
Table A3 compares the current resource allocation patterns of Aero High School
with the prototypical plan called for by the Evidence Based Model. The third column of
the table describes the difference between the actual resource use and what the model
recommends. As one will find, Aero High School falls well short of the model’s
suggestions in most areas. Of particular concern for the school’s leaders should be the
disparity between actual resources allocated to helping the most at-risk students (EL,
students with disabilities, SED) and the suggested resources. In comparison to the
Evidence Based Model, the school is understaffed by about 20 FTE teachers in the core
academic areas, and is operating with larger class sizes than recommended. Of major
concern is the discrepancy between the number of teacher needed to provide an adequate
education to English Learners and Students with Disabilities. The school currently has
2.8 FTE teachers working with EL students while the model calls for nearly twice that
205

amount; likewise, Aero has 7 FTE teachers working with students with mild/moderate
disabilities, while the model calls for over 16. It will be very difficult to raise the
achievement of these student groups without providing them more help in this area.
It is also important to note that Aero High School currently has far less money devoted to
instructional materials and professional development than the model calls for. For a
school of this size, the model calls for a budget of about $240,000 for professional
development and $450,000 for instructional materials – Aero has $150,000 reserved for
both of these functions.

206

Table A3
Comparison of Actual Resource Use at Aero High School to the Evidence Based Model
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Actual Aero High
School Resources
Difference
between EBM
and Aero High
School or EBM
suggested
amount for
Aero High
School
School Characteristics
School Configuration 9-12 9-12
School Size 600 2,400 4 times bigger
Core Class Size 25 29
4 more than
EBM
Number of teacher
work days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
184, including 4
in-service days
6 less in-
service days,
10 less school
days
Number Disabled
(w/IEP)
331 (14%)
Number Poverty (free
& reduced lunch)
1,920 (80%)
Number English
Learner
612 (25.5%)
% Minority (non-
white)
97%

207

Table A3, Continued
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers
24 per 600 students
(75% of FTEs)
74.6 FTE
(74% of FTEs)
EBM suggests
96 for 2,400
students
2. Specialist Teachers
8.0 per 600 students
(25% of FTEs)
26.2 FTE
(26% of FTEs)
EBM suggests
32
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
One for every 200
teachers
0
EBM suggests
12
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
0
EBM suggests
19.2

5. Teachers for EL
students

An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students
2.8 FTE
EBM suggests
6.1 FTE
6. Extended Day

1 teacher for every 15
poverty students
(based on half the
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary

1.3 FTE
EBM suggests
16 extended
day teachers

7. Summer School

5.2 FTE
EBM suggests
16

208

Table A3, Continued
School Characteristics
8. Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions for 600
students
7 FTE teachers
EBM suggests
16 teachers for
2,400 students
9. Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
3 FTE teachers Based on need
10. Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student

$14,000

20 sections of
Honors/Advanced
Placement Courses
EBM suggests
funds of
$60,000
11. Vocational
Education
1/3 more per student
enrolled
6.8
Dependent
upon
enrollment
12. Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher
for illness and PN

13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance per 250
students
2 FTE Guidance
Techs
1 FTE Nurse
1 FTE Psychologist
1FTE
Speech/Language

5 FTE Counselors

EBM suggests
19.2 FTE
support staff
plus 9.6
counselors or
similar
positions
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
3.0 to relieve teachers
and provide
supervision
4 FTE
EBM suggests
12
15. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library Tech
1 FTE Librarian
0 Library Techs

EBM suggests
4 Librarians
and 4 Library
Techs
16. Principal
1 Principal and 1
Assistant Principal
1 Principal, 3
Assistant
Principals, 2 Deans
EBM suggests
1 Principal and
4 Assistant
Principals

209

Table A3, Continued

17. School Site
Secretary

1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
5 Secretaries &
9 Clerks
EBM suggests
4 secretaries &
12 clerks
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
$150,000
4 days per year
devoted to PD
activities
Collaboration time
about twice a
month for a total of
approximately 26
hours
EBM suggests
10 days PD in
summer and
$240,000 for
other PD
expenses.
19. Technology $250 per pupil 2.0 FTE
EBM suggests
$350,000
20. Instructional
Materials
$175 per pupil $150,000
EBM suggests
$420,000
21. Student Activities $250 per pupil
1.0 FTE ASB
Director and
Athletic Director
1 section devoted
to activities

All other funds cut
EBM suggests
$600,000

Finally, Aero High School compares favorably to the model in two areas – administrative
staff and secretarial staffs. The Evidence Based Model suggests 1 principal and 3
assistant principals for a school of this size; if deans are included in the tally of site
administrators, Aero is actually overstaffed in assistant principal type positions. The
210

model recommends that the school have 4 secretaries and 12 clerks; Aero is overstaffed
with secretaries (5) and comes close to the suggested number of clerks (9).

Lessons Learned
Aero High School has a tremendous amount of work ahead of it if it is going to
raise student achievement and lose the Program Improvement label. Aero demonstrates
how years of failing to address key instructional, curricular, and professional
development needs will translate into culture of low expectations and outcomes. From
the new principal’s perspective, it is easy to understand just how overwhelming the
reform effort will seem.
It is doubtful that restructuring the school’s resources will do any good unless a
clear plan is developed to improve the school’s instructional vision, curriculum and
instruction, professional development plan, and intervention programs. Without this
work being in done in advance, providing a school like Aero funds like the Evidence
Based Model’s recommended $420,000 for instructional materials is akin to ―throwing
money at a problem‖ with the hope that it will get better. Aero does not have the
capacity to do this work alone – as described previously, the district has lacked strong
central leadership on such issues. Now that the district is more stable than it has been in
the past and a new assistant superintendent who is responsible for improving the schools,
there is hope that things can turn around.
One promising sign of good things to come is evident in the fact that Aero’s
principal is passionate about improving his school, and that he has taken action (by
211

dealing with truancy and behavior issues) to make teaching and learning the sole focus of
the school. Another promising sign is that the district is committing to providing Aero’s
teachers with some much needed professional development training in research based
instructional strategies.
Once the infrastructure of school reform is in place, the Evidence Based Model
could be a great guide for both the site and district leadership to allocate resources. The
Evidence Based Model is after all a research based plan to adequately educate all
students. Considering just how low achievement is at the school and how unstable the
leadership there has been, Aero High School and the Wright Union High School District
would be wise to consider a complete overhaul of how this school is run. The Evidence
Based Model would be a great blueprint for reinventing the school as one that provides
adequate resources to achieve spectacular results.

212

APPENDIX E
CASE STUDY: BIG WAVE HIGH SCHOOL
School Overview
Big Wave High School is a comprehensive high school that serves nearly 2,500
students in the Sandy Beach Unified School District, an urban Southern California school
district. Since 2001, the school has serviced between 2,300 and 2,400 students; the recent
climb in enrollment may be attributed to the completion of several housing tracts that lie
within the district’s boundaries, the closing of a small charter high school that operated
near Big Wave, as well as an increase in the number of military families assigned to a
large base on the border of the city. The majority of Big Wave’s students are minorities;
its enrollment is 61% Hispanic/Latino, 9% African American, and 22% White. 49% of
the students qualify for Free/Reduced Lunch, and 23% are classified as English Learners.
According to information gathered by the state’s testing program, a high school diploma
is reported to be the highest level of educational achievement for about 25% of the
parents of Big Wave students; likewise 29% are reported to have never finished high
school.
In 2008, Big Wave High School’s California Statewide Ranking was a 6 out of
10; its Similar Schools ranking was a 10. The school is well known for its athletic
prowess over the past decade, having won several sectional championships in both
football and basketball. Starting in 2000, the schools facilities were modernized and
upgraded as a result of a $125 million bond measure that the district was able to convince
local voters to approve.
213

The Sandy Beach Unified School District serves nearly 21,500 students in grades
K-12. The district operates 17 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, and 2 high schools,
as well as a continuation school, a community day school, and an adult education
program. Two charter schools operate within the district’s boundaries – a K-8 academy
and a high school. The district is in its third year of Program Improvement – in 2009,
several of its subgroups missed proficiency targets in both English Language Arts and
mathematics, and the district’s graduation rate did not meet the minimum expected level.
The principal of Big Wave High School has held that role for nearly a decade. He
manages the school with the help of a curriculum coordinator who is responsible for
assisting with the academic and instructional program as well as two assistant principals
who focus on the day-to-day management of the school. The leadership team has been
stable over the past few years.

Program Improvement and Adequate Yearly Progress
Big Wave High School has been identified as a Program Improvement school for
the first time in 2010, failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress for the previous two
years. For high schools in California, AYP requires schools to:
1) Test 95% of all 10
th
graders and those in significant subgroups in both English
Language Arts and mathematics. In California the test used is the California High
School Exit Exam.
2) Of the students tested, a certain percentage of them each year must meet a specific
proficiency target.
214

3) The school’s overall Academic Performance Index must meet or exceed an
established minimum score or show an increase from one year to the next. In
2002, the minimum API score was 560; in 2009, that score was 650.
4) The graduation rate must be 83.1% or show an overall increase from one year to
the next or a positive overall two year average change.
Schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years become PI; similarly, in order to
escape PI status, schools must make AYP for two consecutive years. Table A4 below
provides a summary of all of the available AYP data for Big Wave High School.

215

Table A4
Big Wave High School AYP Criteria, 2002-2009
Year
% Tested
Overall %
Proficient ELA
Subgroup %
Proficient ELA
Overall %
Proficient Math
Subgroup %
Proficient Math
API
Graduation Rate
Made AYP
2002 No Yes No Yes Yes N/A N/A No
2003 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
2004 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2005 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
2006 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2007 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2008 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
2009 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No

Despite significant increases in the numbers of students scoring proficient or
better in both ELA and mathematics, the school has failed to make AYP several times
over the years. Twice, the school did not test an appropriate number of students to satisfy
the requirement; subgroup proficiency levels (specifically, the EL subgroup) have been
an impediment to making AYP since the requirement became law. In 2008, the
proficiency target for students in ELA increased from 22.3% to 33.4% and from 20.9% to
32.2% in mathematics; a similar increase in expected proficiency levels also occurred in
216

2009. Big Wave’s English Learner subgroup failed to reach these targets in 2008 and
2009; the Hispanic/Latino subgroup also missed the target in 2009. Figure A4 illustrates
the proficiency levels that the school has achieved in both English Language Arts and
mathematics since 2002.

Figure A4
Big Wave High School AYP Proficiency Rates, 2002-2009

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2002
(Target
11.2%)
2003
(Target
11.2%)
2004
(Target
11.2%)
2005
(Target
22.3%)
2006
(Target
22.3%)
2007
(Target
22.3%)
2008
(Target
33.4%)
2009
(Target
44.5%)
Percent Proficient - ELA
Overall Hispanic/Latino White
SED English Learner
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2002
(Target
9.6%)
2003
(Target
9.6%)
2004
(Target
9.6%)
2005
(Target
20.9%)
2006
(Target
20.9%)
2007
(Target
20.9%)
2008
(Target
32.2%)
2009
(Target
43.5%)
Percent Proficient - Mathematics
Overall Hispanic/Latino White
217

Even though the school has met the minimum graduation rate on an annual basis,
the percentage of students graduating from Big Wave High School has consistently
decreased since 2000-2001, as displayed in Table E2. AYP currently calls for high
schools to graduate a minimum of 83% of their students – Big Wave is in danger of not
meeting this expectation if this trend continues. School officials attribute this to a
combination of factors. First, the district requires students to earn 240 units in order to
earn a diploma – this amount is significantly higher than the 220 units most area high
schools require, amounting to four additional required classes. Compounding this
problem is the specific math requirement that students must meet in order to earn a
diploma – students must complete three years of high school math including geometry.
Another reason for the declining graduation rate corresponds directly to a high
percentage of students failing coursework. According to school data, in 2009,
approximately 30% of the school’s 9
th
graders lost credits toward graduation after the
first semester; likewise, about 40% of 10
th
graders were off-track for graduating on time.
The school’s leadership indicates that the teachers at Big Wave High School claim that
they have ―high expectations‖ for students and that the failure rate is a result of the
students’ lack of will to meet those expectations. The leadership team believes that
student grades are not necessarily based on what the students do or do not know about the
subject matter, and believe that the failure rates are a result of teachers not changing their
practices to keep students engaged and interested in the subject matter. Regardless of the
cause, this is an issue that Big Wave High School has decided to take on in the years to
come.
218

Table A5
Big Wave High School Graduation Rates, 2000-2001 Through 2007-2008
Class of Graduation Rate
2000-2001 96.4%
2001-2002 90.3%
2002-2003 90.8%
2003-2004 97.5%
2004-2005 92.5%
2005-2006 94.7%
2006-2007 85.7%
2007-2008 84.9%

California Standards Tests and Academic Performance Index
Similar to the strong gains made in proficiency levels that determine AYP, Big
Wave High School has also produced impressive increases over the past five years in the
amounts of students earning proficient marks on the California Standards Tests. Overall
proficiency in English Language Arts has risen from 29% in 2005 to 40% in 2009;
mathematics proficiency increased from about 14% to 26%. Similar overall positive
trends are also present in both history and science, as illustrated in Figure A5.
Figure A5 also presents the performance of the school’s subgroups on the CST
exams for ELA and mathematics. Like the school as a whole, the trends have also been
very positive for the Hispanic/Latino, African American, White, and SED subgroups –
219

growth of over 10% has been realized over the past five years in each of these areas.
Large achievement gaps between white students and members of the other subgroups
remain however. Unfortunately, the two most at-risk subgroups (EL and Students with
Disabilities) have not seen much growth during this time period. In 2005, EL proficiency
on the CST ELA was almost 2%; in 2009, that rate is only 4%. In mathematics, EL
proficiency on the CST has risen from about 3% in 2005 to 10% in 2009 – an
improvement for sure, but still extremely low. Students with Disabilities have not fared
very well at Big Wave High School on the CST exams. Their proficiency level in ELA
has remained between 3% and 4% for the past five years; their math scores have also
fluctuated between 1.5% and 2.5%.

220

Figure A5
Big Wave High School CST Results

10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
CST Results - All Students
ELA History Mathematics Science
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
CST Results - ELA
Student Subgroups
Hispanic/Latino African American White
SED English Learner Students with Disabilities
221

Figure A5, Continued

Big Wave High School’s API results have also increased substantially over the
past five years commensurate with rising CST exam scores - this is not a surprise since
the API is largely based upon these results. Overall, the school’s API has risen 79 points
in the past five years. Its subgroups have also seen impressive increases as illustrated in
Figure E3; however, the English Learner and Students with Disabilities subgroups remain
far behind the other groups at this school by this measure.
Despite the overall positive school wide and subgroup growth in the API, not all
of the school’s subgroups have grown at the same rate over the past five years. During
this span, English Learners have shown the lowest API increase – 44 points; African
Americans are second lowest – 62 points. White students have made the most
improvement over the years – 89 points.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
CST Results - Mathematics
Student Subgroups
Hispanic/Latino African American White
SED English Learner Students with Disabilities
222

Figure A6
Big Wave High School Academic Performance Index, 2005-2009

Instructional Improvement Program
Big Wave High School’s achievement results are an interesting dichotomy. As
presented above, the school and its subgroups have seen impressive overall growth;
however, certain subgroups have not improved enough to satisfy both federal and state
accountability requirements. Achievement gaps between the highest performing and
most improved students (White students) and the other groups still exist at the school,
and in some cases have worsened over the last five years. Despite the disparity between
student subgroups, it is obvious that Big Wave has taken some steps to improve student
achievement. The sections below will outline the key parts of their plan.
It is important to know what jumpstarted Big Wave’s reform efforts. When
California implemented its accountability system in the late 1990’s, Big Wave found
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Big Wave High School - Academic Performance Index
School Wide Hispanic/Latino African American
White SED English Learners
Students with Disabilities
223

itself in the bottom half of the state’s ranking system – in 2000, the school’s Statewide
Ranking was a 4 out of 10. Due to this ranking, the school received significant additional
funding from the State of California in the form of the Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) Grant. The grant required the
school to develop a three year plan to raise the API and meet specific annual growth
targets.
The superintendent of the Sandy Beach Unified School District also allowed the
principal to involuntarily transfer six of teachers of his choice. The principal chose to
jettison not only a few of his worst overall teachers, but also a few of those who were
sure to resist any school wide improvement efforts. Moving these teachers got the
attention of the rest of the staff, and sent a very clear message that said, ―we are serious
about fixing this school, and you can join us or leave.‖ The current principal indicated
that this move combined with the influx of state funds meant for implementing change set
the stage for Big Wave’s reform efforts. He indicated that he believes that change would
have not have happened as quickly without those two moves.

Instructional Leadership
The instructional vision of Big Wave High School has been to raise the level of
student engagement throughout the campus, and to provide a rigorous curriculum. In
order to make the latter vision a reality, the school no longer offers any courses that are
not considered college prep, and virtually all remedial courses have been eliminated – i.e.
pre-algebra and basic English courses. Access to the school’s Advanced Placement
224

program has also been opened up for all students to take advantage of. In the past, a
student had to be recommended into the program by teachers and other staff.
In addition to raising the expectations for student achievement, the school has also
devoted resources in the past to raising the expectations for student behavior. At the
beginning of the school’s reform efforts, many of the staff complained that poor student
behavior was a major issue impeding their ability to teach. In response to these
sentiments, the school utilized a consultant to implement a campus wide classroom
management program. Administrators and staff worked together to create common
behavior expectations, and developed clear policies, procedures, and consequences to
deal with them.
In order to build student engagement, Big Wave High School has worked with
consultants to implement several strategies in every classroom. One strategy has been to
implement clear learning objectives in every classroom. These objectives are linked to
the standards, and include both short term and long term goals. Teachers are expected to
review these objectives with the students on a daily basis, and provide evidence that the
objectives were achieved. Currently, the majority of the school’s core teachers are
effectively creating these objectives and reviewing them with students; however, the
principal did express concern that the teachers may not be taking effective action when
they find an objective has not been met.
Another strategy has been to utilize informal formative assessments on a routine
basis in each lesson – i.e. checking for understanding. Teachers have been trained on
questioning techniques based upon varying levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Costa’s
225

Levels of Inquiry in order to evaluate the depth of their students’ knowledge of a topic
and to push them toward mastery of the standard. Included in the implementation of this
strategy has also been the use of ―wait time‖ when asking students a question as well as
the use of randomization when calling upon students to answer.
A third strategy that has been a focus at Big Wave High School has been the use
of building academic vocabulary in each of the core content areas. This strategy involves
explicitly teaching the meaning of key terms that are to be used in a particular lesson or
throughout a course. The intent of this strategy is to build the prior knowledge that
students may not possess about a particular topic – for example, a student may have a
difficult time learning about the differences between mean, median, and mode in a math
class if the terms are not explicitly defined and related to concepts he/she is already
familiar with in advance.
In order to monitor the implementation of these instructional strategies, the
school’s administrative team routinely visits classrooms for short periods of times. These
―walk-through‖ visits are intended to give the administrator a snapshot of what is
happening in their classrooms. A protocol form has been developed for these visits that
include a section that is standardized and one that is open ended, and teachers are
provided with feedback as soon as possible. In the past, teachers have been released to
accompany administrators on these visits. Unfortunately, the budget crisis has eliminated
most of the funding source for this type of professional development.

226

Curriculum
At the beginning of the school’s reform effort, much attention was paid to
aligning the curriculum in the core academic areas with the state’s standards. The
school’s teachers analyzed the CST exams and identified the standards that were the most
frequently assessed on the exams – these became Big Wave’s ―focus standards,‖ and
significant instructional time was set aside to help students mast them. Pacing guides for
each subject area were developed as were common assignments and assessments, and
most of the departments developed common grading schemes. Big Wave High School’s
principal stated that the teachers are currently still using the pacing guides and ancillary
materials that were developed during this era.
Interestingly, a few years into the reform efforts, the school’s core academic areas
adopted grading criteria for assessments that mirrored the proficiency levels on the
California Standards Tests. They tried to offer standardized tests that were aligned with
the standards that had been taught over a set period of time. When these tests were
graded, the grade assigned mirrored the proficiency level that the CST exams provided –
i.e. a 66% was a proficient score on the CST and thus a B on the exam. This reform did
not last very long as the teachers felt that this system inflated grades.
The core academic departments have developed quarterly benchmark
examinations to monitor student progress toward the standards. These exams were
created at the school site by the teachers in each department, and closely match the
pacing guides that have been developed. Student results are downloaded into a student
227

data management system, and can be accessed and analyzed by the teachers and
administration.

English Language Arts
For students who are below grade level in reading, the school offers several
sections of Read 180 for 9
th
and 10
th
grade students. Read 180 is a computer based
program that is designed to increase reading skills up to the 7
th
grade level within a
specified period of time; if faithfully implemented, students are exposed to at least two
hours per day with the program. The students in the Read 180 program at Big Wave
essentially have two periods of ELA – one period of standards based instruction (e.g.
English 9) and one period of this intervention. Read 180 class sizes are intentionally kept
at a 25-1 student-teacher ratio, much lower than the school wide class average of 32.
Big Wave High School utilizes the expertise of a professor from California State
University, San Marcos to assist with building the students’ writing skills. This
consultant helps the school implement several instructional modules that teach writing as
a process. This instructional help is primarily aimed at 10
th
grade students as the
CAHSEE ELA section has a significantly weighted writing component (about 20% of the
overall score); however, the program is a part of the ELA curriculum at all grade levels.
In the past, the consultant utilized a number of trainers to coach teachers through the
implementation process; unfortunately, the budget eliminated the additional trainers.

228

Mathematics
Big Wave High School does not offer any pre-algebra courses for students –
Algebra 1 (technically an 8
th
grade course) is the lowest math course that is offered. The
principal indicated that the reason for this is twofold. First, the district believes that by
the time the students get to high school, they have had up to three years of pre-algebra,
and are thus more or less ready to move on to Algebra 1. Second, students must pass
three years of math at the high school level in order to graduate, including geometry. Big
Wave High School currently has a very high failure rate in Algebra 1, and a few years
ago, when pre-algebra was offered, that course had a high failure rate as well; therefore,
the school’s leadership is fearful that students taking pre-algebra at Big Wave High
School would not complete three full years of math including geometry successfully in
four years.
Big Wave High School offers some 9
th
grade students who take Algebra 1 with an
extra period of math support. This course companion course is scheduled immediately
after the students’ Algebra 1 course; both periods are taught by the same teacher. The
principal indicated that this support period does not have a set curriculum – the teacher
uses that time however he/she chooses to help the students. As a result, it is unclear
whether the students enrolled in it are receiving additional instruction and resources to
build their skills or the class is used to teach a one hour course over two hours – i.e.
―louder and slower.‖
Algebra 1 students are separated by grade level. 9
th
grade students are separated
from students in grades 10-12 who need to take the course. It is not clear why this
229

practice is taking place as the curriculum and instructional materials are the same and
class sizes are nearly identical.
Big Wave High School separates its Geometry students into two different groups
as well. Students who are viewed as being more advanced in mathematics are enrolled in
College Preparatory Mathematics (CPM) Geometry. This math program was developed
by researchers at the University of California, Davis, and attempts to teach Geometry
using a ―discovery‖ approach that calls for students to work together in collaborative
teams to solve complex problems. The teacher’s role is to facilitate their learning by
helping them to discover multiple ways to solve problems. Students who are not in CPM
Geometry receive a traditional geometry curriculum.

English Learners
Big Wave High School services English Learners differently depending upon
their skill levels. For students who speak little or no English, the school offers multiple
periods of instruction through its English Language Development (ELD) program to
students that are meant to build speech, language, and reading skills. The school also
offers sheltered sections of mathematics, science, and history in order to help these
students learn the material. The ELD program at Big Wave utilizes a state approved
curriculum that is geared to build English fluency within three to four years.
As mentioned above, much of the school’s instructional leadership has focused on
ensuring that teachers are utilizing strategies that are known to help students who are not
native speakers of English improve their skills across all curricular areas. The school’s
230

efforts to train all teachers in several strategies to build academic vocabulary and orally
engage EL students on a regular basis is at the center of Big Wave High School’s effort
to improve instruction for this subgroup.

Special Education
The majority of Big Wave High School’s Students with Disabilities are educated
in general education environments with their non-disabled peers. Many of these students
receive a period dedicated to supporting their work in their general education courses.
The remaining students receive their core academic instruction in special education
versions of the courses – i.e. English 1, 2, 3, 4, Algebra 1, World History, etc. The
special education classes are not well aligned with their general education counterparts
with respect to curricular offerings or instructional strategies. The principal indicated
that the special education courses have extremely low expectations for students, and that
those who are enrolled in them miss out on most of the curriculum that all other students
receive. Finally, most of the special education teachers are not Highly Qualified to teach
their specific academic area.
In order to support the students with disabilities who are enrolled in the general
education Read 180 classes, a collaborative model is utilized. The general education
teacher is responsible for helping teaching the course; the special education teacher is
responsible for helping the students who have a disability by providing individual
support. This collaborative model is also in place for one of the school’s science classes.
The principal hopes that he will be able to expand this program in the future.
231

Big Wave High School also offers specialized programs for students with severe
disabilities and emotional disturbances. Three FTE teachers are devoted to these
programs.

CAHSEE Specific Interventions
Big Wave High School offers a wide array of programs intended to help students
at all grade levels pass the CAHSEE, and to raise proficiency levels amongst 10
th
graders
as required for making AYP. 11
th
and 12
th
grade students who have not passed the
CAHSEE are provided with preparatory programs that take place after school and on
weekends. These programs utilize test preparation materials developed by the county
office of education. The school receives categorical money that is to be for this purpose
for these students.
In order to prepare 10
th
grade students for the CAHSEE, the school integrates a
curriculum that was developed by the county office of education in its 10
th
grade English
classes and regular Geometry courses. This program is designed to expose the students
to sample CAHSEE questions, teach them test-taking techniques, and help them identify
strengths and weaknesses. Big Wave’s English and mathematics teachers were trained to
integrate this curriculum in their lesson plans about six weeks before the exam is given.
Students who are enrolled in Algebra 1 in the 10
th
grade receive no such resources.
Big Wave High School has taken steps to identify 10
th
grade EL students who
may not be successful on the CAHSEE ELA. The school provides a 6 week ―CAHSEE
Boot Camp‖ for English Learners and students who have been recently reclassified as
232

being fluent in English. These students are removed from an elective course every day
for six weeks and provided with additional resources to help build the skills that will be
assessed on the CAHSEE ELA test. In particular, these sessions focus on developing
skills in the following areas: reading comprehension, literary analysis, vocabulary, and
grammar; process writing is covered, but is not emphasized as much as the other topics.
10
th
grade students are also given a practice CAHSEE ELA test in their English
courses. This exam was designed by the school’s ELA teachers, and is largely crafted
from sample exams made available from the state. The teachers do not currently offer a
practice writing assessment that is similar to the one that the students will take as part of
the CAHSEE, but the principal indicated that this is being developed. A practice
CAHSEE exam for mathematics is not available at the school.

Professional Development and Collaboration
The school district provides teachers with five days per school year for
professional development training. It is important to note that only three of these days
are used specifically for staff training – the other days are used by the teachers at the
beginning, middle, and end of the school year to prepare. Traditionally, the purpose of
the two days that are meant for professional development has been left to the sites to
determine, and the site administration and department leaders work together to decide
their use. Usually, this time is used to train the entire staff on a particular instructional
strategy, present information about the school’s performance, and to allow teachers the
opportunity to align curriculum, plan lessons, and review student data.
233

Thirty minutes of collaboration time is built into the weekly schedule on
Mondays; on these days, students start school late. The use of this time is largely
determined by the leaders of each department, and is currently being used for
departmental business as opposed to specifically discussing instruction, curriculum, or
student data. The principal indicated that he does work with department leaders
developing an agenda for the use of this time when he feels it is necessary. He also stated
that he would like to see this time used specifically for improving teaching and learning.

Data Use
Teachers at Big Wave High School have access to a student data management
system called Edusoft. This system allows teachers to access, review, and manipulate
their students’ assessment and demographic data. Student results on the school’s
benchmark exams and other common assessments can be scanned into this system for
immediate analysis by the teachers. The principal indicated that many of his teachers
utilize this technology, but indicated that there is much room for improvement. He stated
that future professional development trainings would be provided to help teachers utilize
this tool more effectively.

Parent Involvement
The principal indicated that involving parents is a major priority at Big Wave
High School, and that multiple things are taking place to accomplish this. A parent
education program called Empowering Parents is facilitated by an outside agency to
234

provide families with information about the school, ways that they can support their
students, and resources about college and financial aid. The parents who participate in all
of the seminars receive a certificate of completion at a graduation-like ceremony. The
training is done in the home languages of the parents and child care is provided. In
addition to the Empowering Parents program, a community support group for
Hispanic/Latino families holds meetings on campus periodically to discuss issues
important to that demographic.
Big Wave High School uses an internet based program called School Loop to
reach out to parents as well. Parents can create an account and login to view their
student’s attendance, grades, assessment data, and other information. School Loop is also
used by Big Wave’s administration and teachers to send home important information
about school events, upcoming tests, and other important messages.
In order to speak specifically to the parents of 9
th
grade students who are at-risk of
not graduating on time, Big Wave High School hosts an informational evening called
―How to Succeed in High School.‖ This evening is devoted to providing parents with
information about what their students need to do in order to earn good grades and
progress toward graduation as well as resources that are available at both the school and
in the community to assist them.
In addition to the efforts described above, Big Wave High School also offers all
of the traditional and typical opportunities for parents to visit and interact with the school
– state mandated committees like school site council, annual evening events like back to
school night, and the like.
235

Instructional Time
Big Wave High School has a traditional bell schedule – the school day has six
class periods lasting about 56 minutes each, with the exception being Mondays due to the
thirty minutes of collaboration time for teachers described above. On these days,
students start the school day later than normal, and the classes are shorter.
A few years ago, Big Wave added minutes to the daily schedule in order to
provide a mentorship opportunity for students. This was accomplished by adding six
minutes to fourth period. It was the administration’s hope that these minutes would be
used by teachers to discuss issues such as grades, attendance, and tests scores
individually with students. Unfortunately, the principal indicated that this has proven to
not be enough time to accomplish this goal. He also indicated that the teachers have lost
their enthusiasm for using this time to work with the kids individually on such issues.

Intervention Plan
As discussed above, a declining graduation rate is of great concern to the
leadership at Big Wave High School. In order to address the number of students who
have lost credits and are in danger of not graduating on time, a number of programs are in
place that attempt to prevent students from failing classes and provide opportunities for
credit recovery.
Tutoring
The school applied for a federal grant to assist with funding its after school and
Saturday tutoring program – most of the funds go toward paying the personnel to be
236

available for extended hours after school. Students are able to receive help in the core
academic areas on certain days each week – a schedule is built in order to avoid conflicts.
Big Wave High School offers a ―Saturday Scholars‖ program. This voluntary
program provides students with additional instruction in the core academic areas.
Students who attend are allowed to make up a test or quiz that they may have received a
D or F on during the previous week. The principal believes that this new program has
already been very successful.
For students who have already lost credits toward graduation in a core area, a
traditional summer school program is available for students to repeat a core academic
class if they failed it. In some cases, students may be able to recover those credits
through an online program called Plato; after working on a particular subject area for a
set amount of hours, the program assesses the students – if they pass, they are issued
units.
Credit Recovery
11
th
and 12
th
grade students who find themselves severely credit deficient are
referred to the district’s continuation program. The district currently provides a
traditional continuation high school as well as an independent study program for students
who need alternative settings such as these. 10
th
grade students who have lost significant
units may be referred to the Accelerated Recovery Center (ARC). The ARC is an
independent study program that is housed on Big Wave’s campus. The students meet
with a teacher every day for about an hour, and complete the majority of work at home.

237

AVID and School Success
Big Wave High School offers several sections of the AVID program to help
support students who have the potential to attend a four year university. The school
currently offers seven sections of AVID. The AVID program makes use of college
students from local schools to assist with the program. The principal reports that the
AVID program has been a big success in terms of helping make students and community
members aware of how to prepare for college. The AVID strategies (Cornell note taking,
classroom inquiry techniques, etc.) have not yet been implemented school wide, but there
has been significant growth in the number of teachers outside of the program who are
utilizing some of these techniques in their day to day lessons.
In addition to AVID, Big Wave High School also offers at-risk 9
th
graders a
course called ―School Success.‖ The intent of this course is to provide these students
with additional academic and social support. The students in these classes receive
tutoring, counseling, and mentorship from both staff and peers.
Tiered Intervention Plan
Big Wave High School is developing a pyramid of interventions that will attempt
to catch students who are struggling early. This intervention system will call for
administrators, counselors, and teachers to implement basic interventions such as
immediate parent contact, conferences, and referrals to support programs when they
suspect a student is falling off track, and to progress to more complex ones (mentors,
referral for special education, etc.) if he/she continues to struggle. The principal of Big
Wave High School hopes to have this place by the start of the next school year.
238

The Impact of the Financial Crisis and Federal Dollars
Like most schools in California right now, Big Wave High School has been hit
hard by the state’s financial crisis. The Sandy Beach Unified School District cut
approximately $12.5 million from its 2009-2010 budget primarily by reducing staff and
services; correspondingly, Big Wave High School saw its budget slashed by 50-65%.
This loss of financial resources has already had an impact on the school’s operations –
there is no longer money to pay teachers to meet in the summer or after school to work on
curriculum, attend seminars, and the like. The principal also reported that the money that
was used in the past to release teachers during the school day in order to observe other
teachers has also disappeared. Purchases for new instructional materials or supplies of
any kind have all been put on hold due to a lack of funds.
The school is also operating with fewer personnel than it has in years past as well.
The district chose to eliminate the 20-1 student-teacher ratio in 9
th
grade ELA courses,
and as a result 12 teaching positions were eliminated. The school’s secretarial staff has
been trimmed down to a ―bare bones‖ level through a combination of layoffs or reduced
hours; retiring employees have not been replaced. The school no longer has a
coordinator of services for English Learners – in the past, a teacher has been released
from his/her classroom teaching duties to perform this task.
The technology at Big Wave High School is also beginning to age, and there is no
money available to maintain it. Even though the school has some staff on hand to
support the technology in place at the school (3 FTE technicians), Big Wave has
contracted with an outside agency to support its computer network and related
239

technologies when necessary at a tremendous annual cost. The computers in each
classroom, labs, LCD projectors, and the like are all about 5-10 years old which is about
the time that they begin to malfunction. The principal is very concerned about not having
the money to maintain these items.
The principal indicated that federal State Fiscal Stabilization Funds that the
district received as part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act have not been
provided to the school. He indicated that the district kept all of this money in an effort to
save as many certificated and classified positions as possible and balance the budget.

Resource Comparison to the Evidence Based Model
Table E3 compares the current resource allocation patterns of Big Wave High
School with the prototypical plan called for the Evidence Based Model. The third
column of the table describes the difference between the actual resource use and what the
model recommends. As one will find, Big Wave High School falls well short of the
model’s suggestions in most areas. In the area of overall staffing, for example, the model
calls for a school of this size to have about 100 FTE teachers in the academic core – Big
Wave has only 65.4. The Evidence Based Model calls for core class sizes of
approximately 25-1; this school has class sizes closer to 32-1.
Of particular concern for the school’s leaders should be the disparity between
actual resources allocated to helping the most at risk student (EL, students with
disabilities, SED) and the suggested resources. When compared to the recommendations
of the Evidence Based Model, Big Wave High School is understaffed across the board in
240

the personnel required to both teach and support EL students as well as those with
disabilities. The school has 2.8 FTE teachers working with EL students while the model
calls for 5.8; likewise, the school has 7.0 FTE teachers to work with students with mild
disabilities while the model calls for 16.7.
It is also evident from reviewing the comparison that Big Wave High School does
not have adequate resources for professional development or instructional materials. For
this year, the school has allocated $68,000 for instructional materials – the Evidence
Based Model allocates a budget of $437,500 for a school of this size. Big Wave has a
professional development budget of about $17,000, a major disparity from the $250,000
the model would provide; the model would also provide ten days of professional
development training, six above the amount of days currently offered at Big Wave High
School.

241

Table A6
Comparison of actual resource use at Big Wave High School to the Evidence Based
Model
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Actual Big Wave
High School
Resources
Difference
between EBM
and Big Wave
High School or
EBM suggested
amount for Big
Wave High
School
School Characteristics
School Configuration 9-12 9-12
School Size 600 2,500
4.2 times
bigger
Core Class Size 25 32
7 more than
EBM
Number of teacher work
days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
184, including 4
in-service days
6 less in-
service days,
10 less school
days
Number Disabled
(w/IEP)
275 (11%)
Number Poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
1,225 (49%)
Number English Learner 575 (23%)
% Minority (non-white) 77%

1. Core Teachers
24 per 600 students
(75% of FTEs)
65.4 FTE
(70.5% of FTEs)
EBM suggests
100 for 2,500
students
2. Specialist Teachers
8.0 per 600 students
(25% of FTEs)
27.4 FTE
(29.5% of FTEs)

EBM suggests
33.2
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors

One for every 200
students
0
EBM suggests
12.5
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
0
EBM suggests
12.3

242

Table A6, Continued
5. Teachers for EL
students

An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students
2.8 FTE
EBM suggests
5.8 FTE
6. Extended Day

1 teacher for every 15
poverty students
(based on half the
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary

2.5 Teachers
EBM suggests
10.2
extended day
teachers
7. Summer School

6 FTE
EBM suggests
10.2 teachers
School Characteristics
8. Learning & mild
disabled students

Additional 4
professional teacher
positions for 600
students

7 FTE teachers
EBM suggests
16.7 teachers
for 2,400
students
9. Severely disabled
students

100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds

3 FTE teachers Based on need
10. Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
$10,910

31 sections of AP
courses

EBM suggests
funds of
$62,500
11. Vocational
Education

1/3 more per student
enrolled

7.2 FTE
Dependent
upon
enrollment
12. Substitutes

10 days per teacher

10 days per teacher
for illness and PN
No Difference

243

Table A6, Continued
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance per 250
students

2 FTE Guidance
Techs
1 FTE Nurse
1 FTE Health Tech
2 FTE
Psychologists
1 FTE
Speech/Language

7 FTE Counselors

EBM suggests
12.3 FTE
support staff
plus 10 FTE
counselors
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
3.0 to relieve teachers
and provide
supervision
8 FTE
EBM suggests
12
15. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library Tech
1 FTE Librarian
0 Library Techs
EBM suggests
4.2 Librarians
and 4.2 Library
Techs
16. Principal
1 Principal and 1
Assistant Principal
1 Principal and 3
Assistant Principals
EBM suggests
1 Principal and
4.2 Assistant
Principals
17. School Site
Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
4 Secretaries and 6
Clerks
EBM suggests
4.2 secretaries
& 12.5 clerks
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.

5 days per year
devoted to PD
activities
Collaboration time
weekly for thirty
minutes
$16,948 for other
PD expenses
EBM suggests
10 days PD in
summer and
$250,000 for
other PD
expenses.

244

Table A6, Continued
19. Technology $250 per pupil
3.0 FTE computer
techs
EBM suggests
$625,000
20. Instructional
Materials
$175 per pupil $68,072
EBM suggests
$437,500
21. Student Activities $250 per pupil
$18,200

1 FTE ASB
Director and
Athletic Director

1 section devoted
to activities
EBM suggests
$625,000

Lessons Learned
Big Wave High School appears to have a lot going for it – solid instructional
leadership, a viable curriculum that is available to all students, and plans to assist
struggling learners. As a result of a reform effort that started several years ago, the
school seems to be headed in the right direction as evidenced by rising test scores in the
core subject areas, major increases in ELA and math proficiency on the CAHSEE and
CSTs and API gains. Unfortunately, in spite of these accomplishments, the school has
been labeled identified for Program Improvement for the 2009-2010 school year, largely
due to the low achievement of English Learners. Even though the rising proficiency
targets (this year’s goal is about 55% for all students) may be an unreasonable
expectation for schools to achieve, Big Wave’s identification as PI seems appropriate
considering the following facts:
1) EL proficiency in ELA to determine AYP has lingered around 22% for the
last few years.
245

2) The school’s graduation rate (as well as the district’s) is falling rapidly.
3) Despite gains on the CSTs, major achievement gaps have not been closed, and
white students appear to have benefitted the most from the reform efforts.
4) The achievement of both English Learners and Students with Disabilities is
extremely low as measured by the API.
Considering this information, a possible solution to the school’s issues with
student achievement may lie in aligning its resource allocation patterns with the
recommendations of the Evidence Based Model. When compared to the EBM, Big Wave
High School has class sizes that are too high, not enough core teachers, budgets for
professional development and instructional materials that are ridiculously low, and lack
of support personnel to work with student populations with unique needs. The State’s
financial crisis may not allow for additional resources to come into Big Wave High
School, but there is no question that the school could benefit from reallocating the
resources that it does have in a manner that is consistent with the research on school
improvement to increase achievement in the core and to support its most at risk student
groups.

246

APPENDIX F
CASE STUDY: CACTUS NEEDLE HIGH SCHOOL
School Overview
Cactus Needle High School is a comprehensive high school that serves 2,100
students in the Mountain Shadow Unified School District, an urban Southern California
school district. Since reaching its peak enrollment of about 2,600 students in 2002-2003,
the number of students that the school serves has consistently dropped annually to its
present level. The principal of Cactus Needle High School blames the falling enrollment
on significant numbers of students who are leaving to enroll in the schools of a nearby
―District of Choice;‖ students are also leaving to enroll in other school districts that are
offer ―magnet‖ programs that allow them to accept outside students. The principal
expressed great frustration over this situation as he believes that his school and district’s
programs are every bit as good as what are being offered outside of the district. He
believes that his school has a serious image problem with the community about its
academic program.
The vast majority of Cactus Needle’s students are Hispanic/Latino – 78%. The
next largest group of students is Filipino (11%), and African American, Asian, and White
students comprise the remaining portions of the school’s enrollment. 60% of Cactus
Needle’s students qualify for Free/Reduced Lunch. Nearly 25% of the student body is
classified as English Learners; the home language of these students is primarily Spanish,
although a small amount of them speak Filipino (Pilipino or Tagolog). According to
information gathered by the state’s testing program, a high school diploma is reported to
247

be the highest level of educational achievement for about 28% of the parents of Cactus
Needle students; likewise 36% are reported to have never finished high school.
In 2008, Cactus Needle High School’s California Statewide Ranking was 3 out of
10; its Similar Schools Ranking was a 5. Over the past five years, the statewide ranking
has fluctuated between a 3 and a 4; in contrast, the similar schools ranking has fallen
from a 9 to its present level.
The Mountain Shadow Unified School District serves nearly 16,500 students in
grades K-12. The district operates 15 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, 2 high
schools, as well as a continuation high school, community day school, and a special
education school. The Mountain Shadow Unified School District also maintains an
extensive adult education program that offers classes for adults to earn a GED, learn
English, or work related skills – these courses are offered in traditional classroom settings
as well as online. The district is in its first year of being recognized as Program
Improvement. In 2008, only the district’s Students with Disabilities subgroup missed
proficiency targets in both English Language Arts and mathematics; in 2009, these
students as well as the Hispanic/Latino, African American, Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged, and English Learner subgroups all missed their goals in either subject
area.
The principal of Cactus Needle High School has held this position for four years.
He manages the school with the help of a ―learning director‖ and three assistant
principals – these individuals all lend a hand in the leading the school’s instructional and
curricular program as well as managing the day-to-day aspects of running a large
248

comprehensive high school. Two of the school’s assistant principals are new hires; the
remaining portion of the leadership team has been at the school for at least three years.

Program Improvement and Adequate Yearly Progress
Cactus Needle High School is in its third year of Program Improvement status,
having earned the designation in 2007 by failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress for
two consecutive years. For high schools in California, AYP requires schools to:
1) Test 95% of all 10
th
graders and those in significant subgroups in both English
Language Arts and mathematics. In California the test used is the California High
School Exit Exam.
2) Of the students tested, a certain percentage of them each year must meet a specific
proficiency target.
3) The school’s overall Academic Performance Index must meet or exceed an
established minimum score or show an increase from one year to the next. In
2002, the minimum API score was 560; in 2009, that score was 650.
4) The graduation rate must be 83.1% or show an overall increase from one year to
the next or a positive overall two year average change.
Schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years become PI; similarly, in order to
escape PI status, schools must make AYP for two consecutive years. Table F1 below
provides a summary of all of the available AYP data for Cactus Needle High School.
Cactus Needle High School has consistently failed to make AYP primarily due to
the performance of its English Learner subgroup. Over the past five years, English
249

Learners have met the federal proficiency target for ELA only once; in 2007, 22.6% of
EL students were proficient in this subject area – the goal was 22.3%. In 2009, this
subgroup also missed the required target in mathematics for the second year in a row.
Figure A7 illustrates the school wide and subgroup proficiency levels in both ELA and
mathematics.
Table A7
Cactus Needle High School AYP Criteria, 2002-2009
Year
% Tested
Overall % Proficient
ELA
Subgroup %
Proficient ELA
Overall % Proficient
Math
Subgroup %
Proficient Math
API
Graduation Rate
Made AYP
2002 No Yes No Yes No N/A N/A No
2003 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2004 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2005 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
2006 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
2007 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2008 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No
2009 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No

250

Figure A7
Cactus Needle High School AYP Proficiency Rates, 2002-2009

The school’s other subgroups (Hispanic/Latino and SED) have consistently made
AYP in both subject areas until 2009. In 2009, the expected proficiency levels in both
subject areas increased from about 33% to about 44% in both ELA and mathematics.
0
10
20
30
40
50
2002
(Target
11.2%)
2003
(Target
11.2%)
2004
(Target
11.2%)
2005
(Target
22.3%)
2006
(Target
22.3%)
2007
(Target
22.3%)
2008
(Target
33.4%)
2009
(Target
44.5%)
Percent Proficient - ELA
Overall Hispanic/Latino
SED English Learner
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2002 (Target
9.6%)
2003 (Target
9.6%)
2004 (Target
9.6%)
2005 (Target
20.9%)
2006 (Target
20.9%)
2007 (Target
20.9%)
2008 (Target
32.2%)
2009 (Target
43.5%)
Percent Proficient - Mathematics
Overall Hispanic/Latino
SED English Learner
251

The Hispanic/Latino and SED subgroups failed to meet this required increase in
proficiency.
In addition to information about the proficiency growth trends for all of Cactus
Needle’s students, Figure F1 also illustrates the significant achievement gap between the
school’s English Learner subgroup and the Hispanic/Latino and SED student groups.
Beginning in 2008, the gap widened to its largest level since the measure came into effect
– about a 21% difference in ELA and a 16% difference in mathematics.
Although Cactus Needle’s graduation rate has consistently been in the high 90
percent range (the highest in the study), it is worth noting that in 2008, it fell to its lowest
level in the past eight years – 88% as displayed in Table A8. When asked about this
disturbing drop, the school’s principal indicated that the state financial crisis affected the
district’s continuation program particularly hard, reducing a number of available spots for
students who needed help to graduate. He also indicated that the school has an alarming
failure rate in the core academic subject areas – in 2008, nearly 40% of the school’s 9
th

and 10
th
graders had at least one F.

252

Table A8
Cactus Needle High School Graduation Rates, 2000-2001 through 2007-
2008
Class of Graduation Rate
2000-2001 96.2%
2001-2002 99.1%
2002-2003 96%
2003-2004 99.4%
2004-2005 99.8%
2005-2006 99.4%
2006-2007 96.4%
2007-2008 88.4%

Failing grades are of particular concern as it relates to mathematics. The district
requires students to complete two full years of mathematics at the high school level,
including Algebra 1, and does not offer remedial math courses. As a result, many
students at Cactus Needle have difficulty completing the math requirement within four
years – some students take multiple years to complete Algebra 1 and never get the chance
to take a higher level math course. As a safety valve, a basic accounting class is offered
to seniors who need an additional year of math to graduate but are not likely to succeed in
geometry or Algebra 2.

253

California Standards Tests and Academic Performance Index
Cactus Needle High School has seen significant improvement in only two of the
four academic areas assessed by the California Standards Tests (illustrated in Figure A8).
Over the past five years, overall proficiency in English Language Arts has climbed from
about 27% in 2005 to 40% in 2009; a similar increase was seen in history, growing from
about 25% to 35.5% during that time frame. Science and math scores only improved
about half as much as the others, both increasing about 5% to a total of about 25%
proficient in science and 13% in math.
Mathematics achievement at the school appears to have always been extremely
low at Cactus Needle High School. As mentioned above, many students at the school are
having difficulty working through the required sequences for graduation – the CST data
seems to confirm that these students certainly have not mastered the standards in the
various subject areas. The percentages of proficient students on the Algebra 1,
Geometry, and Algebra 2 CSTs in 2009 were 8%, 7%, and 20% respectively; student
performance was even lower on the Integrated Math 1 CST – only 2% of test taking
students earned a proficient score. The principal mentioned that some of the major
factors contributing to the low performance in mathematics can be attributed to a
teaching staff that is resistant to changing their instructional practices, a lack of alignment
between the curriculum being offered at the school and state assessments, and inadequate
interventions. More on this will be discussed later in this case study.

254

Figure A8
Cactus Needle High School CST Results

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
CST Results - All Students
ELA History Mathematics Science
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
CST Results - ELA
Student Subgroups
Hispanic/Latino Filipino SED English Learner Students with Disabilities
255

Figure A8, Continued

Figure A8 also illustrates the major achievement gaps that are present between
student groups at Cactus Needle High School in the areas of English Language Arts and
mathematics. Filipino students are by far the highest performing students in the school in
both subject areas; nearly 60% of Filipino students were proficient in ELA in 2009, while
almost 35% of Hispanic/Latino students earned this mark. Although, mathematics
achievement is much lower than that in English Language Arts, Filipino students sill
outperform all other subgroups by significant amounts - 25% of these students earned
proficient scores as opposed to about 11% of Hispanic/Latino. Over the past five years,
the achievement gap between these two ethnic groups has failed to narrow by a
significant margin in both subject areas.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
CST Results - Mathematics
Student Subgroups
Hispanic/Latino Filipino SED English Learner Students with Disabilities
256

English Learners and Students with Disabilities have the lowest test scores of all
student groups, and have failed to make any significant gains since 2005. For both
groups, proficiency in ELA has mostly been below 10% since that time; proficiency in
mathematics has been less than 5%. Cactus Needle is the only school in the study where
Students with Disabilities have consistently outperformed English Learners on the CST
for English Language Arts.
The Academic Performance Index for all students and subgroups at Cactus
Needle High School has consistently increased over the past five years (Figure F3). The
overall API has increased by 42 points, climbing from 647 in 2005 to 689 in 2009. All of
the student subgroups have increased as well, with Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
students and those with disabilities increasing the most, climbing 57 and 60 points
respectively. The English Learner subgroup has also shown an overall API increase over
the past five years; however, this group’s score has increased by the smallest margin –
only 16 points.
Next to English Learners, the API for Filipino students has grown by the next
lowest margin – increasing from 767 in 2005 to 806 in 2009, exceeding the state’s
expectation for student performance (a score of 800). The achievement gap between
Filipino students and most other subgroups has narrowed slightly during 2005-2009, with
the exception being English Learners. The API gap between Filipino and EL students
has actually increased by 23 points.

257

Figure A9
Cactus Needle High School Academic Performance Index, 2005-2009

Instructional Improvement Program
Advancing in Program Improvement has had a significant impact on both the
school and the community that it serves. The principal indicated that since earning the
label in 2006-2007, a sense of urgency to boost student achievement (particularly that of
English Learners) has developed at both the school and district. As a result, most of the
reforms efforts that are currently in place seek to change both the structure of how the
school serves its students and the instruction and curriculum that are provided to all
students and subgroups. The school’s leader expressed great pride in his staff’s efforts to
improve, but also showed great concern that the efforts have not resulted in more
significant increases in student achievement. The school still has major performance
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Cactus Needle High School - Academic Performance Index
School Wide Hispanic/Latino Filipino
258

gaps between student groups, math achievement is extremely low compared to other
subject areas, and Filipino students (10% of the school’s population) are the only group
meeting state expectations. The principal worries that an apparent lack of success
combined with the financial crisis may stymie future efforts to improve.
Some of the reform efforts that have taken place so far have been district led
initiatives. For example, the Mountain Shadow Unified School District has focused on
the implementation of Professional Learning Communities at each of its schools.
Administrators, teachers, and support staff all attended trainings that sought to focus
schools on student achievement by building strong mission statements, visions, values,
and goals, collaborative teams, and a results-based culture. In response to this
movement, Cactus Needle has worked hard to develop structures that provide the
teachers time to work together, support for struggling students, and the data needed to
evaluate their efforts.
Other efforts have been driven by the leadership at Cactus Needle High School.
For example, the development of pacing guides and common assessments has been a site
based improvement initiative meant to guarantee that all students are provided access to
grade level standards. The school has also been allowed to develop and implement other
plans to improve instruction as long as the plans fit the district’s vision for student
achievement.
The sections below will outline the key parts of Cactus Needle High School’s
reform plans.

259

Instructional Leadership
The principal and his administrative team visit classrooms on a weekly basis, and
are looking for a few key elements: clear learning objectives that are tied to the state
standards, checking for understanding, connection with the prior knowledge, and
engagement. They routinely meet with teachers to discuss what they have seen after each
visit, and attempt to provide meaningful feedback that will help improve performance in
each of these areas. Protocol forms have been developed that include Likert ratings
scales to account for a variety of instructional elements that should be observed, as well
as sections for open ended commentary. The data from these forms are compiled, and are
a topic of discussion between the administration and departments.
The school does not have any coaches or instructional facilitators to assist with
the improvement of the instructional program. The principal indicated that the district
used to have several teachers who were released from their classroom duties to serve the
schools in this capacity, but budget issues over the past few years has ended that. He also
stated that he believed that a lack of support in the area of monitoring and improving
instruction was a major problem for his school, as his learning director and assistant
principals frequently get distracted from focusing on this area by the typical issues related
to running a school – student discipline, paperwork, meetings, etc.
The principal indicated that most of the elements that he is looking for in
classrooms are present on a regular basis; however, he emphasized that there are major
260

inconsistencies as far as how well they are implemented. For example, the principal is
very confident that almost all teachers have daily learning objectives that are tied to the
standards. The problem lies with how they utilize these objectives – he fears that far too
often these objectives are just ―words on a white board,‖ and are do not really drive the
day to day instruction as they are meant to. The school’s leadership attributed much of
this discrepancy to a lack of focus on improving these things during professional
development time.
The school is working with a consultant to train the staff on delivering ―Explicit
Direct Instruction‖ (EDI). This methodology involves helping teachers develop learning
objectives that are meant to guide instruction in both the long and short term, and creating
summative and formative assessments to evaluate whether or not they were achieved.
The EDI model places a lot of attention on engaging students by utilizing questioning
techniques that represent various levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, building engagement
through the use of learning activities, and the use of data to drive the instructional
process. In order to facilitate the training of the teachers, the principal has provided
release time to each department in order for them to attend trainings, observe their peers,
and meet individually with the consultant. The principal believes that the use of EDI in
the core academic areas will lead to significant gains in student achievement in the future.
About five years ago, the district drove a professional development focus on the
implementation of ―Thinking Maps‖ in all of the schools throughout the district.
Thinking Maps are graphic organizers that attempt to help students organize information
in a visual manner. When the district began this initiative, all of Cactus Needle’s
261

teachers were trained in this instructional strategy; today, new staff members are taught
how to use Thinking Maps by teachers within their department or others who have
traditionally been viewed as mentors. This tool is utilized regularly in the school’s
English, science, and history classes, but is not a common practice in mathematics. The
principal indicated that he will be working with them to change this in the future, as he
believes that certain math processes (e.g. the key steps for solving a quadratic equation)
lend themselves quite well to these graphic organizers.
The school’s AVID program has played a major role in the school’s instructional
vision, and many practices and philosophies that are a part of this program are now
present school wide. Part of the reason that AVID has been able to make an impact on
the instructional program at Cactus Needle High School has to do with its major role at
the feeder middle school which is an AVID National Demonstration School. Teachers at
Cactus Needle High School have been trained to help students develop and use
―interactive notes‖ which essentially call for students to clarify, summarize, and question
the information that they are being taught. Many teachers are routinely using ―Socratic
Seminars‖ to help build student engagement. This technique teaches students to develop
an argument in support of a view on a particular topic, defend that view with evidence,
and remain open-minded to other perspectives.
Perhaps the most profound effect that AVID has had on the school has been the
push to open access to the top academic programs – honors, Advanced Placement, and
International Baccalaureate. In the past, the types of students that AVID serves would
generally be shut out of all of these programs. Because AVID requires students to take
262

advanced college preparatory coursework, many of the barriers of access have been
eliminated, and a school wide focus on preparing all students for success in college is
developing.

Curriculum
The school currently has pacing guides in place for the core academic subject
areas of ELA, mathematics, science, and history. These guides were developed by the
school’s teachers and are linked to the state standards. The principal indicated that the
pacing guides are designed to concentrate instruction on a few key ―focus standards‖ in
each subject area; these focus standards are the ones that are assessed the most on the
state’s exams. The teachers at Cactus Needle High School are faithfully implementing
these pacing guides in their classrooms, but have expressed a concern that they need to be
revised. The principal indicated that revising these documents will be a focus of future
professional development efforts.
The school’s departments are not consistently utilizing common assessments with
the exception of the final exams at the end of each semester; likewise, teachers are not
using common grading criteria throughout each department or subject area. As a result of
this, it is very difficult for the school’s leadership to determine student progress toward
mastery of the standards throughout the school year, and whether or not students are
being graded fairly and consistently. The principal indicated that there have been
discussions related to implemented quarterly benchmark exams or developing common
263

assessments at the end of each unit, but there is a resistance on the part of the staff to go
in this direction.
English Language Arts
For struggling readers, Cactus Needle High School offers two reading programs:
Read 180 for 9
th
grade students who are greater than two grade levels behind in reading
and Fast Track for 10
th
graders who are deficient in this skill. Both reading programs
utilize a combination of direct instruction, collaborative work, and technology to help
move students closer to grade level within a set period of time. Cactus Needle currently
provides 9
th
grade students who a reading intervention with a two period block for ELA
instruction that is taught by the same teacher. The block period blends the standards
based content that all students receive and the intervention program. 10
th
graders receive
a period of the traditional ELA program as well as a period of Fast Track – the courses
are not blocked and are currently taught by different teachers.

Mathematics
Due to poor test scores, Cactus Needle has focused much of its attention toward
reforming the curriculum in this area. Because the district does not allow the high
schools to offer any pre-algebra courses, Algebra 1 is the lowest math course offered. 9
th

grade students in Algebra 1 who have weak math skills are provided with a support
period known as ―Algebra 1 Companion.‖ This support class is meant to build the skills
of the students by reviewing basic concepts and previewing the skills necessary to be
successful in future algebra lessons. The principal indicated that there is no official
264

curriculum for this course – the teachers have pieced together instructional materials over
the years in order to help make this class viable.
Because there is a feeling that some students are not ready for geometry even after
the successful completion of Algebra 1, a course known as Applied Algebra and
Geometry has been developed. This course attempts to build algebra skills while
teaching students geometry. The instructional materials for the course consist of both the
Algebra 1 and Geometry textbooks, as well as supplemental materials that have been
gathered over the years. This course does not meet the entrance requirements for
mathematics for the University of California or California State University systems.
Students who take this course rarely move on to Algebra 2 or any other higher level
math, and their performance on the Integrated Math 1 CST has been quite low over the
years – only 2% of the students were proficient.
The principal mentioned that the school is working with a consultant to design a
new Algebra 1 course that takes a more visual and applications approach to teaching the
subject. He indicated that this is in response to teacher complaints that many students are
not prepared for Algebra 1 when they arrive at Cactus Needle High School, and that they
are ―dumbing down‖ their courses. There is also a movement to offer out of sequence
math courses – i.e. offering the second semester portion of a year-long course during the
first semester. The math teachers would like to force students who receive a D or F to
repeat whichever part of the course they are in before moving forward. The principal
expressed concern that such a move will result in students taking even longer to complete
Algebra 1, and will further diminish graduation rates.
265

English Learners
Cactus Needle High School services English Learners differently depending upon
their skill levels. For students who speak little or no English, the school offers multiple
periods of instruction through its English Language Development (ELD) program to
students that are meant to build speech, language, and reading skills. The ELD program
at Cactus Needle utilizes a state approved curriculum that is geared to build English
fluency within three to four years. The school also offers sheltered sections of
mathematics, science, and history in order to help these students learn the material.
Due to the poor performance of English Learners on every state assessment, the
school’s leadership team has made a tremendous effort to make teachers aware of whom
these students are, and to encourage them to closely monitor their progress in class. The
administration provides teachers with personalized lists of their English Learners that
include their scores on the California English Language Development Test (CELDT),
reading scores, CST proficiency levels, and other relevant information. Teachers are
expected to utilize specific instructional strategies to help these students that include
scaffolding information, asking questions appropriate for their language acquisition level,
and explicitly teaching academic vocabulary.

266

Special Education
The majority of Cactus Needle High School’s Students with Disabilities are
educated in general education environments with their non-disabled peers. Most of these
students receive a period dedicated to supporting their work in their general education
courses known as Study Skills. There is no established curriculum for this course; the
principal indicated that it is really just a study hall period that is ineffective for improving
student achievement or skills. Considering this, it is surprising how much resources are
dedicated to it – 20 sections (4 FTE teachers) are currently working with students in the
Study Skills courses.
The remaining students receive their core academic instruction in special
education versions of the courses – i.e. English 1, 2, 3, 4, Algebra 1, World History, etc.
The special education classes are not well aligned with their general education
counterparts with respect to curricular offerings or instructional strategies. The principal
indicated steps are being taken to change this however – teachers in the special education
department are attending general education department meetings and are becoming
familiar with the materials and expectations that are established for students without
disabilities.

CAHSEE Specific Interventions
For 11
th
and 12
th
grade students who have not passed the CAHSEE, the school
provides weekend and after school tutorial sessions. The instructional materials for these
classes include practice tests and released questions provided by the California State
267

Department of Education as well as test preparation materials from a private company.
The school receives categorical funds to provide these courses to students who have not
passed the exam.
In order to prepare 10
th
grade students for the CAHSEE, teachers in the ELA and
mathematics departments work with their students on practice problems and test taking
strategies throughout the school year. Both departments have created a curriculum to
accomplish the goal of increasing both the pass and proficiency rates on this exam.
The school utilizes its tutorial period (more on this below) to concentrate on
specifically preparing 10
th
grade English Learners for the CAHSEE. Based upon CST
and CELDT scores, students who are EL or recently reclassified as fluent in English are
assigned to work with teachers from the ELA or math departments during time that has
been built into the daily schedule for tutoring. These CAHSEE test preparation sessions
begin about six weeks before the exam is offered in March, and focus on improving skills
related to reading, writing, and pre-algebra as well as test taking strategies. The teachers
in the ELA and mathematics departments have created the curriculum for these sessions.

Professional Development and Collaboration
The school district provides four days throughout the school year for professional
development, as well as seven early release days throughout the school year for
articulation. The principal indicated only two of the days provided for professional
development are actually used for that purpose – the remaining time is given to teachers
to prepare for the upcoming year, transition between semesters, or close out the year in
268

June. He mentioned that he develops the use of the professional development time in
collaboration with the school’s teacher-leaders.
Thirty minutes of collaboration time is built into the school schedule on 26
Mondays throughout the year; on these days, students start school late. The use of this
time is largely determined by the leaders of each department, and is currently being used
for departmental business as opposed to specifically discussing instruction, curriculum, or
student data. The principal indicated that he does work with department leaders
developing an agenda for the use of this time when he feels it is necessary. He also stated
that he would like to see this time used specifically for improving teaching and learning.

Data Use
Teachers at Cactus Needle High School have access to a student data management
system called Edusoft. This system allows teachers to access, review, and manipulate
their students’ assessment and demographic data. The system has the ability to receive
local assessment data and present it in a format that is easy for teachers to analyze – due
to a lack of common assessments as described above, Cactus Needle is not utilizing this
feature to monitor student progress toward the standards on an ongoing basis. The
principal indicated that even though this tool is available, many teachers simply do not
use it. When teachers need data or will be asked to review it, the school’s administrators
usually provide it to them.

269

Parent Involvement
The principal indicated that parent involvement in the school has dwindled in
recent years, and that building their participation in the instructional program was a high
priority. A few years ago, the Parent Teacher Association PTA had been disbanded due
to a lack of participation from both parties. At this point, the organization has been
resurrected, and is beginning to build a strong base of parents and teachers to work
together toward improving the school and supporting students.
A parent education program called known as the Parent Institute for Quality
Education is facilitated by an outside agency to provide families with information about
the school, how they can support their students, and resources about college and financial
aid. The parents who participate in all of the seminars receive a certificate of completion
at a graduation like ceremony. The training is done in the home languages of the parents
and child care is provided.
In addition to the efforts described above, Cactus Needle High School also offers
all of the traditional opportunities for parents to visit and interact with the school – state
mandated committees like school site council, annual evening events like back to school
night, etc. In addition, the school has a number of booster club organizations that help
raise funds for the school’s many extracurricular programs.

Instructional Time
As mentioned above, Cactus Needle High School has developed a bell schedule
that offers a 25 minute tutorial period Tuesday through Friday. This period takes place
270

before lunch and is meant for students to receive help in their classes when needed. The
teachers use this time to work with students individually or in small groups, provide
homework and exam makeup opportunities, or to re-teach or enhance certain lessons for
groups of students. For 9
th
grade students, this time is also used as a mentorship period to
help them build a connection with the school and stay on track for graduation.
Attendance at tutorial sessions is not mandatory for students unless it is assigned
by a teacher or administrator. The students who have not been assigned to attend the
tutorial period or do not need additional assistance can use the time to complete
coursework in one of several rooms designated as study halls.
The remaining part of the bell schedule is traditional – all classes meet daily for
about 50 minutes, and most students take six classes, although they do have the option to
take seven.

Intervention Plan
The principal of Cactus Needle High School indicated that an intervention plan
for students who are struggling has been developed and is in effect. This plan utilizes a
Response to Intervention (RTI) approach to helping students that includes various levels
of assistance. When teachers notice that students are not succeeding in their classes, they
are expected to notify parents immediately – the school has a number of office personnel
who can assist with contacting parents who do not speak English. If the students
continue to struggle, they should be assigned to attend tutorial sessions, their counselors
should be notified, and a plan is supposed to be developed to turn the situation around. If
271

students do not respond to the interventions that are being offered, they may be assessed
for eligibility for special education services.

Credit Recovery
Like most other high schools, credit recovery is a major issue for Cactus Needle’s
students. Currently, the best mechanism available for students to recover lost graduation
credits is through the summer school program. Courses in each of the core academic
areas are offered each summer; however, students can only make up one complete course
(or the first semester of one course and the second semester of another) during this time.
As a result, if a student failed both semesters of history and math, only one of these
courses can be redeemed in the summer. 11
th
and 12
th
grade students can make up
additional units in the core through the district’s adult education program. The principal
indicated that the district is beginning to study the possible use of online courses as an
option for credit recovery.
Students who find themselves severely credit deficient are usually referred to the
district’s alternative education program. These students may attend a traditional
continuation high school or an independent study program.
9
th
Grade House
In an effort to support 9
th
grade students and to ease their transition into high
school, Cactus Needle has created a program to provide them with a common set of
teachers who are responsible for making sure that they are successful. A ―house‖ has
been established to support various groups of 9
th
grade students – e.g. EL students
272

grouped together, and work with a common set of teachers, counselors, and other staff
members. The teachers in each house have common planning periods, and are expected
to use the school’s collaboration time to review their students’ progress.

The Impact of the Financial Crisis and Federal Dollars
Like most school districts, the Mountain Shadow Unified School District has been
hit hard by the state’s fiscal crisis. The district had to cut approximately $13 million
from its budget for the current school year, mainly by reducing personnel services. The
district attempted to raise a parcel tax to offset these cuts in 2009, but it failed to garner
2/3 of the vote required for approval. Accordingly, the district has been forced to resort
to reducing personnel and services as well as eliminate or scale back programs or
initiatives that have been undertaken to support student achievement.
The principal of Cactus Needle High School indicated that his site has been
affected by the budget cuts in a few important ways. In the area of staffing, the school
has lost 4 FTE teachers as a result of the district’s plan to cut reduce staffing in order to
save money. In addition to counselors, the school’s counseling department took a large
hit, reducing staff from 7 FTE counselors to 5.2. The school’s leader expressed great
sadness over these reductions – in his opinion, these teachers and counselors were young,
enthusiastic, and knowledgeable, and would be at the bottom of the list if he were
allowed to choose who had to lose a position. Classified staff reductions have been
occurring in the district for the past several years; as a result, the school is currently
operating with what the principal considers to be a ―bare bones‖ staff.
273

The district chose to substantially reduce the district’s summer school program as
a result of the budget cuts. In 2010, the school will only be allowed to provide services to
students who have lost graduation units in English Language Arts and Mathematics –
enrichment or advancement during this time will no longer be an option for students. The
principal is fearful that this reduction in service will result in the erosion of the school’s
graduation rate as students will have one less option to make up lost ground. He is also
concerned that this may be one more reason for incoming 9
th
grade students to leave the
school and district for other alternatives. The area ―District of Choice‖ that is draining
students from the Mountain Shadow Unified School District aggressively advertises its
summer school enrichment program for all students but especially those who are planning
to enroll in honors, Advanced Placement, or International Baccalaureate programs.
As a result of the state’s financial crisis, the principal has been forced to shift
funding for some staff members into certain categorical programs. For example, the
funding for one of the assistant principals is now primarily funded through the school’s
Title 1 funds; as result, this person performs all of the typical assistant principal duties in
addition to activities specifically related to EL students, and has a new title – learning
director. The principal’s greatest concern about moves such as these has to do with the
reduced ability to use the categorical funds for purposes such as paying staff to assist
with parent evenings or purchasing instructional materials to support specific groups of
students.
The principal also mentioned the impact that the financial crisis has had on staff
morale. Unfortunately, concerns about pay cuts, furloughs, and reductions in benefits
274

have dominated much of the discussion that takes place on the campus, taking away from
much of the focus on reform. Many of the school’s personnel believe that it is unfair to
ask them to do more work to improve student achievement for less money, support, or
resources. The principal of Cactus Needle High School has indicated that over the past
year, he has been equal parts instructional leader and cheerleader.
Finally, the principal indicated that the Mountain Shadow Unified School District
kept all of the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds in an effort to save as many jobs as
possible.

Resource Comparison to the Evidence Based Model
Table A9, below, compares the current resource allocation patterns of Cactus
Needle High School with the prototypical plan called for by the Evidence Based Model.
The third column of the table describes the difference between the actual resource use
and what the model recommends. As one will find, Cactus Needle High School falls well
short of the model’s suggestions in most areas. In the area of overall staffing, for
example, the model calls for a school of this size to have about 84 FTE teachers in the
academic core – Cactus Needle has just over 60. The school does not have enough core
academic teachers (about 61 FTE compared to the recommended 84), but is staffed at the
appropriate level for specialty teachers. The Evidence Based Model calls for core class
sizes of approximately 25-1; this school has class sizes closer to 32-1. Cactus Needle
High School has adequate numbers of teachers dedicated to meeting the needs of English
Learners, with 5.8 FTE teachers providing services to them. Students with Disabilities
275

unfortunately do not have enough certificated teachers working with them. The Evidence
Based Model suggests that a school of this size provide at least 14 FTE teachers for the
education of these students – Cactus Needle only has about 10.It is also evident from
reviewing the comparison that Cactus Needle High School does not have adequate
resources for professional development or instructional materials. For this year, the
school has allocated over $124,000 for instructional materials – the Evidence Based
Model allocates a budget of $367,500 for a school of this size. Cactus Needle has a
professional development budget of about $71,000, a major disparity from the $210,000
the model would provide; the model would also provide ten days of professional
development training, six above the amount of days currently offered at Cactus Needle
High School. It is interesting to note that the resources that the school has allocated for
secretarial and clerical staff exceeds the levels called for by the Evidence Based Model
for a school of this size. Cactus Needle has 6 FTE school secretaries – the model
recommends 3.5; there is 14 FTE clerical staff at the school – the model only calls for
10.5. Even though the principal described his classified staff as being at ―bare bones‖
levels, the Evidence Based Model suggests otherwise with respect to office staff;
however, in areas such as non-instructional aides, this is obviously true.

276

Table A9
Comparison of Actual Resource use at Cactus Needle High School to the Evidence Based
Model
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Actual Cactus
Needle High
School Resources
Difference
between EBM
and Cactus
Needle High
School or EBM
suggested
amount for
Cactus Needle
School
School Characteristics
School Configuration 9-12 9-12
School Size 600 2,100
3.5 times
bigger
Core Class Size 25 32
7 more than
EBM
Number of teacher work
days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
185, including 5
in-service days
5 less in-
service days,
10 less school
days
Number Disabled
(w/IEP)
252 (12%)
Number Poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
1,260 (60%)
Number English Learner 504 (24%)
% Minority (non-white) 95.5%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers
24 per 600 students
(75% of FTEs)
60.6 FTE
(68.5% of FTEs)
EBM suggests
84 for 2,100
students
2. Specialist Teachers
8.0 per 600 students
(25% of FTEs)
27.8 FTE
(31.5% of FTEs)

EBM suggests
28
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
One for every 200
students
0
EBM suggests
10.5
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
0
EBM suggests
12.6

277

Table A9, Continued

5. Teachers for EL
students

An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students
5.8 FTE
EBM suggests
5 FTE
6. Extended Day
1 teacher for every 15
poverty students
(based on half the
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary

0 FTE Teachers

Tutorial period
during school day
is used for this
purpose
EBM suggests
10.5 teachers
7. Summer School

5.3 FTE Teachers
EBM suggests
10.5 teachers
School Characteristics
8. Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions for 600
students
10.4 FTE teachers
EBM suggests
14 teachers for
2,100 students
9. Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
3.8 FTE teachers Based on need
10. Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student

$11,000

17 sections of
AP/IB courses

.2 FTE IB
Coordinator

EBM suggests
funds of
$52,500
11. Vocational
Education
1/3 more per student
enrolled
7 FTE
Dependent
upon
enrollment
12. Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher
for illness and PN
No Difference

278

Table A9, Continued
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance per 250
students

1 FTE Nurse
3 FTE
Psychologists
1 FTE
Speech/Language

5.2 FTE
Counselors
EBM suggests
12.6 FTE
support staff
plus 8.4 FTE
counselors
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
3.0 to relieve teachers
and provide
supervision
3 FTE
EBM suggests
10.5

15. Librarians/media
specialists

1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library Tech
1 FTE Librarian
0 Library Techs
EBM suggests
3.5 Librarians
and 3.5 Techs
16. Principal
1 Principal and 1
Assistant Principals
1 Principal, 1
Learning Director
and 3 Assistant
Principals
EBM
Suggests 1
Principal and
3.5 Assistant
Principals
17. School Site
Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
6 FTE Secretaries
and 14 FTE
Clerical
EBM suggests
3.5 Secretaries
and 10.5
Clerical
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.

4 days per year
devoted to PD
activities
Collaboration 26
times per year for
30 minutes
$71,526 for other
PD expenses
EBM suggests
10 days PD in
summer and
$210,000 for
other PD
expenses.

279

Table A9, Continued
19. Technology $250 per pupil
1 FTE Network
Technician

2 FTE Lab Techs
EBM suggests
$525,000
20. Instructional
Materials
$175 per pupil $124,000
EBM suggests
$367,500
21. Student Activities $250 per pupil
1 FTE ASB
Director and
Athletic Director

1 section of
activities
EBM suggests
$525,000

Lessons Learned
Cactus Needle High School has failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress over the
past few years mainly due to the poor performance of its English Learners. The school
has taken many steps to reform its instructional and curricular programs during this time,
but the efforts have neither resulted in increased proficiency levels for this group on the
CAHSEE nor have they narrowed significant performance gaps between them and
Filipino students. Both the district and school have led reform efforts, but in Cactus
Needle’s case, it seems that the efforts to improve instruction are lacking in a few
different ways.
First, while the performance of EL students is the main reason why the school is
facing corrective action by the State of California, a specific strategy to impact the
instruction that is aimed at this student group is not present. Granted, the strategies
present at the school are probably beneficial for all students; however, the point is that the
280

school should probably pay particular attention to training staff on instructional
techniques that are known to benefit English Learners the most.
Second, it is doubtful that the principal and his administrative staff can improve
the instructional program without the help of coaches. Currently, the school has no
coaches to support the development of research based instructional strategies in the
classroom – the Evidence Based Model recommends that a school of this size have over
10 staff members dedicated to this task. The use of coaches would probably benefit the
instruction that is taking place Cactus Needle’s math classrooms the most, considering
that the overall percentage of students who have mastered the state’s standards in this
subject is just over 10%.
Finally, the Evidence Based Model suggests that the school’s resource allocation
is not consistent in its support of the instructional program. For example, EL students
have an adequate number of teachers working with them while Students with Disabilities
do not. The school has an adequate number of specialist teachers, but falls nearly 20 FTE
teachers short of the recommended amount of teachers in the core. The school has
chosen to trade extended learning opportunities for a tutorial period during the school
day; the model suggests that the prototypical school could have both of these features.
The Evidence Based Model could provide the school and its much-needed leadership
with the guidance necessary for providing the resources necessary to provide a quality
instructional program that has the resources to support it.

281

APPENDIX G
CASE STUDY: MALLVIEW HIGH SCHOOL
A Unique Configuration
Mallview High School is a comprehensive secondary school that serves nearly
1,750 students in grades 7-12 in the Pacific Highlands Unified School District, a
suburban Southern California School District. The school is located on a single campus,
and is broken into two divisions of students – a middle school that serves about 600
students in grades 7-8 and a high school with an enrollment of 1,150. For the most part,
the two divisions operate independently of one another - each division has separate
administrative staffs, support personnel, and resources, but shares some teachers and
classified staff as well as facilities. The primary reason for this school configuration is its
relatively low enrollment figures – the school district believes that this configuration is a
major cost saving measure.
This case study concentrates on the 9-12 division of the school, and relies upon
the information provided by its principal. Information about demographics, instructional
strategies, curriculum, resource allocation, and the like is reported with respect to this
division, not the school as a whole unless otherwise noted. It is also important to note
that the exception to this is the state performance data that is discussed in this case study
(AYP information, CST results, API scores, etc.) as this information is reported for the
school as a whole by the State of California. All references to Mallview High School
from this point forward refer to the 9-12 division of the school unless otherwise noted.
282

The principal of Mallview High School indicated that he and the principal of the
7-8 division of the school work very closely together, and share common instructional
visions and philosophies. They work very hard to maintain a program between the two
schools that is coherent – professional development efforts are common to both schools,
student expectations are shared, and there is good articulation with academic,
intervention, and extracurricular programs. The principal mentioned that, in his
experience, one of the biggest complaints of high school teachers is that the students that
they work with are not prepared well at feeder middle schools; because of Mallview’s 7-
12 configuration and culture of close collaboration, those sentiments have been
eliminated for the most part.
School and District Overview
Mallview’s demographics have changed significantly since 2000-2001, creating
many challenges for the teaching staff – Table A10 represents these changes.

283

Table A10

Student Demographics at Mallview High School Based, 2000-2001 to 2008-2009
Demographic 2000-2001
%*
2008-2009
%*
Difference
%
Hispanic/Latino 40 56 +16
White 41 28 -13
Asian 13 7 -6
Free/Reduced
Lunch
42 70 +28
English Learners 29 26 -3%
*Based upon enrolment in grades 7-12

Since 2000-2001, the percentages of White and Asian students have fallen
significantly while the amount of Hispanics or Latinos has become the predominant
student group. In addition to the changes ethnic demographics, the percentage of
students who qualify for Free or Reduced Lunch has risen from 42% to 70% during this
time span. The principal of Mallview indicated that these changing demographics have
been challenging for his staff to deal with as the needs of the students nearly a decade ago
are not what they are today.
In 2008, Mallview High School’s California Statewide Ranking was 6 out of 10;
its Similar Schools Ranking was a 5. Since 2004, the Statewide Ranking has fluctuated
between a 6 and 7, and the Similar Schools Ranking has dropped from a high of 7.
284

The Pacific Highlands Unified School District serves nearly 22,500 students in
grades K-12. The district currently operates 22 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, 4
high schools, and an alternative education high school. The district has also established
two small high schools (one will be closed in 2010) that have established partnerships
with local community colleges; students from throughout the district are allowed to apply
for admission to either one of these schools. Pacific Highlands also runs an extensive
adult education program that offers a variety of programs that include opportunities for
students to earn a GED, learn English, or develop work related skills.
The district primarily serves several communities that are the wealthiest areas in
the entire State of California, and the district’s overall demographics are similar to what
Mallview’s were a decade ago – 50% White, 42% Hispanic/Latino, and 4% Asian. For
the most part, the district’s schools are primarily White and Asian – it is only the
community where Mallview High School is located that has rapidly changing
demographics.
The Pacific Highlands Unified School District is not currently in Program
Improvement, although it is danger of earning that status. In both 2008 and 2009 several
student subgroups failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress; however, the district did not
achieve PI status since the same subgroups did not fail to meet proficiency targets both
years. The principal of Mallview High School indicated that district officials are very
concerned about becoming a PI district due to the stigma and negative publicity that this
label brings with it.
285

In 2005, the Pacific Highlands Unified School District barely passed a $282
million bond to improve the school facilities, and to provide much needed technological
upgrades. Mallview’s principal indicated that his school has benefitted tremendously
from the passage of this measure – several new classrooms were added to the campus, the
library and science labs were upgraded, and the infrastructure necessary to support the
expansion of technology was put into place.
The principal of Mallview has held that position at the school for 3 years, and has
worked in the Pacific Highlands Unified School District in various capacities (including
principal of a middle school) for 8 years. He works with a co-principal and two assistant
principals; the co-principal’s role at the school is to concentrate on building and
improving the school’s instructional program while the assistant principals spend much
of their time on managing the day to day operations of the school.

Program Improvement and Adequate Yearly Progress
Mallview High School is the only school in this study that has just recently
accepted Title 1 funds – the school began accepting this categorical money in 2007-2008.
It is important to note that even though all schools are expected to make Adequate Yearly
Progress, only schools that receive these funds face corrective actions when not meeting
performance criteria. Mallview is in its first year of Program Improvement as a result of
not making AYP in either of the two years since becoming a Title 1 school.

286

For high schools in California, AYP requires schools to:
1) Test 95% of all 10
th
graders and those in significant subgroups in both English
Language Arts and mathematics. In California the test used is the California High
School Exit Exam.
2) Of the students tested, a certain percentage of them each year must meet a specific
proficiency target.
3) The school’s overall Academic Performance Index must meet or exceed an
established minimum score or show an increase from one year to the next. In
2002, the minimum API score was 560; in 2009, that score was 650.
4) The graduation rate must be 83.1% or show an overall increase from one year to
the next or a positive overall two-year average change.
Because of Mallview’s configuration as a 7-12 school, 10
th
grade CAHSEE results are
not the only ones used to determine AYP – 7
th
and 8
th
grade scores on the California
Standards Tests for English Language Arts and mathematics also factor into the
computation.
Schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years become PI; similarly, in
order to escape PI status, schools must make AYP for two consecutive years. Table A11
below provides a summary of all of the available AYP data for Mallview High School.

287

Table A11
Mallview High School AYP Criteria, 2002-2009
Year
% Tested
Overall % Proficient
ELA
Subgroup %
Proficient ELA
Overall % Proficient
Math
Subgroup %
Proficient Math
API
Graduation Rate
Made AYP
2002 No Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A No*
2003 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes*
2004 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes*
2005 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes*
2006 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes*
2007 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes*
2008 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No
2009 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No
*Mallview High School did not receive Title 1 funds in these years

Prior to 2008, Mallview regularly made Adequate Yearly Progress, although this
may be a bit misleading. English Learners have not met the expected proficiency targets
since 2005; their performance did not count against the AYP determination for two years
due to the triggering of the Safe Harbor provision that has been put in place for schools
that make gains in student progress but do not meet the goal. In 2005, 31.5% of EL
students were proficient in English Language Arts – in the following year that figure
dropped to 21.2% and has yet to recover. In 2008 and 2009, most of Mallview’s at risk
288

subgroups (Hispanic/Latino, SED, and EL) missed the annual measurable objectives in
ELA or mathematics. In 2009, there were enough Students with Disabilities to qualify as
a subgroup; not surprisingly, their scores were the lowest of all student groups. Figure
G1 illustrates the proficiency rates for Mallview High School that are used to determine
AYP over the past several years.
All of the student subgroups have seen significant improvement in both subject
areas since 2002 – for example, Hispanic/Latino students have seen gains of over 25% in
ELA and mathematics. Scores school wide and for subgroups in ELA appear to have
leveled off since 2005, showing only minor increases since that year. This trend is not
reflected in the school’s mathematics achievements – performance in this subject area has
increased steadily every year since 2002.
Figure A10 makes it easy to see the significant achievement gaps that exist at
Mallview High School. White students are the highest performing students in this school
according to this measure, while English Learners are the lowest. As mentioned above,
Students with Disabilities only became a subgroup in 2009, but it is obvious that their
achievement (only 14% proficient in ELA, 8% in mathematics) is of major concern. The
performance gaps between white students and the Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
(SED) and Hispanic/Latino groups have dropped slightly in both subject areas; however
the difference between White students in English Learners has actually increased by
about 10% in both ELA and mathematics.

289

Figure A10
Mallview High School AYP Proficiency Rates, 2002-2009

The graduation rate at Mallview High School has shown a decrease over the past
several years as well (Table A12). Since 2000-2001, the percentage of students who have
earned a diploma from the school has dwindled from near perfection to 90%. The
principal described this trend as a result of a combination of factors including an alarming
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2002
(Target
11.2%)
2003
(Target
11.2%)
2004
(Target
11.2%)
2005
(Target
22.3%)
2006
(Target
22.3%)
2007
(Target
22.3%)
2008
(Target
33.4%)
2009
(Target
44.5%)
Percent Proficient - ELA
Overall Hispanic/Latino White
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2002
(Target
9.6%)
2003
(Target
9.6%)
2004
(Target
9.6%)
2005
(Target
20.9%)
2006
(Target
20.9%)
2007
(Target
20.9%)
2008
(Target
32.2%)
2009
(Target
43.5%)
Percent Proficient - Mathematics
Overall Hispanic/Latino White
SED English Learner Students with Disabilities
290

number of teachers who fail students at extremely high rates, a lack of credit recovery
options, and a failure on the part of the school to develop and implement an intervention
plan for students who struggle at school early on. He indicated that he is working closely
with the principal of the middle school division to establish a plan that includes academic
and social interventions for students beginning in 7
th
grade. He also discussed several
steps that his school has taken to increase the number of opportunities that are available
for students to recover units toward graduation that have been lost due to poor grades.
Table A12
Mallview High School Graduation Rates, 2000-2001 through 2007-2008
Class of Graduation Rate
2000-2001 97.9%
2001-2002 98.7%
2002-2003 97.5%
2003-2004 97.1%
2004-2005 96.1%
2005-2006 90.7%
2006-2007 90.7%
2007-2008 90.0%

California Standards Tests and Academic Performance Index
In 2009, overall student proficiency in English Language Arts, history, and
science as measured by the California Standards Tests was about 45%, while math scores
were around 36%. Figure A11 reveals that ELA and history achievement over the past
291

five years has been relatively flat, while mathematics scores have seen modest
improvement. Of the subjects assessed by the CSTs, science has posted the most
impressive gains, with student proficiency increasing from about 25% in 2005 to 47% in
2009. Mallview’s principal attributes this impressive result to a combination of good
teaching and good articulation with the middle school program.
Figure A11
Mallview High School CST Results, 2005-2006

20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
CST Results - All Students
ELA History
292

Figure A11, Continued

Figure A11also illustrates the performance of the school’s student subgroups on
the California Standards Tests for English Language Arts and mathematics over the last
five years. School wide and for all subgroups, the percentage of students earning
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
CST Results - ELA
Student Subgroups
Asian Hispanic/Latino
White SED
English Learners Students with Disabilities
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
CST Results - Mathematics
Student Subgroups
Asian Hispanic/Latino
White SED
English Learners Students with Disabilities
293

proficient scores in ELA have increased slightly during this time span. The achievement
of Hispanic/Latino and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students has increased by
about 8% since 2005. Students with Disabilities have failed to show any significant
increases in their scores.
Mathematics achievement has shown more significant increases since 2005, with
Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and SED students posting gains of more than 10 points; English
Learners increased their proficiency levels by about 8%. Interestingly, the mathematics
scores of White students improved the least during this time span, showing growth of
only about 3%. Finally, Students with Disabilities have actually seen a 4% drop in their
scores in this subject area.
Figure A11 also shows the performance gaps in student achievement that exist at
Mallview High School. Asian and White students are the highest performing student
groups in English Language Arts, while English Learners and Students with Disabilities
are the lowest achieving subgroups; Hispanic/Latino and SED students fall between these
groups. The performance gaps in mathematics tend to mirror those in ELA, with one
major exception – Asian are by far the highest performing students in the school,
outperforming Whites by a significant margin (22 point difference in 2009). The gap
between Asians and all other subgroups increased over the last five years; the gap
between Whites and all other subgroups excluding Asians and Students with Disabilities
decreased by an average of about 7 percentage points.
Figure A12 displays the Academic Performance Index scores for the entire school
and for each subgroup. Mallview’s API has only increased by about 25 points over the
294

past five years; the Hispanic/Latino and SED subgroups have shown the most
improvement, increasing 47 and 40 points respectively during that time span. The API
for Students with Disabilities has plummeted 76 points since they became a subgroup in
2006, while the score for English Learners has shown a mild decrease of 5 points.
Not surprisingly, Asian students have the highest API in the school, earning
scores well above 800 (the state’s goal for all schools and student groups) each year.
English Learners and Students with Disabilities are the lowest performing subgroups
based on this measure, although the difference between their achievement levels is
significant – EL students had an API score that was almost 200 points higher than
Students with Disabilities in 2009. The gap between the API scores for Asian students
and the White, Hispanic/Latino, and SED subgroups has decreased by 7, 26, and 33
points respectively since 2005; however, the disparity between Asians and English
Learners and Students with Disabilities has increased by 20 and 91 points respectively.

295

Figure A12
Mallview High School Academic Performance Index, 2005-2009

Instructional Improvement Program
A major part of Mallview’s efforts to raise student achievement has been the
establishment of Small Learning Communities (SLCs). The purpose of these academies
is to provide students with a strong connection to the school by providing them with a
common set of teachers who share the same mission and vision for student achievement.
Each of the four SLCs at Mallview has a central theme – currently, students can chose
from academies that emphasize visual and performing arts, business, medical careers, and
engineering. The principal indicated that the funding for these programs came from a
federal grant. The grant requires schools to establish collaborative teacher teams to
support student achievement within the SLCs, utilize data to evaluate the success of the
program, develop an intervention plan, and collaborate frequently.
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Mallview High School - Academic Performance Index
School Wide Asian Hispanic/Latino
White SED English Learners
Students with Disabilities
296

According to the principal, the implementation of these SLCs has been very
positive for both teachers and students. He shared that the SLCs have focused his
teachers on helping specific groups of students, and has established a sense of
accountability that did not exist in the past. Students who participate in the various
academies have also developed a positive bond with other students who share the same
interests as well as a core group of teachers who look out for their needs. He believes
that this structural reform will serve as the foundation for other improvement efforts.
The combination of changing demographics and Program Improvement has
forced the school to review how it goes about educating its students – especially those
who are underachieving. The sections below describe the strategies that have been put
into place to raise student achievement, support the learning of at risk students, and close
performance gaps.

Instructional Leadership
The principal indicated that his staff has adopted the Sheltered Instruction
Observation Protocol (SIOP) as a key strategy for improving the learning of all students,
but in particular that of English Learners. The SIOP model has the following
components:
 Lesson Preparation
 Building Background
 Comprehensible Input
297

 Strategies
 Interaction
 Practice/Application
 Lesson Delivery
 Review/Assessment
Each of the school’s teachers has received professional development from a consultant
about how to implement the model in their classrooms. The principal and his
administrative team frequently visit classrooms to determine how well the strategies are
being implemented, and take the time to follow up with feedback, returning more
frequently to the classrooms of teachers who are not meeting expectations. The
implementation of the SIOP model serves as the basis for much of the evaluation process
for teachers.
The principal has worked with his staff to ensure that they are differentiating
instruction appropriately to meet the needs of a wide range of students. He and his
administrative team provide the teachers with detailed information about their students
including their language fluency, test scores, disability status, and other pertinent
information; he expects the teachers to use this information to make sure that they take
specific steps to ensure that everyone learns the subject matter. Strategies to accomplish
this include utilizing formative assessments to guide the lesson, effective questioning
techniques, connecting with the prior knowledge of students, and cooperative learning.
298

At least two instructional strategies have emerged as the result of a grassroots
movement to improve on the part of the teachers. Many of Mallview’s teachers have
attended training sessions on the development of academic vocabulary – this refers to the
explicit teaching and review of terms that are vital to understanding a concept. These
teachers are working with other members of their departments to implement techniques to
build academic vocabulary that include strategies such as word walls, thinking maps, and
graphic organizers. The principal has indicated that the implementation of techniques to
build academic vocabulary have been widespread, and attributes this to the fact that it
was not a ―top down‖ effort.
Another strategy that the teachers have undertaken is the use of cross curricular
thematic instruction. The principal indicated that his English Language Arts and science
teachers have been working together to develop lessons that incorporate the standards
from both disciplines. Themes ranging from global warming to genetic research have
been taken on collaboratively by the departments with teachers working together to select
readings, design activities, and create multiple assessment measures.
The principal described the use of technology as being an important aide to
improving instruction. Classrooms are well equipped with state of the art hardware that
makes it easy for teachers to present information in a variety of ways and for students to
interact with it. Every teacher at Mallview has both a desktop and laptop computer
provided to them with the most recent office software installed. Almost every classroom
is equipped with a document camera, smart board, and digital projector. Using the bond
money from 2005, the school has established a half a dozen computer labs throughout the
299

campus that provide access to a variety of computer software to support the core
academic areas. Finally, a group of teachers applied for and received a grant to purchase
a student response system known as Qwizdom; they have used this technology in the core
academic areas to help formatively gauge student learning throughout a lesson.

Curriculum
The district’s teachers have developed pacing guides for each of the core
academic areas of English Language Arts, mathematics, history, and science. The pacing
guides are based upon the standards established for each course by the State of
California, and are frequently reviewed by district committees. When the guides were
created, the teachers identified the key standards that are the most important for students
to master in each subject area as well as the ones that are the most frequently assessed on
the CSTs. The principal indicated that he believes that the pacing guides are being
adhered to in all of his classrooms.
The district has also developed quarterly benchmark assessments to monitor
student progress toward the standards throughout the school year. These assessments are
closely tied to the pacing guides, and are also modified periodically as needed. The
results of these exams can be scanned into a student information system for analysis by
teachers and administrators. The principal indicated that his teachers are very good about
analyzing the data from the benchmark exams, and that this is a frequent topic during the
school’s collaboration time. He did stress that he is concerned that these discussions do
not always lead to changes in teacher behavior. The principal expressed a concern that
300

his teachers are not always re-teaching concepts that the students did not understand or
that they may not change their strategies based upon student results.
The leader of Mallview High School stated that each of his teachers has access to
the instructional materials that have been adopted by the district’s board of trustees; these
materials are also approved for use by the State of California. He believes that the
teachers in each core department are faithfully implementing the programs (particularly
in ELA and mathematics) that include textbooks, ancillary materials, and web based
support features. Teachers supplement the adopted programs with other resources that
support student mastery of the standards such as films, computer software, and novels.
The principal feels that it is important for his teachers to have the flexibility to utilize
outside resources to support the shortcomings of the instructional materials that are
approved for their courses.
The principal mentioned that there seems to be a major disconnect between
student performance data and the grades that they receive. He indicated that a number of
students have made progress toward the standards in the core academic areas as measured
by the quarterly benchmark exams and the CSTs but are earning failing grades in the
respective courses. This is of utmost concern due to the impact that this has on the school
and district graduation rates, as well as the scarce resources that are necessary to deal
with students who fall behind. The principal believes that his teachers place too much
emphasis on homework, class participation, and other vague accountability measures
when crafting their grades. In order to improve this situation, he is making the teachers
in each department aware of their failure rates and ordering that they develop a plan to
301

combat student failures. The elements of these plans should include: grading criteria that
is primarily based upon assessment results, common grading schemes, and support for
students who are not successful as soon as they are identified.

English Language Arts
For a while, Mallview High School offered Read 180 to students whose reading
levels were more than two years behind where they should have been. The principal
cited that this program ―died‖ due to the costs associated with the site license required to
offer the program as well as the maintenance of the technology required to operate the
program contributed to Read 180’s downfall at Mallview.
At this time, there are no instructional programs in place to assist students who
are underperforming in the subject are of English Language Arts. The principal did
indicate that his teachers have been focused on improving writing skills in all of their
classes, in particular 10
th
grade due to the writing portion of the CAHSEE. He indicated
that the materials being used to build writing skills were developed by the teachers, and
that the resources for writing (sample writing prompts, rubrics, etc.) made available by
the California Department of Education are being utilized.

Mathematics
Mallview High School’s lowest math course offering is Algebra 1 – this causes
problems for students who may enter the school with skills inadequate for this level of
math. In order to make the most of this situation, Mallview offers two algebra sequences
302

to students based upon their skill levels. Students who do not possess the prerequisite
skills for Algebra 1 take the course over two years, while more advanced students follow
a traditional one year path. For the students who take the two year sequence,
advancement to a higher level math courses is nonexistent – these students take two years
of algebra and then a business math course in order to meet the three years of math
required to earn a diploma.
Some Algebra 1 students receive additional support in the form of an extra class.
The principal indicated that much of the content of this course involves the use of the
web based ALEKS program. ALEKS is a program that was developed by researchers
from the New York University and the University of California, Irvine. This software is
connected to the California standards for mathematics, and utilizes tutorials and
assessments to pinpoint student strengths and weaknesses. Once ALEKS determines the
abilities of each student, an online instructional program is developed to fill in knowledge
gaps and move the student toward mastery of the standards. The principal indicated that
the use of ALEKS has been a major success at the school so far.

English Learners
For students who are still beginning to learn how to speak, read, and write
English, Mallview High School offers them multiple periods of instruction through the
English Language Development (ELD) program. The ELD courses at Mallview utilize a
state approved curriculum that is geared to build English fluency within three to four
303

years. Students at all levels who are attempting to learn English are provided with an
additional course designed to specifically build and or strengthen reading skills.
Mallview does not offer any sheltered courses in the core academic areas of
mathematics, history, or science for English Learners who may require support to access
the curriculum. The principal indicated that these courses used to be offered at his
school, but were eliminated due to internal politics. He stated that he hopes to offer
sheltered courses in mathematics and English Language Arts (for those ELs who do not
require ELD courses) in the near future.
Finally, the principal indicated that through the school’s collaboration time, the
teachers who work primarily with English Learners assist their colleagues who teach core
subjects with implementing strategies that are known to improve the learning of these
students. He mentioned that this approach to improving instruction for English Learners
has been successful because of its informal approach. Teachers in the core enjoy
working with their peers on issues such as this instead of typical top down approaches to
reform.

Special Education
The majority of Mallview High School’s Students with Disabilities are educated
in general education environments with their non-disabled peers. The school has
established a collaborative model to support the students who are enrolled in general
education courses – special education teachers and instructional aides are assigned to
work with Students with Disabilities in the general education classes by providing one on
304

one or small group support when necessary. In some cases, the special education teacher
is actually responsible for co-teaching the course with the other instructor. The principal
stated that he would like to see more co-teaching relationships developed in the future,
mentioning that some of his special education teachers feel as though they are acting as
highly paid instructional aides.
The remaining students receive their core academic instruction in special
education versions of the courses – i.e. English 1, 2, 3, 4, Algebra 1, World History, etc.
Mallview’s principal stated that he feels that these courses are fairly well aligned with
their general education counterparts – they utilize the same pacing guides and
instructional materials. He did indicate however that the teachers of these classes have to
adapt these tools to meet the low skill levels of their students to a great extent.
It is important to note that the principal expressed great concern over the
relationship between the number of Students with Disabilities enrolled at his school and
the need to make Adequate Yearly Progress. Mallview currently hosts a number of
special education programs for students with specific needs – 5 FTE teachers are
assigned to work with visually impaired, deaf/hard of hearing, emotionally disturbed, and
severely handicapped students. As a result of the district’s decision to house these
programs at Mallview, the number of special education students was enough to qualify as
a significant subgroup of students. The principal stated that this development has been
positive from the perspective that light has been shined on the extremely low
achievement levels of Student with Disabilities; however, he is worried that his school
305

will face sanctions in the future because developing and implementing a comprehensive
plan to help these students will take more than two years.

CAHSEE Specific Interventions
For 11
th
and 12
th
grade students who have not passed the CAHSEE, the school
provides weekend and after school tutorial sessions. The instructional materials for these
classes include practice tests and released questions provided by the California State
Department of Education, as well as test preparation materials from a private company.
The school receives categorical money to provide these courses to students who have not
passed the exam.
For 10
th
grade students, a CAHSEE ―boot camp‖ is provided in English and
algebra courses. Beginning at least two weeks prior to the administration of the exam,
teachers in each of these subjects spend most of their time preparing their students for the
CAHSEE using materials made available from the California Department of Education.
In past years, the school’s teachers have been trained to show students test taking
techniques such as eliminating choices and informed guessing – this is also a key
emphasis of the boot camp period. As mentioned above, English teachers have also
focused on building writing skills in their 10
th
grade courses.

Professional Development and Collaboration
The school district provides six days of professional development time for
teachers; however, only two of these days are actually used specifically for this purpose.
306

The other remaining days are to be used at the discretion of the teachers and the
departments that they belong to. Mallview’s principal stated that he determines the
content of the administrative led days, but works closely with his department leaders to
make sure that they have an opportunity to express concerns and ask questions.
Forty five minutes of collaboration time is built into the school schedule on a
weekly basis. The principal indicated that the use of this time is left to the departments;
however, he reviews their agendas, minutes, and participates directly in some of the
meetings. He stated that he feels as though this time is being used wisely, and that most
departments focus these meetings on analyzing data, discussing articulation between
grade levels and subjects, as well as department business. The principal added that some
of the professional development time is used for working with the teachers and
departments of the middle school division of the campus.

Data Use
Teachers at Mallview High School have access to a student data management
system called Data Director. This system allows teachers to access, review, and
manipulate their students’ assessment and demographic data. The system has the ability
to receive local assessment data and present it in a format that is easy for teachers to
analyze. The principal believes that his teachers are utilizing this tool on a regular basis
to evaluate student progress.

307

Parent Involvement
Involving parents in their student’s education has become a major priority at
Mallview High School, and the school has initiated several programs to reach out to
families. The guidance department offers quarterly parent education evenings that are
designed to inform the community about the vital aspects of secondary education –
graduation criteria, college entrance requirements, academic support, resources, and the
like. These sessions are available in the home languages of the parents, and have been
well attended.
In addition to parent education, Mallview requires the parents of students with
multiple failing grades to attend informational meetings. These meetings occur three
times per year, and provide parents with information about tutoring, strategies to motivate
their students, and ways that they can monitor their student’s progress more closely. The
principal indicated that parent participation at these meetings has also been very good,
but expressed concern about the growing number of families invited to attend.
Falling in line with the school’s technology focus, Mallview communicates with
parents using a program known as School Loop. This web based program allows parents
to create an account and login to view their student’s attendance and grades in real time –
about 80% of Mallview’s families utilize this feature. Teachers also utilize School Loop
as a tool to communicate with parents. The program allows them to post homework
online, email grades and progress updates on a regular basis, and be accessible to parents
when necessary.

308

Instructional Time
For the most part, Mallview does not offer additional instructional time during the
school day to help students meet the standards. The school does offer support before and
after school as part of its intervention program. With the exception of Wednesdays
which are late start days for students due to the staff collaboration time, the school
follows a traditional six period bell schedule, with each class lasting about an hour.

Intervention Plan
In order to support struggling students, the school has adopted a comprehensive
intervention program known as ―ZAP‖ – Zeroes Are Not Permitted. This program started
as a measure to deal with the large number of students who were failing courses due to
not completing homework on a regular basis, but has seen its scope widened to include
students who are struggling to learn the content as well. At the heart of this program is a
tutoring program that is available to students before and after school for about two hours
per day; up to 20 teachers throughout the core are available for those who need
assistance. Those students who have missing assignments or need to complete classroom
assessments are assigned to attend the tutorial sessions. One on one instruction is usually
available to students who attend on a regular basis.
Credit Recovery
In the past, summer school has been an important option for students looking to
recover lost units for graduation; however, due to the financial crisis, the district’s
summer school program has been dramatically reduced, forcing each high school to
309

develop a plan to take its place during the school year. Mallview High School currently
offers a few sections of credit recovery classes to 11
th
and 12
th
grade students who are in
danger of not graduating. Using online programs, these classes provide students with an
opportunity to recover a significant amount of units throughout a semester. The district
also allows students to earn units through online programs offered by various accredited
universities or local community colleges.
For students who cannot graduate even with the help of these credit recovery
courses, the district operates an alternative education program that offers a traditional
continuation high school as well as an independent study program. The principal
indicated that part of the reason why his school developed the credit recovery courses
was due to the lack of space in the district’s programs.
9
th
Grade “Academy”
As described above, Mallview High School is known for its small learning
communities. In an effort to provide support to at risk 9
th
graders, the school has
established an informal academy that is targeted at providing this group of students with
mentorship opportunities. The school’s counselors and a number of teachers periodically
meet with these students to make sure that they are on the right path by monitoring their
attendance, grades, and communicating with their parents. The school’s student
leadership also provides peer mentorship in order to help ease the transition from the
middle school division.

310

AVID
Mallview High School offers several sections of the AVID program to help
support students who have the potential to attend a four-year university. The AVID
program makes use of college students from local schools to assist with the program.
The principal reports that the AVID program has been a big success in terms of helping
make students and community members aware of how to prepare for college. The AVID
strategies (Cornell note taking, classroom inquiry techniques, etc.) are currently utilized
throughout the campus, and have received much needed buy in from all teachers.

The Impact of the Financial Crisis and Federal Dollars
The principal of Mallview High School reported that the most significant impact
that the financial crisis has had on his school has been in the area of class size. He stated
that class sizes in the core have traditionally been close to a 26:1 ratio; in order to reduce
costs, this figure has climbed closer to 30:1. The principal is worried that the student-
teacher ratio will continue to climb as a result of the reduction in funds that the district is
receiving to educate students; when combined other factors such as changing
demographics and the Program Improvement label, this is the wrong time to raise class
sizes if the goal is to close achievement gaps and increase student mastery of the
standards.
Other than rising class sizes, Mallview has not been directly affected in any
significant way by the current financial climate to date, although that may change in the
near future. The principal indicated that the Pacific Highlands Unified School District
311

has informed him that personnel reductions, particularly amongst the classified staff and
new teachers, are on the horizon – he is very concerned about the impact that this will
have on his ability to improve student test scores. At this point, a reduction in the
school’s teaching and support staff has not occurred.
The principal mentioned that he has not experienced a major reduction in the
budget that he is given to operate his school; however, he made it clear that this does not
necessarily mean that all is fine with the district’s finances. He explained that the district
controls the exact amount of money that he is provided to work with, and that the amount
of money that he receives has always been much lower than what the school is probably
entitled to. In essence, the district has always ―low balled‖ the amount of money given to
Mallview High School, so the financial crisis has had little felt affect with respect to this
issue.
It is worth noting that Mallview’s principal discussed for some time the impact
that the financial crisis has had on the morale around his campus. The previous year, all
temporary and probationary teachers received Reduction in Force (RIF) notices from the
district – these notices essentially inform staff that they may not have a position for the
upcoming school year. Even though the district, rescinded almost all of these notices, the
damage was done – a feeling of uneasiness and uncertainty settled into the campus. As a
result, much of the principal’s time has been spent reassuring people about the future and
trying to keep them focused on working with the students.
The principal indicated that federal State Fiscal Stabilization Funds that the
district received as part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act have not been
312

provided to the school. He indicated that the district kept all of this money in an effort to
save as certificated and classified positions as possible and balance the budget.

Resource Comparison to the Evidence Based Model
Table A13 compares the current resource allocation patterns of Mallview High
School with the prototypical plan called for by the Evidence Based Model. The third
column of the table describes the difference between the actual resource use and what the
model recommends. As one will find, Mallview High School falls well short of the
model’s suggestions in most areas. In the area of overall staffing, for example, the model
calls for a school of this size to have about 46 FTE teachers in the academic core –
Mallview has 28. Interestingly, the school is staffed close to the level specified by the
Evidence Based Model for specialist teachers; the school has 11.6 FTE specialist teachers
compared to the recommended 14.2 FTE. Finally, the Evidence Based Model calls for
core class sizes of approximately 25-1; this school has class sizes closer to 30-1.
Mallview does not have an adequate number of teachers working with the most at risk
student groups – English Learners and Students with Disabilities. In both cases, the
number of educators assigned to work with these students is about half of the level
specified by the Evidence Based Model. With regards to providing support for all
students, the school also does not have enough guidance counselors – 3 FTE counselors
are available to students, falling short of the 4.6 called for by the model. The school has
1.4 FTE teachers released as instructional facilitators or mentors, but it is important to
313

note that they really do not do much to improve the instructional program. As a part of
the grant application for funding the small learning communities, release time had to be
provided to teachers to oversee the operations of each academy. Even though the
teachers released for these duties do work with the administration to support teachers in
the classroom, their time is mainly spent handling matters having to do with operating the
program. Curiously, the resources provided for the school’s secretarial and clerical staff
match are the only area that is compares favorably to those described by the Evidence
Based Model. The school currently has 2 secretaries and 7 clerical staff – the exact
number recommended for secretaries and higher than the 5.8 FTE for clerical personnel.
Finally, it is important to note that the school does not have a professional development
budget. The principal indicated that the district has ordered that no money be spent on
consultants, conferences, release time, or related expenses without going through an
arduous approval process. He stated that if such things are approved, they must be paid
for out of available categorical monies.

314

Table A13
Comparison of Actual Resource Use at Mallview High School to the Evidence Based
Model

EBM Prototypical
High School
Actual Cactus
Mallview High
School Resources
Difference
between EBM
and Mallview
High School or
EBM suggested
amount for
Mallview High
School
School Characteristics
School Configuration 9-12 7-12
This is a 7-12
school with two
district
divisions – a
middle school
(7
th
and 8
th
) and
a high school.

The Data for
this comparison
is from the high
school division.
School Size 600 1,150
1.9 times
bigger
Core Class Size 25 30
5 more than
EBM
Number of teacher work
days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
186, including 6
in-service days
4 less in-
service days,
10 less school
days
Number Disabled
(w/IEP)
150 (13%)
Number Poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
805 (70%)
Number English Learner 299 (26%)
% Minority (non-white) 71.6%

315

Table A13, Continued
Personnel Resources

1. Core Teachers

24 per 600 students
(75% of FTEs)
28
(71% of FTEs)
EBM suggests
46 for 1,150
students
2. Specialist Teachers
8.0 per 600 students
(25% of FTEs)
11.6
(29% of FTEs)
EBM suggests
15.3 for 1,150
students
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
One for every 200
students
1.4 FTE
EBM suggests
5.8
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
0
EBM suggests
8
5. Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students
1.4
EBM suggests
3 FTE
6. Extended Day
1 teacher for every 15
poverty students
(based on half the
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary

1.3
EBM Suggests
13.4 Teachers
7. Summer School

Summer School is
not offered at this
school
EBM Suggests
13.4 Teachers
School Characteristics

8. Learning & mild
disabled students

Additional 4
professional teacher
positions for 600
students
4 FTE
EBM suggests
7.6 teachers for
1,150 students

9. Severely disabled
students

100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
5 FTE Based on need
10. Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
$0

10 sections of AP
courses
EBM suggests
funds of
$28,750

316

Table A16, Continued

11. Vocational
Education

1/3 more per student
enrolled
1.2 FTE
Dependent
upon
enrollment

12. Substitutes

10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher
for illness and PN
No Difference
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance per 250
students

.6 FTE Nurse
1 FTE Health Clerk
1 FTE
Psychologists
.4 FTE
Speech/Language

3 FTE Counselors

EBM suggests
8 FTE support
staff plus 4.6
FTE counselors

14. Non-Instructional
Aides

3.0 to relieve teachers
and provide
supervision
3 FTE
EBM suggests
5.8
15. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library Tech
1 FTE Librarian
1 Library Techs
EBM suggests
2 Librarians
and 2 Library
Techs
16. Principal 1 Principal
1 Principal, 3
Assistant Principals
EBM suggests
1 principal and
2 Assistant
Principals
17. School Site
Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
2 Secretaries and 7
Clerical
EBM suggests
2 Secretaries
and 5.8 Clerical

317

Table A16, Continued
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
6 days per year
devoted to PD
activities
Collaboration
every Wednesday
for 45 minutes
No money
budgeted at this
point. Categorical
funds used as
needed.
EBM suggests
10 days PD in
summer and
$115,000 for
other PD
expenses.
19. Technology $250 per pupil
1 FTE network
technician

1 FTE computer
lab aide
EBM suggests
$287,500
20. Instructional
Materials
$175 per pupil $120,000
EBM suggests
$201,250
21. Student Activities $250 per pupil
$55,000

2 FTE
Athletics/Activities
EBM suggests
$287,500

Lessons Learned
Mallview High School provides a fascinating lesson for all California educators.
The school has gone from being a suburban high school serving mostly White students to
one that is primarily Hispanic/Latino; along with the change in the ethnic composition of
the student body has come other challenges such as poverty, significant numbers of
students still learning English, and a decreased parent education level. Located in a part
of California that is surrounded by some of the most expensive real estate and wealth in
the country, Mallview High School’s situation is in many ways a glimpse into what the
318

future may be like twenty years from now throughout the Golden State. All California
educators should take heed of the challenges that this school is facing as well as its
approach to dealing with them.
In order to improve its instructional program, Mallview’s administration and staff
have taken the following key actions described in detail throughout this case study:
 An instructional model (SIOP) is in place throughout the school.
 Data is being used to make decisions
 The staff collaborates regularly.
 An intervention program is in place to support struggling students.
 The school has been structured into a few Small Learning Communities.
It is easy to see that quite a bit of work has been done to reform this school; however, is
this the right work?
Despite the efforts that have taken place in the past several years, student
proficiency levels on the CAHSEE that are used to determine AYP have not seen much
growth; CST scores have gone up in most areas, but performance gaps still exist; the
graduation rate is falling. There is a disconnect at this school between the reform efforts
that have been undertaken and the results that are expected – perhaps part of the answer
lies in what is not happening at the school. For example, at this point in time, the school
does not offer any assistance to students who are behind grade level in English Language
Arts. The school has embraced restructuring into Small Learning Communities,
collaboration time, and plans to assist at risk students, but has not improved the use of its
319

instructional time to support kids during the school day. Finally, the intervention plan
that is in place seems to be more focused on work completion than providing instruction
to increase student mastery. It seems as though Mallview’s reform plans need to be
refocused on student learning outcomes and coordinated to achieve specific results.
The Evidence Based Model also provides some insight into what the school could
be doing to raise student achievement. Resources for supporting English Learners and
Students with Disabilities are not adequate; it will be difficult to raise achievement levels
for these students without more staff dedicated to working with them. The Evidence
Based Model calls for instructional facilitators and mentors that work directly with
teachers on implementing instructional strategies – the school could desperately use the
5.8 FTE teachers recommended by the model to act as coaches; the current 1.4 FTE
teachers that the school currently has do not focus enough on instruction. Finally, class
sizes at the high school are moving in the wrong direction due to the financial crisis. The
Evidence Based Model calls for core class sizes to have a ratio of 25:1 in comparison to
Mallview’s 30:1 allocation; it will be difficult for the teachers there to improve
instruction for all students with class size rising at a time when an academic crisis is
developing.

320

APPENDIX H
CASE STUDY: ZAMBONI HIGH SCHOOL
A Unique Configuration
Zamboni High School is a comprehensive high school that serves nearly 4,700
students in grades 9-12 in the Iceland Unified School District, an urban Southern
California school district. The school has one of the more unique configurations in the
study as it is one campus that is split into two distinct divisions. The first division of the
campus exclusively serves about 1,200 9
th
graders while the other works with nearly
3,500 students in grades 10-12. The primary reason for this configuration is the immense
size of the high school student body – years ago, district officials decided that a true 9-12
configuration with an enrollment of this size would be too unwieldy to manage for one
administrative team. As a result, both divisions have their own administrative staffs,
counseling departments, classified staffs, and the like. Due to the nature of high schools,
some resources such as fields, courses like band, and student organizations are shared
between the two divisions; however, for the most part, the two divisions operate
independently of one another despite the fact that the State of California views this as one
large comprehensive high school serving students in grades 9-12.
This case study concentrates on the 10-12 division of the high school, and relies
upon the information provided by its principal. Information about demographics,
instructional strategies, curriculum, resource allocation, and the like is reported with
respect to this division, not the school as a whole unless otherwise noted. It is also
important to note that the exception to this is the state performance data that is presented
321

in this case study (AYP information, CST results, API scores, etc.) as this information is
reported for the school as a whole by the State of California. All references to Zamboni
High School from this point forward refer to the 10-12 division of the school unless
otherwise noted.
The principal of Zamboni High School indicated that there is little collaboration
with the principal of the 9
th
grade division. Their relationship can be described as the
relationship between a middle school principal and a high school principal in a unified
district – they know each other, are cordial, but may have very little in common with
respect to instructional philosophy, approach to helping struggling students, leadership
traits, et cetera. Many of the troubles with this school configuration will be discussed
throughout this case study.

School and District Overview
83% of Zamboni’s students are Hispanic/Latino, 11% are African American, and
2.4% are White. 93% of the school’s student body qualifies for Free/Reduced Lunch,
and 26% are classified as English Learners. According to information gathered by the
state’s testing program, a high school diploma is reported to be the highest level of
educational achievement for about 27% of the parents of Zamboni students; likewise 50%
are reported to have never finished high school.
In 2008, Zamboni High School’s California Statewide Ranking was 3 out of 10;
its Similar Schools Ranking was an 8. The Statewide Ranking in 2004 was a 2, and
322

climbed as high as 4 in 2006 and 2007. The Similar Schools Ranking over the last
several years has fluctuated between 8 and 9.
The Iceland Unified School District serves nearly 16,000 students in grades K-12.
The district currently operates 10 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, 1 high school, as
well as a continuation high school, and a community day school. In the past, the school
district did not have traditional middle schools. Instead, the district served students in
grades K-8 in schools of various configurations: K-8, K-3, and 4-8. The Iceland Unified
School District also maintains an extensive adult education program that offers classes
for adults to earn a GED, learn English, or work related skills – these courses are offered
in traditional classroom settings as well as online. Iceland is in its second year of being
recognized as Program Improvement. In 2009, the district did not meet the performance
target for all students and significant subgroups in English Language Arts. Students with
Disabilities met the goal in ELA that year through AYP’s Safe Harbor provision (a
significant increase in student proficiency from one year to the next, but not enough to
meet the goal) but did not meet the target for mathematics; however, this subgroup has
failed to meet proficiency goals in both subject areas throughout the years.
In 2006, the district passed a $100 million bond to renovate its schools. Zamboni
High School has benefited greatly from this infusion of money – most of the school’s
classrooms have been upgraded, new labs for science classes have been installed, and
facilities like the gymnasium and stadium have been greatly improved.
This is the first principal position that the leader of Zamboni High School has held
– he has been in this capacity for nearly two years, coming from an outside district. He
323

indicated that being a new principal coming from out of district has forced him to work
hard at building trust and credibility with the staff. He leads the school with the
assistance of four assistant principals, two of whom are new to the school. The previous
principal served the school for over ten years, and had an administrative team that was in
place for almost as long. This has also proven to be a challenge for the new principal to
deal with as many of the staff was hired by the former principal and had a great
relationship with him. Reforming the school has meant breaking from practices and
beliefs that the previous administration established over a long period of time –
something that is proving to be a real challenge for the new principal and his leadership
team.
Program Improvement and Adequate Yearly Progress
Zamboni High School is in its third year of Program Improvement status, having
earned the designation in 2009 by failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress for two
consecutive years. For high schools in California, AYP requires schools to:
1) Test 95% of all 10
th
graders and those in significant subgroups in both English
Language Arts and mathematics. In California the test used is the California High
School Exit Exam.
2) Of the students tested, a certain percentage of them each year must meet a specific
proficiency target.
3) The school’s overall Academic Performance Index must meet or exceed an
established minimum score or show an increase from one year to the next. In
2002, the minimum API score was 560; in 2009, that score was 650.
324

4) The graduation rate must be 83.1% or show an overall increase from one year to
the next or a positive overall two-year average change.
Schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years become PI; similarly, in order to
escape PI status, schools must make AYP for two consecutive years. Table H1 below
provides a summary of all of the available AYP data for Zamboni High School.
In 2008, Zamboni High School met school wide proficiency targets in both ELA
and mathematics, but most of its student groups did not. African Americans, English
Learners, and Students with Disabilities did not meet the goal in ELA that year; Students
with Disabilities and EL students did not meet the goal in mathematics, although enough
EL students improved from the previous year to invoke the Safe Harbor provision. The
school’s graduation rate was also not sufficient to make AYP in 2008.

325

Table A14:

Zamboni High School AYP Criteria, 2002-2009
Year
% Tested
Overall % Proficient
ELA
Subgroup %
Proficient ELA
Overall % Proficient
Math
Subgroup %
Proficient Math
API
Graduation Rate
Made AYP
2002 Yes Yes Yes No No N/A N/A No
2003 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
2004 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2005 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2006 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2007 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2008 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No
2009 Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No

In 2009, Zamboni did not meet the proficiency target in English Language Arts
school-wide or for any subgroups; Zamboni did meet the school wide goal in
mathematics, but its African American and EL subgroups did not. There were not
enough Students with Disabilities in 2009 to count as a subgroup of students as in 2008 –
if there were, they would not have met the required proficiency levels in either subject
area. The graduation rate used to determine AYP in 2009 improved enough to be
considered sufficient.
326

Figure A13 illustrates the proficiency rates for Zamboni High School that are used
to determine AYP over the past several years. Since the major gains in ELA that all of
the school’s subgroups realized between 2002 and 2003, student achievement in this
subject area has been flat over the years. Overall proficiency only increased about 6%
since 2003 – a trend mirrored by the subgroups with the exception of African American
and EL students whose performance actually decreased. Student performance in
mathematics also looks similar to that in English Language Arts. In this subject area,
major gains were realized between 2003 and 2004, but since then student achievement
has only increased by a moderate amount over the years. Overall proficiency in
mathematics increased by about 9% since 2004 – a trend mirrored by the subgroups with
the exception of African American and EL students whose performance increased by
only half as much.
Figure A13
Zamboni High School AYP Proficiency Rates, 2002-2009

10
20
30
40
50
2002
(Target
11.2%)
2003
(Target
11.2%)
2004
(Target
11.2%)
2005
(Target
22.3%)
2006
(Target
22.3%)
2007
(Target
22.3%)
2008
(Target
33.4%)
2009
(Target
44.5%)
Percent Proficient - ELA
Overall Hispanic/Latino
African American SED
English Learner Students with Disabilities
327

As mentioned above, Zamboni High School failed to meet the graduation rate
required to make AYP in 2008; the Iceland Unified School District also failed to meet the
graduation rate that year. Table A15 outlines the graduation rate that Zamboni High
School has achieved between the 2000-2001 and 2007-2008 school years. Since 2005,
the school’s graduation rate has consistently declined falling to its lowest level in 2008 –
80.5% (the federal minimum was 83.1%). As a result of this disturbing trend, the district
has initiated a comprehensive review of its grading policies, credit recovery options, and
alternative education programs.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2002 (Target
9.6%)
2003 (Target
9.6%)
2004 (Target
9.6%)
2005 (Target
20.9%)
2006 (Target
20.9%)
2007 (Target
20.9%)
2008 (Target
32.2%)
2009 (Target
43.5%)
Percent Proficient - Mathematics
Overall Hispanic/Latino
African American SED
English Learner Students with Disabilities
328

Table A15
Zamboni High School Graduation Rates, 2000-2001 through 2007-2008
Class of Graduation Rate
%
2000-2001 86.9
2001-2002 89.2
2002-2003 86.5
2003-2004 85.7
2004-2005 86.1
2005-2006 83.7
2006-2007 72.6
2007-2008 80.5

The principal indicated that at least part of the problem has to do with the manner
in which students are evaluated by their teachers. Around 2004, the Iceland Unified
School District made a strong push to align student grades to proficiency levels, and
developed a grading format that established rubrics for student performance. Essentially,
this format was equivalent to offering traditional grades of A, B, C, and F only,
eliminating the grade of D; there was a strong emphasis on not giving a passing grade to
students who did not meet or come close to meeting the state’s education standards. As a
result of this drive, the student failure rate skyrocketed, leading to the massive drop in
graduation rate four years later.
329

The district recognized this problem as it was developing, and changed it within a
couple of years, but the damage was done. The principal indicated that much of his staff
is still in the mindset of not passing students if they are not proficient on the state
standards – considering the deficiencies that many of Zamboni’s students enroll in the
school with, they are destined to fail under this line of thinking. Much of the school
leader’s time is spent talking with his teachers and working with his departments to
develop grading criteria that considers the progress that students have made toward the
standards as well as multiple assessment measures.
The principal of Zamboni High School also cited the lack of alternative education
options in the district as a reason for the dropping graduation rate. The district’s
continuation high school has failed to expand to accommodate the numbers of students
(especially 11
th
graders) who are in need of an alternative setting to recover lost
graduation units.

California Standards Tests and Academic Performance Index
Student performance on the California Standards Tests has not improved by a
significant amount over the past five years; although achievement in ELA, History, and
mathematics has increased, scores have only climbed 5%-8% in each of those subjects
and is still relatively low overall. The proficiency level for all students in ELA, history,
and mathematics in 2009 was 34.8%, 26.8%, and 25% respectively. Student results in
science have actually decreased during this time span, falling from about 28% of students
earning proficient to 21%. Figure H2 illustrates Zamboni High School’s results for all
330

students as well as subgroup performance in ELA and mathematics between 2005 and
2009.
It is easy to notice that there was a major drop in the percentage of students
earning proficient marks on the CST for science in 2006. The principal indicated that
2006 was the first year that the school began offering the Integrated Science CST to
major numbers of students. This exam is known to be quite difficult (only 14% of
students in the state were proficient in 2009) and assesses a broad range of science
knowledge, including concepts from biology, chemistry, and physics. In each of the last
five years, less than 7% of the students who took this exam at Zamboni High School
earned proficient scores. The principal indicated that the school’s integrated science
course is not well aligned to the state standards and is not taught by teachers who have
the background to teach all of those subjects in a sufficient manner.
Figure A14 clearly shows the performance gaps between student groups that exist
at the school in the core subject areas of English Language Arts and mathematics.
Hispanic/Latino students are the highest performing subgroup in both subject areas, with
proficiency rates about 11% higher than African American students in 2009. In ELA,
scores have been relatively flat for all student groups with the exception of
Hispanic/Latino and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students who have shown gains
close to 10% over the past five years. Compared to figures for ELA, mathematics
achievement is relatively low; the highest performing group, Hispanic/Latino students,
has achieved a proficiency rate of only 26%. African American students have shown the
most improvement in mathematics over the past five years, increasing about 8%.
331

Figure A14
Zamboni High School CST Results

10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
CST Results - All Students
ELA History Mathematics Science
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
CST Results - ELA
Student Subgroups
Hispanic/Latino African American SED
English Learner Students with Disabilities
332

Figure A14, Continued

In both subject areas, English Learners and Students with Disabilities are
performing much lower than other subject groups. English Learner proficiency in ELA
has fluctuated between 5% and 6% over the past five years while the percentage of
proficient Students with Disabilities has never exceeded 5%. In mathematics,
achievement is also quite low for both of these student groups with only 11% of English
Learners and 5% of Students with Disabilities meeting the state standards in 2009.
The school’s Academic Performance Index has seen a moderate increase over the
past five years, climbing from 641 in 2005 to 685 in 2009. The Hispanic/Latino and SED
subgroups have shown the largest API increases during those years, rising 49 and 47
points respectively; this is not a surprising result considering that these two subgroups are
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
% Proficient/Advanced
CST Results - Mathematics
Student Subgroups
Hispanic/Latino African American SED
English Learner Students with Disabilities
333

the highest performers in an underperforming school, and have shown moderate gains on
the CST exams over the past five years in all subject areas.
Figure A15:
Zamboni High School Academic Performance Index, 2005-2009

Unfortunately, African Americans, English Learners, and Students with
Disabilities have not enjoyed similar gains – the APIs of each of these groups only
increased by 22, 20, and 24 points respectively. Students with Disabilities are by far the
lowest performing subgroup with a 2009 API score of 440 – 162 points below the score
of African Americans, the next lowest performing student group. Of major concern for
the school is the fact that the gap between the Academic Performance Indexes of
Hispanic/Latino students (the highest performing group) and the lowest student groups
has actually increased over the past five years. The difference in scores between
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Zamboni High School - Academic Performance Index
School Wide Hispanic/Latino
African American SED
English Learners Students with Disabilities
334

Hispanic/Latino students and African Americans, English Learners, and Students with
Disabilities has increased between 25 and 30 points.

Instructional Improvement Program
The principal talked with the researcher about many of the difficulties that he has
faced during his efforts to reform the school’s instructional program. One of those
difficulties is related to the culture of the Iceland Unified School District – a focus on
improving the instructional methods of the teaching staff simply has not been an
emphasis in the past several years. The district has instead concentrated its efforts on
changing the manner in which its schools operate by promoting the development of
Professional Learning Communities (PLC). The district leadership and teaching staff
attended multiple professional development sessions dedicated to the implementation of
such structures. As a result, much of the reform efforts that the principal of Zamboni
High School has inherited and carried on have been related to the key elements of a PLC
– effective use of collaboration, changing instructional time to increase student learning
opportunities, and the development of instructional and curricular teams. The principal
did stress that he will be working with the district and consultants to develop and
implement a comprehensive plan to improve instructional delivery.
Another major difficulty has been the lack of collaboration with the 9
th
grade
division of the school. In order to make AYP, 10
th
grade assessment scores are vital –
because the instructional strategies and interventions in place at the 9
th
grade division do
not usually line up with the expectations at the 10
th
-12
th
grade division, it has been very
335

difficult to establish a program that is coherent. The principal of Zamboni High School
stated he would like to develop a common instructional vision, implement one
professional development plan, and coordinate a system of interventions for students in
the future; however, he worries that the ―separatist‖ culture that exists between the two
divisions of the high school may take a long time to change. The sections below detail the
key aspects of Zamboni High Schools reform plans.

Instructional Leadership
The principal indicated that he has tried to make regular classroom visitations a
major part of his efforts to evaluate the quality of instruction that is currently taking place
in classrooms and to develop plans to improve it. In addition to formal and informal
classroom observations that are related to the teacher evaluation progress, the goal of the
administrative team is to conduct informal visits to classrooms at least once a week. The
principal admitted that it is difficult for the administrative team to meet this goal. For the
principal, part of the difficulty lies in being new to the profession as well as the
challenges of coming into a school district from the outside; for the assistant principals,
much of their time gets bogged down in managing the day to day aspects of a high school
of this size.
As mentioned above, there is not currently an emphasis on improving the
instructional program at the school at this time, nor are there any specific plans to
concentrate professional development efforts on reforming this area. When asked about
specific strategies that he is expecting to see in classrooms on a regular basis, the
336

principal was able to articulate a few strategies (learning goals and objectives, student
collaboration, academic vocabulary, etc.), but it was clear that these have not been
communicated to the staff. The principal knows that this lack of emphasis on instruction
is a weakness of the school’s reform efforts, and indicated that this will be dealt with in
the coming years.
The one instructional strategy that the district has provided the teaching staff with
has been in the area of formative assessments. The principal of Zamboni High School
stated that most of his staff received training on how to evaluate student progress during
the instructional process. Formative assessment techniques include the effective use of
questions, utilizing the think-pair-share strategy, and the use of graphic organizers to
establish a feedback loop. According to the principal, the staff at Zamboni High School
utilizes formative assessments on a regular basis, but fall short when it comes to using
their results to re-teach a missed concept or change how they teach a skill.

Curriculum
The school’s teachers have developed pacing guides for each of the core academic
areas of English Language Arts, mathematics, history, and science. The pacing guides
are based upon the standards established for each course by the State of California, and
are frequently reviewed by the school’s academic teams. When the guides were created,
the teachers identified the key standards that are the most important for students to master
in each subject area as well as the ones that are the most frequently assessed on the CSTs.
The principal indicated that even though the teachers have the freedom to deviate from
337

the pacing guide if necessary, they are very good about making sure that they are keeping
up with the recommended pacing and sequencing. In some ways, he believes that they
may be too good at following the guides – the principal is concerned that pacing guides
have created a sentiment amongst the teachers that they must keep moving even if
students are not keeping up.
The school has also developed common benchmark assessments that are given at
the end of each quarter. The teachers have the ability to enter the students’ results on
these tests into a student information system to assist with analysis. The principal
mentioned that the benchmark exams have been useful in identifying struggling students
and have provided teachers with a sense of what standards need reinforcement or re-
teaching, but that the weakness of the staff in this area lies in their failure to change their
instructional practices based upon the results of these exams.
Aside from the benchmark exams, additional common assessments such as
chapter tests and quizzes are currently not in place; however, each department has
developed common grading schemes that are being utilized by all teachers. The principal
has asked the leaders of each academic team to use the school’s collaboration time to
work with their teachers to make progress in ensuring that there is consistency from
classroom to classroom with regards to how student progress is monitored and evaluated.

English Language Arts
The school has done very little to address students who are struggling in the area
of English Language Arts. Zamboni High School offers a traditional sequence of courses
338

for the students based upon grade level, and is currently not utilizing any formal
programs to build up the skills of students who are not performing at grade level. The
school offers several sections of a course called ―Literature Enhancement‖ to students
who have been identified as deficient in reading or writing skills. This course was
developed by teachers at the school site, and does not have a formal curriculum
established for it. The principal indicated that a comprehensive approach to supporting
students who are not performing well in this subject area is under development.

Mathematics
For students who struggle in mathematics, Algebra 1 is taught over a two year
span; geometry is also offered as a two year course. For stronger students, traditional one
year courses are available. The teachers identify which students should take the courses
over one or two years through a combination of grades, test scores, placement tests, and
teacher recommendations. The principal believes that having two tracks is unnecessary,
and that the two year sequences are not successful. He pointed out that the failure rate in
the two year algebra and geometry courses were extremely high, and their assessment
data has shown no gains at all. The principal is working hard to eliminate the two math
tracks.
Complicating matters is the math department’s practice of not allowing students
to move forward from one semester of a course to the next with a D or F. As a result,
there are a number of students who have taken the first semester of a course as many as
four times before being allowed to move on. The principal provided a transcript of a
339

student as an example – this student took the first semester of Algebra 1 four times
because he kept earning a D in it. The school’s administration is sees this practice as one
reason why the graduation rate is falling, and believes that it makes students hate taking
math courses more than they normally would. The principal sees this practice as a being
a distraction from the real issue with the math department – poor instruction.
Many 10
th
grade students who are enrolled in Algebra 1 are provided with an
additional period of math support. The support class is not blocked with the Algebra 1
course, and is not taught by the same teacher. In the past, this course was focused solely
on preparing students for the California High School Exit Exam using materials that the
department has gathered over the years. In 2010-2011, these support classes will be
restructured to emphasize student success in their Algebra 1 course with CAHSEE
preparation as a secondary focus.

English Learners
Zamboni High School services English Learners differently depending upon their
skill levels. For students who speak little or no English, the school offers multiple
periods of instruction through its English Language Development (ELD) program to
students that are meant to build speech, language, and reading skills. The ELD program
at Zamboni utilizes a state approved curriculum that is geared to build English fluency
within three to four years. The school does not offer any sheltered sections of
mathematics, science, or history to ease the transition of these students into academic
classes.
340

Special Education
The principal of Zamboni High School has made numerous reforms to the
school’s special education program, particularly by providing more opportunities for
these students to be educated with their nondisabled peers in general education
classrooms. In the past, the majority of students with disabilities received their core
academic instruction in special education classrooms regardless of the nature of their
disabilities – in essence, the special education label determined the placement of the
students. Currently, the principal has worked with the teachers in the special education
department to move the majority of these students into general education classes with
support.
In order to provide enough support for the students who have been mainstreamed
several co-teaching relationships between general and special education teachers now
exist in the core. The principal hired a consultant who has an extensive background in
developing this type of program – she helped work with the newly formed partnerships
on teaching strategies, formative assessment, and collaboration. The consultant was also
charged with the task of helping to ensure that the special education teachers truly was
co-teaching the class and did not become a highly paid aide. Co-taught classes are
composed of about 2/3 general education and 1/3 special education students; the teachers
of these classes both have the same preparation period, and are provided with some
341

release time each quarter. Students who have been pushed into multiple general
education classes may also receive a period of support that is designed to help them
manage their time, finish homework, and prepare for upcoming lessons. According to the
principal, the teachers, students, and parents are all very happy with this movement, and
he is confident that the students who are a part of these classes will benefit both
academically and socially in the long run.
For students with disabilities who have not been pushed into general education
classes, the school still offers special education versions of the core academic courses
(English 1, 2, 3, 4, Algebra 1, World History, etc.). The principal indicated that these
classes are not aligned very well with the curriculum that is being offered in the general
education departments, and noted that the instruction that takes place is significantly
inferior – both major reasons for the efforts to mainstream more students. He also
indicated that most of the educators teaching these special education classes are not
highly qualified to do so.

CAHSEE Specific Interventions
For 11
th
and 12
th
grade students who have not passed the California High School
Exit Exam, preparation courses are available after school, on the weekends, and during
the summer. These courses utilize test preparation materials that have been purchased
from an outside agency as well as information made available by the State of California.
There are currently no interventions in place to help 10
th
grade students prepare
for the CAHSEE at this time. The principal indicated that some of his ELA and
342

mathematics teachers have taken steps to prepare students in the weeks leading up to the
exam, but these efforts are not uniform and are not using a formal curriculum.
10
th
grade students who are at risk of not passing or not earning proficient scores
are not receiving any special programs to build their skills. Zamboni’s principal did
mention that he is developing a program with an outside test preparation agency to
develop a program for these students beginning in 2010.

Professional Development and Collaboration
The school district provides four professional development days each year;
however, due to contractual obligations, only one of these days can be ―administrator
driven.‖ The other days are left to the school’s teachers to decide what to do with them.
This situation has been a major source of frustration for the principal who feels that those
days could be used much more effectively. He indicated that the leaders of each
department have been great about working with in advance to develop the agenda for
these days and to establish certain tones or emphases, but after that things are out of his
control.
As part of the school’s implementation of Professional Learning Communities,
teacher collaboration time has been built into the weekly bell schedule. Every Monday,
teachers are given 45 minutes to work with each other on issues such as curriculum
alignment, data analysis, and the like. As with the district provided professional
development days, the use of this collaboration time is left to the departments to decide;
however, the principal did indicate that he has much more influence over the use of this
343

time. He reviews the agendas and minutes of the collaboration time with each
department leader on a regular basis, and makes recommendations about the issues that
should be discussed. The principal also stated that he and his assistant principals
participate in some of the meetings when necessary.

Data Use
The principal of Zamboni High School mentioned that the use of data is one of
the weak points of his school. He stated that this is so not because of an unwillingness to
use data or an inability to use it – instead the issue lies with access to student data. The
district entered into an arrangement with company to implement a student information
system a few years ago. Unfortunately, this system is extremely complex and is not user
friendly in any way; as a result, most teachers do not utilize its capabilities as often as
desirable, and expect the administration to provide them with data when necessary. One
of the school’s clerical staff is dedicated to working with the student information system,
but the principal stated that she is having major difficulty working with it.

Parent Involvement
One of the major efforts to involve parents at Zamboni High School has been to
rebuild the Parent Teacher Association. For the past few years, this organization has only
consisted of a few parents (one of whom is a member of the district’s governing board),
the principal, and one teacher. This year, the principal made the task of rebuilding this
344

organization to one of his assistant principals, and there has been substantial growth in
the number of parents and educators involved in the program.
Special attention has been given to finding ways to involve the parents of
Hispanic/Latino students as well as English Learners. The principal indicated that some
of the feedback that he has received from these groups of parents, many of whom speak
Spanish, is that they do not feel comfortable when visiting the school. In response,
almost all meetings that take place on campus (from open house to teacher conferences)
are now held in the home language of the parents using staff members as translators.
The school’s guidance team has also established monthly parent education
meetings aimed at Spanish speaking parents. These meetings are usually focused on a
theme that is relevant to the month that they are held in – e.g. September is focused on
back to school information and November is about college admissions.
In addition to the efforts described above, Zamboni High School also offers all of
the traditional opportunities for parents to visit and interact with the school – state
mandated committees like school site council, annual evening events like back to school
night, etc. In addition, the school has a number of booster club organizations that help
raise funds for the school’s many extracurricular programs.

Instructional Time
As part of the process of building Professional Learning Communities at Zamboni
High School, the school has made major changes to its bell schedule to provide students
with more time to master the standards. A tutorial period is built into the daily schedule
345

three days per week; this tutorial period immediately follows one of the school’s
academic periods each day – over the course of two weeks, each class has the time
immediately following it once. The teachers are required to keep students who have a D
or F in their class during this time; if the student has a poor grade in another course, they
may be allowed to go to that tutorial instead. Students who have acceptable grades can
utilize the free time as they please by relaxing somewhere on campus, working in the
library or computer lab, or attending a study hall.
The principal indicated that the implementation of these study hall periods has
been very positive for everyone. Students no longer have any excuses for not being able
to receive help in a troublesome subject area; teachers are thrilled about the ability to
have time to work with the students who need the most help, and have reported a drop in
the number of Ds and Fs as a result of this program. From a financial point of view, the
principal reported that he has saved a significant amount of money from this tutorial
period – in the past he paid several teachers to stay a couple of hours each day after
school.

Intervention Plan
At this point, a formal program to assist students who are struggling in classes is
not in place – although some groundwork has been laid. Zamboni’s principal indicated
that he is battling a pervasive feeling that student failures are the student’s fault – i.e. ―we
taught it, they didn’t learn it.‖ In order to change this mentality, the principal is working
346

with his teachers to establish protocols that must be followed before a student is given a
D or F.
In particular, teachers are being asked to contact parents as soon as a student
begins to struggle in their class. A popular reason why they have not done this in the past
has been the language barrier that exists with some parents – as a result, the school’s
Spanish speaking classified staff has been charged with assisting with parent
communication. If parent contacts are not working, the principal is asking teachers to
work with the counselors or administration to set up conferences in order to deal with the
situation, and to offer additional resources such as counseling, peer-tutoring, and a
mentor.
Credit Recovery
The summer school program is the most used program for students to recover
units for graduation that have been lost due to failing grades. The school operates a five
week summer school session, with three blocks of instruction each day. This
configuration allows students to make up a maximum of 30 units during the summer
months. Due to the financial crisis, summer school may be dramatically reduced – at this
time, the plan is to offer summer school only to 11
th
and 12
th
grade students who need to
make up units in ELA and mathematics.
Zamboni High School also has extended learning opportunities for students who
are missing units during the school year. Several classes in the core academic subject
areas are offered before or after school for one hour - generally, about 10-15 teachers
work with students in this program.
347

As mentioned earlier in this case study, the district operates a continuation high
school for students who have fallen so far behind that they will not graduate on time
without an alternative environment. Students have the option of enrolling in a traditional
continuation high school that has the ability to help students earn units at an accelerated
rate or an independent study program where they can earn up to three units per week.

The Impact of the Financial Crisis and Federal Dollars
The principal of Zamboni High School reported that the financial crisis has
impacted his school site in at least two ways. First, as a result of decreases in funding,
reductions in personnel have taken place over the past few years, although not in the area
of teaching. For the 2009-2010 school year, the school dropped from 5 FTE assistant
principals to 4, leaving the ratio of administrators (including the principal) to students at
about 700 to 1. The school has attempted to support the loss of the assistant principal by
releasing a teacher from his classroom assignment to assist with handling student
discipline issues at the school.
Reductions in classified staff members have taken place over the past few years as
a result of the state’s dismal economic forecasts. For this year, 1 FTE secretaries and
clerks have been eliminated in the school’s library, attendance office, and guidance
departments; in addition, the positions of retiring employees have not been rehired. The
principal indicated that even though he has lost support staff, he feels that he has the staff
that he has in place has been able to provide first rate service to the school’s teachers,
students, and community – in essence, they are doing more with less.
348

The principal also mentioned that the financial crisis has forced him to creatively
find unique funding sources for many of the certificated and classified positions at
Zamboni High School. For example, in order to maintain counseling services, funding
for a few of these positions had to be split between categorical funding programs like
Title 1 and EIA/LEP. The principal expressed a concern that tying up categorical money
for personnel has made it more difficult to implement his plans for school reform,
indicating that the money he using from Title 1 and EIA/LEP to pay for counselors could
have been used instead for professional development related to improving instruction.
Finally, the principal indicated that the Iceland Unified School District kept all of
the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds in an effort to save as many jobs as possible. The
principal indicated that three of his Teachers on Special Assignment are currently being
funded by this money, and is concerned that the funds may not be available or sufficient
in the future to continue paying for them.

Resource Comparison to the Evidence Based Model
Table A16 compares the current resource allocation patterns of Zamboni High
School with the prototypical plan called for by the Evidence Based Model. The third
column of the table describes the difference between the actual resource use and what the
model recommends. As one will find, Zamboni High School falls well short of the
model’s suggestions in most areas. In the area of overall staffing, for example, the model
calls for a school of this size to have about 140 FTE teachers in the academic core –
Zamboni has just over 75. The amount of specialty teachers at the school comes much
349

closer to the staffing level suggested by the model; Zamboni has 38.8 FTE specialist
teachers, almost 8 below the model’s figure. The Evidence Based Model calls for core
class sizes of approximately 25-1; this school has class sizes closer to 30-1. Zamboni
High School has 3.6 FTE teachers released from their classroom duties to assist with
improving instruction, developing curriculum, and other administrative duties such as the
administration of state exams. This number pales in comparison to the amount of staff
that the Evidence Based Model recommends for instructional facilitators – 17.5 FTE. It
is important to note that model suggests that these staff members focus solely on working
with teachers on instruction and curriculum, not administrative tasks. If Zamboni High
School is serious about taking steps to improve its instructional program, the leadership
there will have to determine if they have enough people to implement the plan.
According to the Evidence Based Model, the school does not have enough staff in place
to support the lowest achieving and most at risk students – English Learners and Students
with Disabilities. Both of these student groups have about half of the amount of teachers
called for by the model working with them. 4.8 FTE teachers work with EL students at
Zamboni High School in comparison with the recommended 9; 12.2 FTE teachers work
with Students with Disabilities in comparison with the recommended 23. The school does
not have adequate levels of funding set aside for instructional materials and professional
development. For a school this size, the Evidence Based Model calls for $350,000 to be
set aside for developing the school’s instructional program – Zamboni has only $20,000
set aside, and far fewer district provided professional development days. The school’s
budget for instructional materials is only about 20% of the levels suggested by the model
350

- $124 thousand compared to over $612 thousand. The principal did indicate that he is
able to pay for other items related to professional development or instructional materials
out of his categorical funds, but that must be done on an ―as needed‖ basis and is subject
to review by the district office. The principal indicated that he believed that he did not
have an adequate number of counselors to help support students – the Evidence Based
Model confirms his suspicion. Zamboni High School has 7 FTE counselors on staff, half
of the amount recommended by the model. He stated that the role of counselors would
play a vital role in the school’s developing intervention plan to reduce the number of
students who become at risk of not graduating. At a ratio of 500-1, it is difficult to
envision how counselors will be able to meet with each student on a regular basis,
provide individual attention, and develop a specific plan for each student for high school
and beyond.

351

Table A16
Comparison of Actual Resource Use at Zamboni High School to the Evidence Based
Model
School Element
EBM Prototypical
High School
Actual Zamboni
High School
Resources
Difference
between EBM
and Zamboni
High School or
EBM suggested
amount for
Zamboni High
School
School Characteristics
School Configuration 9-12 10-12
This is a 9-12
school with two
district
divisions – a 9
th

grade school
and a 10-12
school.

This data is
based on the
10-12 division.
School Size 600 3,500
5.8 times
bigger
Core Class Size 25 30
5 more than
EBM
Number of teacher work
days
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
184, including 4
in-service days
6 less in-
service days,
10 less school
days
Number Disabled
(w/IEP)
380 (10.8%)
Number Poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
2,905 (83%)
Number English Learner 910 (26%)
% Minority (non-white) 97.1%

352

Table A16, Continued
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers
24 per 600 students
(75% of FTEs)
75.2 FTE
(66% of FTEs)
EBM suggests
140 for 3,500
students
2. Specialist Teachers
8.0 per 600 students
(25% of FTEs)
38.8 FTE
(34% of FTEs)
EBM suggests
46.6 for 3,500
students
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
One for every 200
students
3.6
EBM suggests
17.5
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
0
EBM suggests
29
5. Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students
4.8 FTE
EBM suggests
9 FTE

6. Extended Day

1 teacher for every 15
poverty students
(based on half the
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary

1 teacher for every 15
poverty students
(based on half the
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary

1 FTE
EBM Suggests
24 Teachers
7. Summer School 10.5 FTE Teachers

EBM Suggests
24 Teachers

353

Table A16, Continued
School Characteristics

8. Learning & mild
disabled students

Additional 4
professional teacher
positions for 600
students
12.2 FTE
EBM suggests
23 teachers for
3,500 students
9. Severely disabled
students

100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
4.2 FTE Based on need
10. Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
$46,190

24 sections of AP
courses
EBM suggests
funds of
$87,500

11. Vocational
Education

1/3 more per student
enrolled
5 FTE
Dependent
upon
enrollment

12. Substitutes

10 days per teacher
10 days per teacher
for illness and PN
No Difference
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance per 250
students
1.0 FTE Health
Assistant
3.0 FTE Guidance
Techs
1.6 FTE
Psychologists
1.0 FTE
Speech/Language
1 FTE Career
Counselor
7 FTE Counselors
EBM suggests
29 FTE support
staff plus 14
FTE counselors

354

Table A16, Continued
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
3.0 to relieve teachers
and provide
supervision
9 FTE
EBM suggests
17.5

15. Librarians/media
specialists

1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library Tech
1 FTE Librarian
0 Library Techs
EBM suggests
5.8 Librarians
and 5.8 Library
Techs
16. Principal
1 Principal and 1
Assistant Principal
1 Principal, 4
Assistant Principals
EBM suggests
1 Principal and
5.8 Assistant
Principals
17. School Site
Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 3.0
Clerical
4 Secretaries and
12 Clerical
EBM suggests
5.8 Secretaries
and 17.5
Clerical
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
4 days per year
devoted to PD
activities
Collaboration
every Monday for
45 minutes
$20,000 for other
PD
EBM suggests
10 days PD in
summer and
$350,000 for
other PD
expenses.
19. Technology $250 per pupil
1 FTE teacher
responsible for
supporting school
technology

3 FTE computer
lab aides
EBM suggests
$875,000

355

Table A16, Continued

20. Instructional
Materials

$175 per pupil $124,000
EBM suggests
$612,500
21. Student Activities $250 per pupil
$45,900

1.2 FTE
Athletic/Activities

1 Section Student
Government
EBM suggests
$875,000

Lessons Learned
Zamboni High School has many challenges to overcome before it can begin to
expect significant growth in student achievement. The school’s design is one of the
major barriers to the improvement process. For accountability purposes, the school is
seen as a single 9-12 entity; in reality, the school is fractured into two parts – one division
serving 9
th
grade students and another serving 10
th
through 12
th
graders. Because of the
admitted lack of coherency that exists between these two divisions, it will be extremely
difficult to achieve consistent results. The expectations for student learning, instructional
philosophy, and curriculum must be well aligned throughout all of the grade levels in
order for real progress to be made. The Iceland Unified School District should consider
merging the administrative teams, teachers, and staff at this school into one single body.
What is also striking about Zamboni High School is its lack of focus on
improving instruction. Even though the district implemented the Professional Learning
Community model, it appears to have done very little to provide professional
development about research based instructional strategies to its teachers. Considering
356

this, it is not difficult to understand student performance at the school is flat in most areas
and why performance gaps between student groups have not changed. Zamboni’s
principal seemed to acknowledge this shortcoming, and is taking action to bring more
attention to what teachers are doing in their classrooms on a regular basis.
It is also worth noting that Zamboni appears to have failed to take appropriate
steps to avoid becoming Program Improvement. As described earlier in this case study,
the major reason for earning the label is the school’s failure to prepare enough 10
th
grade
students to earn a proficient score on the California High School Exit Exam. The
school’s failure to develop a program specifically designed to identify and support
students who are at risk of not passing or not being proficient on this exam is difficult to
understand.
For a school like Zamboni, the Evidence Based Model offers a look at what could
be done to support future reform efforts. The model shines light on the school’s
understaffing in the core (75.2 FTE compared with 140), a lack of teachers dedicated to
serving English Learners and Students with Disabilities, and insufficient funds for
professional development and instructional materials. Considering financial crisis and
the current structure of California school finance, it will not be easy for the school to
adopt outright the allocation patterns of the model’s prototypical high school; however,
the Evidence Based Model’s suggested resource allocations can be used as a guideline for
future reform efforts at the school.

Asset Metadata

Creator Smith, Ryan Douglas (author)

Core Title Making the Golden State glitter again: how the evidence based adequacy model can save struggling schools in difficult times

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/10/2010

Defense Date 03/04/2010

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

Tag K-12 education,oai:digitallibrary.usc.edu:usctheses,OAI-PMH Harvest,school administration,school finance

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee member), Nelson, John L. (committee member)

Creator Email ryandsmith@cox.net,smithry@centinela.k12.ca.us

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3072

Unique identifier UC1319427

Identifier etd-Smith-3559 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-347354 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3072 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Smith-3559.pdf

Dmrecord 347354

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Smith, Ryan Douglas

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 uscdl@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Faced with an unparalleled financial crisis, educators in the State of California are faced with the challenging task of educating an increasingly diverse student population toward mastery of some of the highest standards in the nation. As educators and policy makers struggle to find ways to ensure that schools in the Golden State are adequately funded, more attention is being paid to what the existing literature says about resource allocation and student achievement. This research study reviews the resource allocation patterns and instructional improvement strategies observed at five Southern California high schools, and compares the findings to an research-based model known as the Evidence Based Model. All five of the schools selected for this study were identified by the California Department of Education as Program Improvement schools due to not making Adequate Yearly Progress. All of the schools were found to be lacking adequate resources for educating the students that they serve and an overall lack of effective strategies for raising student achievement.