University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Raising student achievement on the California Standards Test and California High School Exit Exam at the Phoenix Arts Charter School

(USC Thesis Other)

Raising student achievement on the California Standards Test and California High School Exit Exam at the Phoenix Arts Charter School

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content RAISING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT ON THE CALIFORNIA
STANDARDS TEST AND CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOL EXIT EXAM AT
THE PHOENIX ARTS CHARTER SCHOOL

by

Kathlene Joanna de la Cuesta

________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2008

Copyright 2008 Kathlene Joanna de la Cuesta
DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my loving son, Arbatel de la Cuesta and to my
best friend, Michel Falzon. Without their love, support, and encouragement this
dream would never have been realized.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge the support of the following
individuals for their assistance, advice, and encouragement during the
preparation of this dissertation:
Dr. Dennis Hocevar, dissertation chair, for incredible subject knowledge,
support, and guidance.
Dr. Kathy Stowe and Dr. Denise Hexom, dissertation committee
members, for their encouragement and advice.
Mary Greeson, Denise Parnell, Richard Tapia, and Laura Twining, study
team members, for their support and encouragement.
The other members of the Sacramento Cohort Class of 2008 for their
supportive camaraderie.
The staff, parents, and students at the Phoenix Arts Charter School, who
will be forever in my heart.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION.................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................... vii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. viii

CHAPTER 1. PROBLEM, ANALYSIS, AND SOLUTION...........................1
Background............................................................................................1
The Problem...........................................................................................1
Gap Analysis..........................................................................................3
Interventions..............................................................................4
Performance Gap Descriptor.....................................................6
Causes of the Performance Gap.................................................9
Curriculum Alignment Causes of Performance Gaps .............13
Professional Development Causes of the Performance Gaps..16
Action Plans.........................................................................................17
Action Plan for Students..........................................................17
Action Plan for Teachers.........................................................19
Action Plans for Professional Development............................21
Conclusion...............................................................................24
Purpose, Design, and Utility................................................................25
Purpose....................................................................................25
Design......................................................................................26
Utility.......................................................................................27
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................28
Implications of NCLB on Students Passing the CAHSEE..................28
Implications of Curriculum Alignment on Student Achievement.......32
Using Data to Affect Student Achievement ........................................36
Professional Development that Affect and Influence the
Effectiveness of Teaching and Learning ........................................37
iv
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................43
Research Design ..................................................................................43
Evaluation Design................................................................................43
Limitations...............................................................................46
Formative Evaluation Design ..............................................................46
Interventions............................................................................47
Participants and Setting. ........................................................50
Instrumentation and Procedures ..........................................................51
Achievement............................................................................51
Interviews................................................................................53
Observations............................................................................55
Document and Materials Analysis...........................................56
Qualitative Analysis.............................................................................57
Summative Analysis ............................................................................58
Delimitations and Limitations of the Study.........................................58

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS................................................................................60
Pre/post Independent Groups’ Design.................................................60
California Standards Test Results........................................................61
California High School Exit Exam Results .........................................68
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................72
Overview..............................................................................................72
Summary of Findings ..........................................................................74
Summative Findings................................................................74
Formative Findings..................................................................76
Implications .........................................................................................79
Site-Based Recommendations .............................................................83
Recommendation for Further Study ....................................................84
Limitations...........................................................................................85
Internal Limitations.................................................................86
External Limitations................................................................87
Conclusions..........................................................................................88
REFERENCES ................................................................................................89
APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. ACTION PLANS, PHOENIX ARTS
CHARTER SCHOOL.................................................................................93
v
APPENDIX B. TEACHER EVALUATION OF THE TUTOR GROUP......99
APPENDIX C. WALK-THROUGH OBSERVATION NOTES AND
TEACHER FEEDBACK.........................................................................100
APPENDIX D. RELEASE DAY ACTIVITY EVALUATION...................101
APPENDIX E. PHOENIX ARTS CHARTER SCHOOL
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY EVALUATION........102

vi
LIST OF TABLES
1. Comparison 2005 District, George Washington High School, and
the Phoenix Arts Charter School Pass Rates for CAHSEE. .....................11

2. Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA and Math Performance
Band Change: Statistical Findings...........................................................61
3. Pre- Versus Post-Interventions CST ELA, Algebra I, and Geometry
Performance Band Differences: Practical Significance...........................62
4. Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA, Algebra I, and Geometry
Percent Basic and Above..........................................................................65
5. Pre- Versus Post-Interventions CST ELA, Algebra I, and Geometry
Percent Proficient and Above ...................................................................65
6. Performance Categories for 10
th
Grade—CST: ELA,
Algebra I, and Geometry ..........................................................................66
7. Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CAHSEE: Statistical Findings .................68
8. California High School Exit Exam Performance Results for
Mathematics and English Language Arts (Grade 10)...............................69
9. Graduation Rates by School, District, and State.......................................70
10. API scores: Dependent (D) and Independent (I) Charter Schools...........71
vii
ABSTRACT

The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to describe, analyze,
and present solutions to the performance gap of high school tenth grade students
at the Phoenix Arts Charter School (PACS) on the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE) and the California Standards Test (CST). The framework
underlining this study was the “performance improvement” research by Clark
and Estes (2002), Barr and Parrett (2007), Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006),
Marzano (2003), and Zmuda, Kuklis and Kline (2004). Data from the (a) CSTs,
(b) CAHSEE, and (c) qualitative data collected in the form of questionnaires,
interviews, observations, documents and materials analysis from administration
and staff of PACS were used.
A mixed methods approach to data collection to provide evidence for
summative and formative evaluation purposes was used. Summative data were
collected to determine the effectiveness of the intervention on two dependent
variables causes: (a) scaled scores and pass rates on the CAHSEE and (b)
performance levels of students as measured on the CST ELA and Mathematics
at PACS. Student performance on the CAHSEE and CST was measured in the
spring of 2006 and 2007. Performance band scores on the CST were coded on a
0-4 scale and the analysis was limited to grade 10. The benchmark comparison
of 100% pass rate was used as a standard for comparison for the CAHSEE
results at PACS.
viii
ix
Results indicated that tenth-grade students from the experimental school,
PACS, had some positive changes in CST ELA and Geometry test scores. The
mean and the percentage of students who scored “basic and above” increased,
although the changes were not substantial in size. Additionally, PACS made a
modest percentage increase on the CAHSEE. However, when compared to
district and state-result averages, PACS exceeded the district and the state pass
rate percentages. The research had implications for educators who want to
affect teaching and learning and enable students to pass the CAHSEE, and to
move students to the level of “proficient or above” on the CST.
CHAPTER 1
PROBLEM, ANALYSIS AND SOLUTION

Background
This case study describes and analyzes the performance gaps of high
school sophomores at Phoenix Arts Charter School on the California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and how determining the causes and closing the
performance gaps will have an influence on their passing rates.
In 1999, California legislators passed the Public Schools Accountability
Act (PSAA), establishing specific performance targets for schools, a
system of rewards and sanctions for meeting those targets and assistance
for low-performing schools. (O’Day, Bitter, Kirst, Carnoy, Woody,
Buttles, Fuller & Ruenzel, 2004, p.1)

Performance expectations are changing to a focus on measured
outcomes. Teachers and administrators need to demonstrate improvements in
student achievement or teachers, administrators, and students suffer
consequences. In light of the state mandate that all California seniors pass the
CAHSEE as a prerequisite to high school graduation, the challenge facing our
schools is tremendous.

The Problem
This study was developed in recognition of the need to improve math
and language arts achievement outcomes on the CAHSEE for students at
1
Phoenix Arts Charter School. At Phoenix Arts Charter School, students have
historically under performed and needed to repeat the CAHSEE several times
before making a passing score.
Phoenix Arts Charter School was a visual and performing arts college
preparatory middle and high school (grades 7-12) that provided young adults
with an academic experience in an atmosphere where artistic talent and technical
skill could flourish. Phoenix Arts Charter School served a highly diverse
student population from the Sacramento area and families living in other
bordering school districts. The charter school was located in one of
Sacramento’s most socio-economically disadvantaged and ethnically diverse
attendance areas. The surrounding community was comprised largely of
immigrant families from Mexico and Southeast Asia with extensive English
language acquisition needs. Virtually all students came from minority and/or
disadvantaged backgrounds. The total student population at the Phoenix Arts
Charter School consisted of 439 students. The teaching staff was composed of
26 full and part-time teachers of which there were 22 with teacher credentials,
and 4 working towards a teacher credential. Office staff consisted of 8
employees: off ice manager, clerks (2 full time, 1 part time), custodians (2 full
time, 1 part time), and an instructional aide. Administrative staff consisted of a
director/principal and a chief financial officer.
2
All students needed to pass the CAHSEE to graduate from high school.
Data show that there was an achievement gap for tenth grade Phoenix Arts
Charter School students on the 2005 CAHSEE as only 82% of students passed
the math portion, and only 91% passed the English Language Arts (ELA)
portion. The goal was for 100% of students in 12
th
grade to pass the CAHSEE
by spring 2007. Thus, the accountability issue was that unless significant
measures were taken to provide the needed interventions, 18% of the Phoenix
Arts Charter School sophomores, Class of 2007, would not graduate high
school.
Phoenix Arts Charter School’s goal was to provide a quality education
that enabled seniors to pass the CAHSEE. However, the question remained:
how can we better prepare students for the CAHSEE to ensure a 100% pass
rate? In order to understand why there was a problem with some 10th grade
students not passing the CAHSEE, it was important to determine the
interventions and existing gaps, and the causes of the performance gap. This
was analyzed based on the Process Model (Clark & Estes, 2002).

Gap Analysis
Effective performance improvement must start with clearly understood
work goals (Bandura, 1997) and an accurate analysis of the cause of the gaps
between current and desired performance (Gilbert, 1996; Locke & Latham,
3
1990, Rummler & Brach, 1995;). In this section three interventions and existing
gaps are identified, as well as the causes of the performance gap between current
and desired performance. The performance gap was that sophomores were
under-performing on the CAHSEE. The three significant factors during the
analysis process were:
(a) people’s knowledge and skills, (b) their motivation to achieve the
goal (particularly when compared with other work goals they must also
achieve), and (c) organizational barriers such as a lack of necessary
equipment and missing or inadequate work processes. (Clark & Estes,
2002, p. 43)

In the analysis of the performance gap of Phoenix Arts Charter School ‘s
CAHSEE pass rate, knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational factors
are discussed as they relate to all stakeholders.

Interventions
This dissertation focused on three interventions to access and analyze the
performance gap and to identify the reasons why some sophomores were not
meeting performance goals, and to seek measurable performance improvement
by closing the performance gap. The interventions were: (a) CAHSEE data, (b)
curriculum alignment, and (c) professional development.
Intervention #1: CAHSEE Data. The first intervention examined was
the data that indicates the pass rate for sophomores on the CAHSEE at Phoenix
Arts Charter School. Test results are released by the State Department of
4
Education a few months after the testing and the results are disaggregated based
on demographics-race, gender, language, and socio-economic status. The focus
of this intervention was on demographics among 10
th
grade students. The goal
of a 100% pass rate determined the performance gap. In order to determine the
performance gap, the data needed to be disaggregated to identify who was
failing. If a subgroup(s) was not meeting the pass rate target, then the
weaknesses and strengths needed to be identified and an intervention should be
implemented to help the subgroup(s) meet the target.
Intervention #2: Curriculum Alignment. The second intervention was
the curriculum. CAHSEE test results measure the effectiveness of instruction.
The curriculum must meet state academic content standards and reflect
proficiency in the subject area as demonstrated by the CAHSEE. The data
indicate that there was an accountability issue with regards to the curriculum not
meeting the basic level for 18% of the 10
th
grade class. “The CAHSEE was
meant to ensure that students have learned—at minimum—the basic math and
English skills needed to be productive in the world beyond high school”
(EdSource, 2006, p. 1). Clearly, there was a problem with the curriculum at
Phoenix Arts Charter School not meeting minimum basic skills and knowledge
in math and English language arts for some students. The assumption of this
intervention was that students who had previously failed one or more parts on
5
the CAHSEE were more likely to pass it when given standards-based
curriculum.
Intervention #3: Professional Development. The third intervention was
professional development. Professional development provides support to
teachers in instructional methods, including teaching strategies, classroom
management, and other training designed to improve pupil performance. The
problem with professional development and the CAHSEE at Phoenix Arts
Charter School was that the staff had not had professional development training
for the CAHSEE or on implementing a standards-based curriculum.
Professional development had been focused in other priority areas.

Performance Gap Descriptor
The performance gap at Phoenix Arts Charter School was that
sophomores were underperforming on the CAHSEE. In order to close the
performance gap, the causes of the performance gap must be identified through
gap analysis and the appropriate performance solutions implemented.
CAHSEE data—performance gap. When analyzing the data collected
from the first intervention, it was apparent that Phoenix Arts Charter School was
not meeting the academic needs of all its students. The analysis showed that
18% of the students were unable to pass the CAHSEE in the 10
th
grade, and
were performing below grade-level competency. However, this information
6
alone did not provide a measure of how well students and the school performed
compared to other schools within the district and state. In order to understand
the performance gap on the CAHSEE, the results needed to be compared to
some benchmark of success. Phoenix Arts Charter School compared its
CAHSEE results with one top-performing school within the district, George
Washington High School. By comparing Phoenix Arts Charter School’s test
results with the test results of George Washington High School (96% pass rate),
the performance gap on the CAHSEE between the two schools was measured
and determined to be a 14% performance gap difference.
Curriculum Alignment. With the focus on student achievement, teachers
were not just teaching what they wanted to teach; rather, there was a defined
framework of academic content standards indicating what must be taught and
what must be learned. There was a performance gap with what was being taught
and what was being learned in regards to the CAHSEE at Phoenix Arts Charter
School. It took some students several attempts at passing the CAHSEE because
the students lacked basic knowledge and skills necessary to be successful.
Implementation of standards-based curriculum needed to be strategically
planned to cover the skills and concepts needed to pass the exam. The
curriculum must demonstrate that students were making progress toward grade-
level standards that would enable students to pass the CAHSEE. Last year, the
curriculum was not being taught to specifically address the skills and concepts
7
on the CAHSEE. If the curriculum addressed the skills and concepts on the
CAHSEE, it was more likely the students would pass the exam. If the teachers
used pre- and post-tests to monitor students’ progress, then teachers could
compare the test results to the school’s benchmark.
Professional Development. The third intervention was professional
development. Professional development provided support to teachers in
instructional methods, including teaching strategies, and other training designed
to improve pupil performance. However, teachers had not been given adequate
training in the content standards required for the CAHSEE, nor had the teachers
been trained on how to use the CAHSEE preparation and practice booklets. The
performance gap with professional development and the CAHSEE was that the
staff did not have sufficient professional development training. It was important
that the administrator provide professional development either by frontloading
professional development during the summer training, after-school training, or
in release time during the school year to improve teaching practice and student
learning. An evaluation can be conducted to determine the effectiveness of
learning new practices. According to Elmore (2002), effectiveness can be
benchmarked based on measurable increases in the quality of instructional
practice and student performance over time.

8
Causes of the Performance Gap
“In order to close performance gaps and achieve business goals, we first
have to identify the cause of the gap and, therefore, the type of performance
improvement program required” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 41). To understand
the performance gap on the CAHSEE pass rate at the Phoenix Arts Charter
School, the causes of the performance gap had to be identified and performance
improvement solutions needed to be developed. “Three critical factors must be
examined during the analysis process: (a) peoples’ knowledge and skills, (b)
their motivation to achieve the goal, and (c) organizational barriers such as a
lack of necessary equipment and missing or inadequate work processes” (Clark
& Estes, 2002, p. 43). The purpose of this section was to determine if students
had adequate knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational support to
achieve the goal, which was to increase the pass rate on the CAHSEE.
Students Causes of the Performance Gap. The Phoenix Arts Charter
School sophomores should have passed the CAHSEE, but instead there was a
gap of 18% between the school’s benchmark (100% passing) and the current
level of performance. In order to close the CAHSEE performance gap, the
causes of the gap needed to be identified.
Knowledge and Skill. “The purpose of the CAHSEE was to assess
whether students who graduate from high school can demonstrate grade-level
competency in the state content-standards for reading, writing, and
9
mathematics” (Educational Testing Services, 2006, p.1). The CAHSEE is a
pass/fail test consisting of two parts-English language arts and math. The
English section covers California’s content standards through 10
th
grade in a
multiple-choice format with one essay. The math section, also multiple-choice,
covers math standards through 6
th
and 7
th
grades and Algebra I. Failure of any
part of the CAHSEE would mean that a student would not graduate from high
school with a high school diploma because the student would lack the skills and
knowledge in the content area.
The 2005 CAHSEE pass rate for Phoenix Arts Charter School class of
2007 was 82% pass in math and 91% pass in ELA. The overall student pass rate
was 82% on the CAHSEE. However, when compared with the best in class pass
rate, which had a 4% performance gap of students not passing the fall CAHSEE,
the school had a performance gap of 14% below the best in class school, George
Washington High School (GWHS) but above district pass rates (Table 1).
When the CAHSEE test data were disaggregated, it revealed that
students who needed to repeat the CAHSEE were from: (a) minority groups—
African-American and Latino students, (b) gender groups—male students, and
(c) the economically disadvantaged group. Of the students who needed to pass
the CAHSEE, many needed to pass only one section of the exam, English-
language arts or mathematics.
10
Table 1

Comparison 2005 District, George Washington High School, and the Phoenix
Arts Charter School Pass Rates for CAHSEE
CAHSEE Grade Passage Rates
# Students Pass Math # Students Pass ELA

Phoenix Arts
Charter Sch
50 82% 49 91%
George
Washington
High School
205 96% 202 98%
District 4582 55% 4680 57%

On the spring 2006 CAHSEE ELA 5 of 46 students tested did not pass
and the students’ mean scaled score for the students that failed was 342 of 350.
On the CAHSEE Mathematics 9 of 48 students tested did not pass and the
students that failed had the mean scaled score of 334 of 350. These data give
light on an achievement gap that had to be addressed. Obviously, there were far
too many students, particularly poor, African-American, and Latino students
who did not have the skills and knowledge necessary to pass this minimum
competency exam. The knowledge component of the gap was a problem that
had to be solved by more knowledge and skills to achieve the goal, in this case,
passing the CAHSEE.
Motivation. Another factor for students not passing the CAHSEE might
be motivation. “Motivation is the internal, psychological process that get us
11
going, keeps us moving, and helps us get jobs done” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p.
44). According to Clark and Estes, there are three critical aspects of our work:
(a) choosing to work towards a goal, (b) persisting at it until it was achieved,
and (c) how much mental effort we invest to get the job done. People who are
unmotivated lack the direction, persistence, and energy to accomplish much at
work or school (Clark & Estes, 2002).
There are three facets of motivated performance: (a) active choice-
intention to pursue a goal that was replaced by action; (b) persistence once
started, we continue in the face of distractions; and (c) mental effort—people
work smarter and develop novel solutions (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 81).
Students at Phoenix Arts Charter School have expressed frustration over not
passing the CAHSEE upon multiple attempts. This propagates resentfulness on
the part of the students towards passing the CAHSEE and leads to under-
confidence. Self-efficacy often leads to persistence and choice problems which
contribute to under-achievement performance.
Organizational Barriers. A third cause of the student performance gap
was “the lack of efficient and effective organizational work processes and
material resources” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 103). These would be considered
as organizational barriers that could limit academic achievement. Phoenix Arts
Charter School was a new school and had limited resource materials and
computers and these resources might not be available when a student might
12
needed them. This was one possible cause of a performance gap. The material
and technological resources could aid individual achievement and assist the
student passing the CAHSEE. When Phoenix Arts Charter School’s material
resources and technology was compared to George Washington High School’s
material resources and technology, a huge disparity existed. Phoenix Arts
Charter School had one ROP computer lab and one computer in each classroom,
and limited new state-adopted standards-based textbooks; whereas, George
Washington High School had library computer stations, a computer lab, several
computers per classroom, and newly adopted standards-based textbooks for
every student.

Curriculum Alignment Causes
of Performance Gaps
Curriculum was another factor that contributed to the causes of the
performance gap. Teachers were not sure of the grade-level standards for the
sections on the CAHSEE. Most teacher had continued regular lesson plans
without much concern over teaching concepts and standards addressed in the
CAHSEE (nor the California Standards Test (CST). The causes of the
performance gap illustrate that teachers did not have adequate knowledge,
motivation, and organizational support to achieve the work goals.
13
Knowledge and Skills: It was important to note that some students had
arrived in high school inadequately prepared to learn grade-level standards and
this contributed to the causes of the performance gap. For this reason, teachers
choose not to teach grade level standards addressed on the CAHSEE to all the
students and had to spend valuable time teaching remedial math and language
arts before they could teach grade level content standards. Another reason for
the cause of performance gaps was some teachers’ unfamiliarity with the
standards tested on the CAHSEE, and as a result of this knowledge and skill
deficiency, teachers were not able to prepare the students with the knowledge
and skills needed to pass the CAHSEE.
Motivation. “Most motivation researchers agree that there are three
motivational “indexes,” or types of motivational processes that come into play in
a work environment. These opportunities or potential problem areas are active
choice, persistence, and mental effort” (Clark & Estes, 2002, pp. 80-81).
Phoenix Arts Charter School was a small school where the staff wore many hats
resulting in teachers having to divide their attention and time between many
work goals. According to Clark and Estes (2002), when people get distracted
too often or for too long by less important (but perhaps more attractive) work
goals, they have a persistence problem. The school was an exciting place where
the arts and performances took center stage along side the core curriculum.
Teachers got lost in the more attractive, but less important work goals in an arts
14
emphasized environment. The administrator should motivate teachers on the
more important work goals, which are meeting grade-level proficiencies and
passing the CAHSEE. Teachers were frustrated by spending additional time
preparing specifically for the CAHSEE, when they were struggling to teach
content standards in their classes and divide their time between many other
school-related goals. The cause of the performance gap was a result of
conflicting work goals that undermined teachers’ persistence to prepare students
for the CAHSEE.
Organizational Barrier. The third cause of the performance gap “is the
lack of efficient and effective organizational work processes and material
resources” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 103). According to Clark and Estes (2002)
“even for people with top motivation and exceptional knowledge and skills,
missing or inadequate processes and materials can prevent the achievement of
performance goals” (p. 103). Teachers state that if they had the tools and
material supplies and equipment to achieve the goal, they could review and
teach the skills necessary for the CAHSEE, without feeling that they were taking
valuable time away from the content-standard curriculum. The availability of
tools and material supplies for work was an organizational cause for the
performance gap at Phoenix Arts Charter School.

15
Professional Development Causes of
the Performance Gaps
Professional development provides support to teachers in instructional
methods, including teaching strategies, classroom management, and other
training designed to improve pupil performance. The administrator had not
provided sufficient professional development training for the CAHSEE. The
causes of the professional development gap could be attributed to a lack of
knowledge and skills, motivation, and to organizational barriers.
Knowledge and Skills. Professional development was designed to
increase the skill and knowledge of educators. “Knowledge and skill
enhancement are required for job performance under the condition that people
do not know how to accomplish their performance goals and usually requires a
need for information, job aids, or training” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 58). The
Phoenix Arts Charter School teaching staff did not have adequate training in
CAHSEE to be effective in the preparation of the students for the CAHSEE.
Motivation. Teachers were not motivated to learn more about the
CAHSEE, which can be attributed to a persistent problem of dividing their
attention between too many other goals. Teachers would have been motivated
to use the information to help students, if it had been available to them, through
professional development prior to the start of school.
16
Organizational Barriers. The administrator did not supply adequate
resource levels which caused an organizational barrier for teachers in the
implementation and preparation of the CAHSEE. Professional development
would have given teachers the necessary tools and materials to achieve the goal.
In conclusion, Phoenix Arts Charter School demonstrated a performance
gap between the school’s goals and the current level of performance. The last
section of this chapter develops effective solutions for closing the performance
gap and gives the school the results that were needed to move from ordinary to
extraordinary.

Action Plans
Solutions were developed so that Phoenix Arts Charter School could
close the performance gap between the ultimate goal (100% pass rate) on the
first testing in the 10
th
grade) and the current level of student performance (82%
pass rate) on the CAHSEE.

Action Plan for Students
The first intervention was an analysis of the CAHSEE data. As stated
earlier, students were not meeting grade-level standards as determined by the
pass rate on the CAHSEE. Phoenix Arts Charter School students should have
passed the CAHSEE, but instead there was a gap of 14% between the school’s
17
benchmark and the level of performance. The following are some solutions for
closing the performance gap, which included teacher release time, focused
curriculum goals, and adequate material resources.
Teacher Release Time. Teachers were provided with release time to
analyze disaggregated test results, collaborate with the same single-subject
teachers both at Phoenix Arts Charter School and at George Washington High
School, and incorporate strategies for improving student learning. Counselors
monitored all students’ academic progress and notified teachers and parents of
deficiencies (Appendix A). These solutions focused teachers, counselors, and
students on performance goals.
Focused Curriculum Goals. Students at Phoenix Arts Charter School
expressed frustration over not passing the CAHSEE upon multiple attempts,
which led to under-confidence. According to Clark and Estes (2002 as
confidence increases, commitment to performance goals also increases. A
primary motivational goal was to support ways to increase confidence. One of
the best strategies to build individual confidence as recommended by Clark and
Estes (2002) was to “assign specific, short-term, and challenging but achievable
goals” (p. 91). Students focused on specific curriculum goals (benchmarks) as
reflected by the CAHSEE test results. Once the benchmark was achieved, the
student were assigned another short-term goal based on the disaggregated data
(Appendix A).
18
Resources. Phoenix Arts Charter School was a new school and had
limited resource materials and computers and these resources might not have
been available when a student might need them. As stated by Clark and Estes,
“missing or faulty processes or inadequate materials are often the cause of
barriers to closing the achievement gap” (2002, p. 122). A solution to the
organizational barrier of inadequate materials was to purchase CAHSEE
preparation materials, practice booklets, and technology to assist teachers and
students in closing the achievement gap (Appendix A).

Action Plan for Teachers
The second intervention focused on teachers. Teachers were not sure of
the grade-level standards for the sections on the CAHSEE, and some students
were not adequately prepared to learn grade-level standards. The solutions for
this section included teacher collaboration, focused work goals, and adequate
tools to close the performance gap.
Teacher Collaboration. Teachers collaborated with same single-subject
teachers to learn grade-level standards required for the sections on the CAHSEE
during curriculum meetings once a month. Collectively teachers developed
lessons that actively engaged the student in learning. “Engagement was crucial
for student learning and mastery of standards” (Mafi, 2006, p. 16). The
19
benchmark was to create a highly engaged classroom that would close the
achievement gap.
Focused Work Goals. Tutor groups were established at lunch time and
after school to help motivate students by assigning specific, short-term, and
challenging but achievable goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). CAHSEE tutor groups
measured the effectiveness of CAHSEE instruction in a small group setting. All
students who did not pass the CAHSEE were assigned a tutor group(s) based on
math or language arts needs. Teachers assessed each of the students to
determine weaknesses and design curriculum instruction to meet the individual
student benchmarks. Pre- and post-assessments determined each student’s
benchmarks. Standards-based curriculum required for passing the CAHSEE
was used. The assumption was that students who had failed one or more parts
on the CAHSEE when given small-group tutoring were more likely to pass the
CAHSEE (Appendix A). The tutoring groups were evaluated for effectiveness
by the team of teachers who designed and implemented the program (Appendix
A) and by the administrator (Appendix B). In addition, the team followed
Tucker’s (1996) benchmarking strategies to address problems, issues, and
barriers and made continuous improvement part of the tutoring plan.
Resources. The limited resource barrier of not having sufficient
standards-based textbooks and other supplemental materials and resources was
solved through the purchase of additional textbooks and resource materials
20
(Appendix A) based on a projected increased student enrollment for 2006-2007
school year (average daily attendance) and grant money. This helped close the
organizational gap and teachers and students would have the necessary material
resources to achieve the goals. As stated by Clark and Estes, “organizations also
require tangible supplies and equipment to achieve goals” (2002, p. 104). The
curriculum materials for the tutor sessions included: (a) pre- and post-
assessments, (b) official CAHSEE practice tests, (c3) teachers generated
standards-based worksheets and tests, and (d) standards-based textbooks. These
solutions would ensure that all students would have equitable access to the
CORE curriculum.

Action Plans for Professional Development
The third intervention was professional development. As previously
mentioned, the administrator did not provide sufficient professional
development training for the CAHSEE, grade-level content standards, or other
related needs. In light of the federal and state mandates, it was imperative that
Phoenix Arts Charter School focused professional development activities on
instructional strategies to improve student learning. An action plan to close the
gap included: ongoing professional development, frontloading professional
development offered in the summer months, and providing the appropriate
funding resources for professional development.
21
Ongoing Professional Development. In order to assist students with
passing the CAHSEE, the administration needed to offer CAHSEE professional
development training at least once a year to support teachers with CAHSEE
preparation and testing. According to Clarks and Estes, “training was identified
as any situation where people must acquire ‘how to’ knowledge and skills, and
need practice and corrective feedback to help them achieve specific work goals”
(2002, p. 58). Professional development training gives the “how to” knowledge
teachers require to achieve the specific work goal of having students pass the
CAHSEE. To facilitate teacher planning, the training was administered during
the professional development summer workshop to frontload information that
could be used in the preparation of the fall CAHSEE. In addition to the
CAHSEE training, the administrator provided ongoing professional
development throughout the school year (Appendix C). According to Elmore
(2002), “schools that have a clear, strong internal focus on issues of instruction,
student learning, and expectations for teacher and student performance are
schools with the most effective professional development program” ( p. 20). In
order to determine whether the professional development met the targeted goals,
the professional development training was evaluated by the teachers as to the
effectiveness of the training (Appendix D).
Summer Training. Teachers were not motivated to learn more about the
CAHSEE, which can be attributed to a persistence problem of dividing their
22
attention between too many other goals. CAHSEE professional development
was provided prior to the start of school during summer training to enable
teachers to focus on a single work goal (Appendix C). Hence, this empowered
and motivated teachers to use the new information, learned during the summer
months, to design lessons that address the CAHSEE content standards and
improve student learning.
Resources. The administrator did not supply adequate resource levels
which caused an organizational barrier for teachers in the implementation and
preparation of the CAHSEE. Clark and Estes (2002) found that “inadequate
materials are often are the cause of barriers to the achievement of performance
goals, even for people with top motivation and exceptional knowledge and
skills” (p. 122). During a staff brainstorming session on “what was needed to
improve professional development,” the staff suggested the following: (a)
CAHSEE preparation materials and practice tests be purchased, (b) professional
development be offered in-house, and (c) that one person coordinate the
professional development training.
Elmore (2002) maintains that successful professional development was
likely to occur in schools and classroom settings, rather than off-site. According
to O’Day (2002), the allocation and reallocation of resources should go where
they are most needed—human or material. The staff collaboratively determined
that the professional development resources should be divided between
23
materials and human services. The administrator allocated funds to: (a) hire a
resource teacher that would provide professional development training to the
staff on-site, and (b) purchase CAHSEE materials. Professional development
was evaluated continuously and primarily on the basis of the effect it had on
student achievement (see Appendix D) and progress towards closing the
performance gaps.

Conclusion
At Phoenix Arts Charter School, there was a performance gap between
the school’s benchmark (100% pass rate) and the level of performance (82%
pass rate). The present analysis brings to light an accountability issue regarding
the school’s student pass rate on the CAHSEE. Students who had not passed the
CAHSEE would not graduate high school. The accountability issue for Phoenix
Arts Charter School has serious consequences for students if the right solutions
are not identified and implemented. In the standards-based accountability
movement of today, the focus is on teacher and administrative responsibility to
ensure that (a) curriculum was aligned to the standards, (b) student performance
reflected effective teaching and learning practices, and (c) there was a
continuous school improvement practice established. Ultimately, it was the
school’s responsibility to guarantee that all of its students demonstrate the
24
minimum grade-level competencies to pass the CAHSEE and earn a high school
diploma.
The extent that the action plan will be effective would be determined by
Phoenix Arts Charter School meeting its benchmark of 100% pass rate on the
CAHSEE 2007.

Purpose, Design, and Utility
Purpose
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of
the interventions at Phoenix Arts Charter School with regards to the pass rate on
the CAHSEE. This study provided both summative and formative evaluations
in the attempt to assess the impact of the interventions in meeting the needs of
our students. The formative evaluation involved looking at how the
interventions could improve classroom instruction and student performance on
the CAHSEE. The summative evaluation analyzed the quantitative data to
compare the impact of the interventions.
Role of Researcher. As a director/principal in the Phoenix Arts Charter
School, my desire was to close the achievement gap of 10th grade students on
the CAHSEE through standards-based education. The purpose of this study was
to examine the impact (positive, negative, or neutral) of a standards-based
intervention on the academic achievement of 10th grade students at the school.
25

Design
The method used in this study was a Pre- Post-Quasi-Experimental
Design. This study examined results from the California State Department of
Education accountability reports, CAHSEE, and California Standards Test
(CST). Also I benchmarked these data with a targeted 100% pass rate on the
CAHSEE. This pass rate was used as a result of the 2006 California state
mandate that all students must pass the CAHSEE to receive a high school
diploma and graduate from high school. I compared the effectiveness of the
interventions by the achievement gains in pass rates.
Focus. The focus of this study was both quantitative and qualitative.
The quantitative method focused on the growth of student achievement and a
comparison of pre and post scores. The qualitative method of this study
involved observations, interviews, and surveys of selected teachers. The
essential question became, “Is there a relationship between multiple
interventions and student achievement on the CAHSEE?”
Unit of analysis. The unit of analysis for the quantitative portion of this
study was the CAHSEE and California Standards Test (CST) data. The time
boundaries were between 2006 and 2007. Monitoring points were Academic
Performance Index—performance bands (number of students at the advanced,
proficient, basic, below basic, far below basic) and Adequate Yearly Progress.
26
Sampling and Sources of Data. In addition to the CAHSEE and STAR
scores derived from the California Department of Education, I used
observations, interviews, and surveys of selected teachers. Results of
quantitative and qualitative data were presented to assess the effectiveness of the
interventions on student growth and achievement gains.

Utility
The utility of this study was informative and of a practical nature. It was
directly applicable to my job, which was to ensure that students pass the
CAHSEE and graduate from high school. This study gave insight into the
effectiveness of the interventions and whether teachers should continue, modify
or eliminate the interventions. The primary goal of this study was to increase
student achievement on the CAHSEE to 100% pass rate.
27
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of the literature
pertaining to students who are held accountable to pass the proficiency standards
for the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) as required by the
California State Department of Education. In order to achieve this objective,
four perspectives are outlined.
First, implications of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002)
(NCLB) on students are reviewed. Second, an analysis of the validity of
utilizing standard-based curriculum and assessments as a means of academic
measurement for students is examined. Third, using data to affect student
achievement is addressed. Lastly, professional development that affect and
influence the effectiveness of teaching and learning is reviewed.

Implications of NCLB on Students Passing the CAHSEE
The NCLB reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) and gave the federal government a major role in states’ education
through specific regulations. With the federal enactment of Public Law 102–
110 (United States Code, 2002), NCLB mandated an appropriate level of
academic achievement for every student in America’s classrooms to meet “at a
28
minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and
state academic assessments” (United States Code, 2002, Public Law 107-110, p.
1439). Each state is required to develop a set of high-quality, yearly student
academic assessments that measure students’ level of academic performance. In
California, student achievement is assessed by a student’s performance on the
California Standards Test (CST) and the California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE).
Each year states must report student progress in terms of percentage of
students scoring at the “proficient” level or higher. Reporting the CST yearly is
referred to as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). In addition, states must report
high school graduation rates and an additional intervention for middle and
elementary schools. Adequate Yearly Progress is a statewide accountability
system mandated by the NCLB which requires each state to ensure that all
schools and districts make Adequate Yearly Progress.
Under NCLB, not only schools, the Local Education Agency (LEAs),
and the state, as a whole, must meet AYP requirements, but also numerically
significant subgroups within those schools, LEAs, and the state (California
Department of Education, 2007). According to the California Department of
Education, the 2006-2007 AYP standard criteria percentage of students required
to perform at the proficient level and above in the areas of English-Language
Arts and mathematics were 23.0% and 23.7%, respectively. This means
29
students must perform at or above the proficient level on the CST in the area of
English-Language Arts (23.0%) and mathematics (23.7%) for the 2006-2007
school year to meet the district’s AYP goal. Another criteria requirement in
achieving the annual AYP goal is the participation rate of 95% of students in
every “significant subgroup” in the CST (California Department of Education,
2007, p. 17).
In addition, students residing in California must pass the California High
School Exit Exam as a graduation requirement and the exam is used in
calculating the Academic Performance Index (API) for state accountability
purposes and Adequate Yearly Progress to meet federal NCLB requirements.
The CAHSEE has two parts: English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics. As
stated by the California Department of Education (2007):
The ELA part addresses state content standards through grade ten. In
reading, this excludes vocabulary, decoding, comprehension, and
analysis of information and literary texts. In writing, this covers writing
strategies, applications, and the conventions of English (e.g., grammar,
spelling, and punctuation). The mathematics’ part of the CAHSEE
addresses state standards in grades six and seven and Algebra I. The
exam includes statistics, data analysis and probability, number sense,
measurement and geometry, mathematical reasoning, and algebra.
Students are also asked to demonstrate a strong foundation in
computation and arithmetic, including working with decimals, fractions,
and percents. (p. 1)

Students must earn a score of 350 or higher on both parts of the
CAHSEE exam to receive a passing score. All California public school students
must satisfy the CAHSEE requirements, as well as all other state and local
30
requirements, in order to receive a high school diploma. Students with
disabilities can satisfy this requirements by receiving a local waiver pursuant to
Education Code Section 60851 (c), or receiving an exemption pursuant to
Education Code section 60852.3 or 60852.4.
In the 2005-2006 school year, 18% of 10th grade students at the Phoenix
Arts Charter School did not pass the CAHSEE. There was a disparity between
the 100% pass rate requirement and the 82% pass rate by Phoenix Arts Charter
School students. Fortunately, students have many opportunities to pass the
CAHSEE before graduation.
The attempt to understand academic achievement might lie in the Rand
research, “How Educators in Three States are Responding to Standards-Based
Accountability Under No Child Left Behind” (Rand Education, 2007). NCLB
was designed to improve schools through a system of standards-based
accountability (SBA). NCLB’s accountability provisions require each state to
develop content and achievement standards, measure student progress through
tests, and intervene in schools and districts that do not meet the targets.
According to the study, researchers aim to identify the factors that enhance the
implementation of SBA systems, encourage positive changes in teaching
practices, and improve student achievement. Superintendents ranked three
activities as most important: using data for decision making, aligning
curriculum with state standards, and focusing on low-performing students. In
31
addition, superintendents reported other improvement strategies providing
technical assistance to schools and offering a variety of professional
development opportunities for principals and teachers.

Implications of Curriculum Alignment on
Student Achievement
Results gleaned from the Rand study were consistent with other studies
previously conducted. According to Barr and Parrett (2007):
The greatest challenge facing public education in the United States today
is educating all students to proficiency and truly leaving no child behind.
The most difficult aspect of this challenge is teaching the underachieving
children of poverty. These students live on the other side of the
apartheid of despair and represent a huge and growing underclass of
Americans who have been locked out of the world of abundance and
opportunity that characterizes America. (p. 21)

Researchers have helped schools in the United States to understand
factors that adversely affect student achievement. One factor for the failure of
public education to educate children to proficiency is the lack of curriculum
alignment, which does not align written, taught, and tested curriculum, and in
the end does not allow students to perform successfully on mandated
assessments.
The following research projects: the effective schools research of the
late 1970s (Edmonds, 1979), the Louisiana School Effectiveness Study (Teddlie
& Stringfield, 1993), and research on the high schools that work project
32
(Bottoms & Anthony, 2005) demonstrated that rigorous curriculum lead to
greater student achievement. In addition, research on high-performing, high-
poverty schools found that rigorous research-based curriculum was an essential
component in improving student performance. According to Parr and Barrett
(2007):
The task of developing, aligning, managing, and monitoring a curriculum
that is consistent with standards, assessments, and instruction (the taught
curriculum) is a highly challenging, long-term process that never ends.
Yet without it, efforts to provide improved professional development,
high-quality instructors, research-based classroom instruction, and extra
instructional time may be ineffective. (p.156)

Research by Marzano (2003) elaborates on the importance of a
guaranteed and viable curriculum and he ranks this school-level factor as
having the most impact on student achievement. Marzano (2003) includes two
other factors that he feels are critical to “a guaranteed and viable curriculum”
namely, “opportunity to learn” and “time” (p. 22). In order to have a guaranteed
and viable curriculum, there needs to be an alignment between the intended
curriculum, the implemented curriculum, and the attained curriculum. While
the content essential for all students to learn may be identified, very often there
is insufficient time in the school day to address it. In working towards ensuring
the viability of the articulated curriculum, a school-wide practice of protecting
instructional time should be instituted. In order to ensure viability of
curriculum, classroom time has to be devoted to instruction. According to
Marzano (2003), “In the current era of standards-driven curriculum, viability
33
means ensuring that the articulated curriculum content for a given course or
given grade level can be addressed in the time available” (p. 25). Marzano
(2003) further concludes that “the standards movement as currently
implemented has created a situation that violates the viability criterion” and
“enacting this research-based principle of school reform is one of the most
significant challenges currently facing U.S. schools” (p. 25). This requires
creative problem-solving and thinking outside the box in order to make the most
effective use of the time that we do have to better address the standards.
Looking at research on how time is used was critical to the academic
achievement of students. Allington and Cunningham (1996), Oakes (1985), and
others found that there are disparities related to student achievement and the use
of academic and nonacademic time. Researchers demonstrated that students
who are in lower-achieving, low-income schools in remedial programs received
less time on academics. Schools need to analyze the use of existing time and the
impact on student achievement. In addition, to help support students who may
need more time beyond the traditional school day, schools could provide before
and after school tutoring aligned with the coursework and standards, extended
school year, e-classes, and other creative solutions to help promote student
achievement.
Ron Edmonds, leader for effective school movement of the 1970s,
believed that a school must challenge students to be effective in the education of
34
students. Reynolds and Teddlie (2000) concluded that teachers should
communicate high expectations directly to students by establishing clear goals
for all students. In order to determine if goals are met, effective feedback and
monitoring of students should also be established. Researchers have found that
to impact student achievement, feedback must have two specific characteristics.
First, students must receive feedback throughout the learning process (Bangert-
Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991). The timely feedback throughout the
school year was referred to as formative assessment (as opposed to summative
which are the yearly state-mandated assessments). Second, effective feedback
must be related to the content being taught to the students (Bangert-Drowns, et
al., 1991). According to Marzano (2003), there are three action steps to
establish an assessment system that provides feedback on specific topics to
students. The three actions steps are:
Action Step 1. Implement an assessment system that provides timely
feedback on specific knowledge and skills for specific students.
Action Step 2. Establish specific, challenging achievement goals for the
school as a whole.
Action Step 3. Establish specific goals for individual students.
(Marzano, 2003, pp. 39-46)
According to researchers, measurement of achievement is critical the
first year of implementation of new goals to provide a foundation of success on
which to build (Schmoker, 1991). By establishing a few goals that can be
accomplished in a short period of time is so potentially powerful that Schmoker
35
(1991) calls it break-through strategy. According to researchers, in order to
accomplish the break-through strategy, the gap in performance by the students
(on the CAHSEE) should be improved through the development and
implementation of curriculum aligned to the standards, establishing a few
attainable challenging goals (both school-wide and for individual students), and
establishing an assessment system to monitor student progress.

Using Data to Affect Student Achievement
Given the attention on passing the CAHSEE in order to graduate from
high school, student accountability for academic achievement begs to be
examined more closely when it comes to state and federal requirements.
Research into using data to describe effective teaching and learning is
complex. When taking into account that some students do not have the skills to
pass the CAHSEE, it is reasonable to use data to help understand who these
students are that do not possess the necessary skills. Schmoker (1991) stated
that “data help us to monitor and assess performance. Just as goals are an
essential element of success, so data are an essential piece of working toward
goals (p. 35). Most teachers would agree that we do not sufficiently monitor
student progress and use data effectively to improve teaching practice.
Rosenholtz (1991) found that “despite schools’ espoused goals of student
learning, principals rarely use data on student achievement to evaluate teachers
36
or to monitor student performance even though such data are frequently
available” (p. 16).
Research by Johnson (2002) provided a framework for using data as a
lever to create equitable school reform. Data can help educators look more
critically at patterns and practices in their own setting in the context of the whole
picture. In looking at school and classroom practices, data collected can gather
information about (a) school policies, practices, and culture, (b) reveal problems
and practices, and (c) assess equitable classroom practices. A key element to
reform is building in plans from the outset to monitor the progress and impact of
the reform. The progress and impact of the reform should be linked to the
schools vision and goals.

Professional Development that Affect and
Influence the Effectiveness of Teaching and Learning
With the goal of enhanced student achievement and of closing the
achievement gap for students on the CAHSEE, increased attention was placed
on professional development and the affect and influence this has on teaching
and learning. In the attempt to meet these goals, the use of professional
development was utilized as an intervention for this study. How can a school
become a place where all members of the staff are learning, growing, and
working to increase student achievement?
37
According to Zmuda, Kuklis, and Kline (2004), the answer lies in
systems thinking and a focus on continuous improvement. These are two
concepts that can transform staff development from something that people
merely tolerate to something that they actively pursue to create lasting
improvements in teaching and learning.
Zmuda, Kuklis, and Kline’s (2004) book is based on a set of operating
principles that provide guidance to school leaders. There are six steps of
continuous improvement necessary to transform a school into a competent
system. The six steps of continuous improvement for providing purposeful and
systemic staff development are:
1. Identify core beliefs.
2. Create a shared vision.
3. Use data to determine gaps between the current reality and the shared
vision.

4. Identify the innovations that will most likely close the gaps.
5. Develop and implement an action plan.
6. Endorse collective accountability (Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline, 2004,
p. 6)
It is the responsibility of the school-site personnel to determine how they
will elect to adopt a continuous improvement effort to transform the curricula
and practice at the school. “The purpose of every school is to optimize student
achievement; it is the core beliefs that define achievement (Zmuda, Kline, &
38
Kuklis, 2004, p. 57). According to Zmuda, Kline, & Kuklis, the first two steps
of continuous improvement are to identify and clarify core beliefs and establish
a shared vision. It is important that the process is inclusive of all stakeholders
and that the stakeholders achieve consensus on what the core beliefs should be
and what the school should look like when the core beliefs have been put into
practice. The legitimacy of a shared vision is based on how well it represents all
stakeholders and the personal commitment and responsibility for the results. A
coherent picture of how the system will function when the core beliefs have
been put into practice is essential for the success of the shared vision. To
transform a school community, a vision must be shared. With the shared vision
in place, the staff can determine the gaps between what is, and what should be,
and move towards a competent learning community.
The essential question, according to Zmuda, Kline, & Kuklis (2004), is
what are the gaps between what we believe and what we do? How do we close
those gaps? Once the staff members have identified its core beliefs, and
developed a shared vision, the next steps in this process would be to measure the
congruence between the current reality and the vision, determine the changes
that will close any gaps, support teachers during the change process, and foster a
culture of collective autonomy and accountability.
Establishing and maintaining changes at the school site with regards to
continuous improvement efforts will require fundamental shifts from old
39
paradigms about itself to re-defining and transforming the ways the school
defines the relationship among its members. Staff development and resources
will need to be more effectively used to build capacity and to help teachers
perform more competently individually and collectively, ultimately, ensuring
that all students are successful in passing the CAHSEE.
Never before has there been a greater recognition of the importance of
professional development. According to Darling-Hammond (1990), a professor
at the Teachers College of Columbia University, educational reform requires
teachers not only to update their skills and information but also to transform
their role as a teacher. There is a demand of new expectations for students,
teachers, and schools that educators may not be prepared to meet. Darling-
Hammond (1990) concurs in her findings that professional development is a key
tool for teachers to keep current in regards to educational issues, helps teachers
to implement new knowledge, and refines their practice. Darling-Hammond
further suggests that the results of school reform efforts depend on the
opportunities teachers have to learn new instructional practices and for teachers
to explore new roles. In order for changes to be effective, all stakeholders must
understand the new expectations of teachers, the new teacher roles and
responsibilities, and current definitions of professional development, and how
all of these factors contribute to the systemic reform of the organization.
40
The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996)
summarized its challenge to the American public in the following statement:
“We propose an audacious goal.… By the year 2006, America will provide
every student with what should be his or her educational birthright: access to
competent, caring, and qualified teaching” (p. 10).
In a report, Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching,
prepared for the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future,
Darling-Hammond (1997) sought to gauge the nation’s progress toward the goal
of high-quality teaching in every classroom in every community. Darling-
Hammond stated that without a sustained commitment to teachers’ learning and
school redesign, the goal of dramatically enhancing school performance for all
of America’s children will remain unaltered.
The report compiles data regarding the conditions of teaching that have
become available since the original Commission report released in 1996, and
examines policy changes that have occurred. According to Darling-Hammond
(1997), after drawing on a wide range of research findings and on examples of
best practices from the United States and abroad, the Commission proposed
recommendations that covered the entire continuum of teacher development.
The five recommendations were:
(1) Standards for teachers linked to standards for students, (2) reinvent
teacher preparation and professional development, (3) overhaul teacher
recruitment and put qualified teachers in every classroom, (4) encourage
and reward knowledge and skill, and (5) create schools that are
41
organized for student and teacher success. (Darling-Hammond, 1990,
p. 3)
Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden (2005) further state “effective
teachers use many different tools to assess how their students learn as well as
what the students know” (p. 118). Researchers have found that the process of
learning to enact new skills is best supported by skilled coaching in peer-support
groups that allow teachers to develop, strengthen, and refine teaching skills
together. Darling-Hammond (2005) explains teachers develop their skills when
they undergo a process of learning, experimenting, and reflecting on their
practice with feedback from peers and more-expert practitioners. This process
helps teaches strengthen their ability both to implement new approaches and to
hone their efforts to improve student achievement.
42
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Research Design
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of multiple
interventions on the academic achievement of students on the CAHSEE and the
CST at the Phoenix Arts Charter School. Given the challenges of students
passing the CAHSEE, a mixed-methods approach was utilized to gather
information and data for this study. According to Creswell (2003) “The
researcher bases the inquiry on the assumption that collecting diverse types of
data best provides an understanding of a research problem” (p. 21).
It is important to acknowledge that the findings of this study are limited
to the Phoenix Arts Charter School. It is also important to acknowledge that due
to the limitations of this study’s design, causation cannot be proven because
random assignment has not occurred. This study provides insight into the
effectiveness of the multiple interventions and the impact on the academic
achievement of students at the Phoenix Arts Charter School.

Evaluation Design
A mixed-methods approach to data collection was used to provide
evidence for summative and formative evaluation purposes. Summative data
43
were collected to determine the effectiveness of the intervention on two
dependent variable causes: (a) scaled scores and pass rates on the California
High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and (b) performance levels of the students
as measured on the California Standards Test (CST) ELA, and Mathematics at
the Phoenix Arts Charter School. The research question used to guide the
summative evaluation was:
• Do the interventions in place have an affect on the academic
achievement of students as measured by the California High
School Exit Exam and California Standards Test?
The summative evaluation of this study incorporated a pre-post quasi
experimental design. The design included an experimental group receiving
interventions in the 2006-2007 school year. The data from 2006 served as the
standard of comparison. The following summative evaluation design format
was used: 0 pre X 0 post. This research design is annotated in scientific
notation as follows:
E 01 X 02
The explanation of the scientific annotation for this study follows:
Pre-test Observation: 2006 California High School Exit Exam
Treatment (X): Interventions
Post-test Observation: 2007 California High School Exit Exam
44
The results of the 2006 CAHSEE scores for the students in the Phoenix
Arts Charter School were compared to 2007 CAHSEE results for the same grade
level (10
th
) in order to determine general growth trends for that population in the
Phoenix Arts Charter School.
According to Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2006), the four-level model
evaluates the major points of impact which include the following level
description: (a) reaction, (b) learning, (c) transfer, and (d) results.
A mixed-methods approach to the collection of data was used to provide
evidence for summative and formative purposes. Summative data were
collected to determine the effectiveness of the interventions on the following
variables: (a) pass rate as measured on the California High School Exit Exam,
(b) percent proficient and above on the English-Language Arts and Mathematics
as measured by the California Standards Test, (c) percent basic and above on the
English-Language Arts and Mathematics as measured by the California
Standards Test , and (d) proficiency band scores on English-Language Arts and
Mathematics as measured by the California Standards Test. For (d), the scoring
rubric was: 0 = FBB, 1 = BB, 2 = Basic, 3 = Proficient, and 4 = Advanced.
Only the student population in Grade 10 was analyzed.
45
Limitations
It is important to acknowledge that the findings of this study are limited
to the Phoenix Arts Charter School. Of equal importance is the
acknowledgement that causation cannot be proven because a randomized trial
did not occur. This study provided insight into the effectiveness of the multiple
interventions and their impact on the academic achievement of students at the
Phoenix Arts Charter School and thus the study is not replicable.

Formative Evaluation Design
Qualitative data were collected through unobtrusive interviews and
observations, anonymous teacher questionnaires with ratings and open-ended
questions, and analysis of existing documents and materials. The use of these
data helped to identify intervention strengths and weaknesses and provided
suggestions for program and organizational improvement. Interviews and
observation were conducted to provide information to site administrators on the
implementation levels of the standards-based core curriculum. The analysis of
existing documents and materials included state guidelines, memorandums,
policies, and instructional manuals.
According to Patton (2002):
Multiple sources of information are sought and used because no single
source of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive
perspective on the program. By using a combination of observations,
46
interviewing, and document analysis, the field worker is able to use
different data sources to validate and crosscheck findings. (p. 306)

In addition, Patton states that each source of data has strengths and
weaknesses and recommends a variety of data types and triangulation, as the
strengths of one approach can compensate for the weaknesses of another
approach. The guiding questions which served as the basis of the formative
research were:
1. How did teachers implement the intervention?
2. How did teachers react to the interventions?
3. How did teachers’ self-efficacy and attitude change as a result of the
interventions?
4. How did teacher behavior in the classroom change as a result of the
interventions?
5. What were the strengths of the interventions?
6. What were the weaknesses of the interventions?
The overall purpose of the formative evaluation was to establish the level
of consistency in the structural operation and implementations of the
interventions for program improvement at the Phoenix Arts Charter School.

Interventions
In the 2005-2006 school year, 18% of students did not pass the CAHSEE
on the first administration at the Phoenix Arts Charter School. This statistic
47
represents a large percentage of students in jeopardy of not graduating from high
school for lack of a pass rate on the CAHSEE as mandated by legislation. These
data represent a significant opportunity gap for the students.
The apparent opportunity gap has been a reoccurring concern and focus
for improvement at the Phoenix Arts Charter, particularly in light of the fact that
CAHSEE pass score is required for high school graduation. Addressing the
existing opportunity gap for 10th grade students is of primary concern. Phoenix
Arts Charter was a newly formed school and many of the systems had not been
established. In order to address this situation, a three-tier approach was
implemented: desegregating the California High School Exit Exam data,
curriculum alignment, and professional development.
Disaggregating data results from the CAHSEE has been utilized to target
areas of student need for the tutoring groups. CAHSEE test results were
delineated in subject strands utilizing average percent correct. CAHSEE ELA is
delineated into three strands: Reading--word analysis, reading comprehension,
and literary response and analysis; writing--writing strategies and writing
conventions; and writing applications--essay 1. CAHSEE mathematics is
delineated into probability and statistics, number sense, algebra and functions,
measurement and geometry, and algebra I. This gave the staff a better
understanding of the Phoenix Arts Charter School test data and modifications
that needed to be implemented through curriculum alignment. The target was to
48
achieve a 100% pass rate on the CAHSEE. In addition, Phoenix Arts Charter
School compared its CAHSEE results with one top performing school in the
district, George Washington High School.
Curriculum alignment was accomplished through developed course of
study(s) which aligned to the state standards. This intervention was utilized
school-wide to focus the curriculum on the state standards and to increase
student skills on the CAHSEE. The focus of this intervention was to have a
positive impact on student achievement on the CAHSEE and CST. The site
administrator facilitated the development of course of study(s) and observed the
implementation of the curriculum in the classrooms.
The third intervention, professional development, provided support to
teachers in instructional methods, including teaching strategies, and other
training designed to improve the skill and knowledge base of teachers in order to
improve learning for students. In addition, teachers were given training in the
content standards required for the CAHSEE and given CAHSEE preparation and
practice booklets.
Student achievement data from the CST and CAHSEE for the 2005-2006
school year indicated that Phoenix Arts Charter School had not made adequate
yearly progress and the Phoenix Arts Charter School administration and
teaching staff developed a professional development plan that focused on
strengthening teacher expertise and skill in curriculum instruction.
49
Participants and Setting.
The participants in this study consisted of all the 10th grade students at
the Phoenix Arts Charter School. The focus of this study included 59 students
grade 10 taking the CAHSEE. This study measured the impact of the
intervention program by utilizing the percentage of students achieving a pass
rate on the CAHSEE. The focus group participants were measured by their
CAHSEE pass rates from the 2006-2007 school year.
Another group of participants in this study were the staff at the Phoenix
Arts Charter School. During the study, there were 28 certificated staff members
which included part-time teachers and administrators. These participants
contributed by sharing their beliefs regarding how CAHSEE training is
implemented and how it has impacted student achievement. Not every staff
member was interviewed. The focus was to gather information regarding
implementation and effect. Once data gathered from the participants became
redundant, then sampling ceased to be collected.
The setting in this study was the Phoenix Arts Charter School which was
a visual and performing arts college preparatory middle and high school (grades
7-12) that provided young adults with an academic experience in an atmosphere
where artistic talent and technical skill can flourish. Phoenix Arts Charter
School served a highly diverse student population from the Sacramento area and
families living in other bordering schools districts. The charter school was
50
located in one of Sacramento’s most socio-economically disadvantaged and
ethnically diverse attendance areas. The surrounding community was comprised
largely of immigrant families from Mexico and Southeast Asia with extensive
English language acquisition needs. Virtually all students came from minority
and/or disadvantaged backgrounds. The total student population was 439
students. The majority of students comprised Hispanic/Latino students (35.8%),
White (31.7%), and African American (15.5 %). Sixty-six percent of the student
population participated in free or reduced-price lunch and were categorized as
socio-economically disadvantaged.

Instrumentation and Procedures
Achievement
In order to measure achievement, this study utilized quantitative data
collected by the California Department of Education (CDE), specifically in the
area of mathematics and Language Arts from the CAHSEE) and the California
Standards Test (CST).
California Standards Tests (CSTs) are tests “based on the state’s
academic content standards—what teachers are expected to teach and what
students are expected to learn” and the CAHSEE is meant “to ensure that
students have learned—at minimum—the basic math and English skills needed
to be productive in the world beyond high school”(EdSource, 2006, p. 1).
51
Beginning with the class of 2006, California students must pass the CAHSEE to
receive a high school diploma. The California High School Exit Exam is a pass-
fail exam divided into two sections: English language arts and mathematics In
addition, the state and federal governments both want to be able to use the
scores from standardized tests to hold schools and school districts accountable
for the academic performance of their students. For California, state and federal
leaders have developed two different methods for summarizing test scores
through the California’s Academic Performance Index (API) and the federal
measure, Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP). As stated by EdSource (2005):
Every school in California is assigned an API score that is calculated
from student test scores. Each school receives an API score between 200
and 1,000. A school’s API score is used in three different ways: (a)
Schools of the same type are ranked into deciles that each represent 10%
of schools. Schools in decile ranking tell you how they compare to all
other schools, (b) schools are also compared to the 100 schools most like
them in terms of student background and some other factors because test
scores are strongly correlated with student characteristics, and (c) the
state gives schools a target for improving their API score and tracks the
change from one year to the next. (p. 2)

In addition to the API, the federal approach to accountability under the
NCLB focuses on the achievement of every subgroup of students. EdSource
(2005) further states, “The primary measure of success is that a specific-and
gradually increasing-percentage of each subgroup of students score ‘proficient’
or ‘advanced’ on the CSTs in English and math” (p. 3).
The state’s goal for every school is to have a minimum API score of 800.
As a result of the NCLB, every subgroup of students must meet the proficiency
52
target set by the federal government in the subjects of English and mathematics.
Failure to do so results in sanctions administered against the school district and
the individual school. In order for subgroups to be measured, 95% of the
students in each subgroup must be included in the testing administration.
Procedure. The process in which this study measured achievement
included the compilation of CAHSEE pass rates and CST ELA and mathematic
scores of the total student population from the experimental school beginning
with the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 administrations. For comparison purposes,
the percentage level of total student population performing with a pass rate at
the Phoenix Arts Charter School were reviewed and benchmarked against a
100% pass rate.

Interviews
Interview data were collected and utilized in this study. As stated by
Patton (2002), “there are three basic approaches to collecting qualitative data
through open-ended interviews. The three types are: the informal conversational
interview, the general interview guide approach, and the standardized open-
ended interview” (p. 342). Patton further explains that the informal
conversational interview relies on spontaneous generation of questions. The
general interview guide approach outlines a set of issues that are explored by the
respondent before the interview begins. Finally, the standardized open-ended
53
interview includes a set of carefully worded and arranged questions. All three
approaches share the commitment to ask genuinely open-ended questions that
offer the respondents the opportunity to respond in their own words and
perspectives.
For the purpose of this study, the general interview guide approach was
utilized. The general interview guide approach consisted of the following
questions:
1. What were your greatest barriers to implementing your
interventions?
2. What steps and actions have given you the best return in
performance improvements?
3. What measure was used to gauge student success?
4. What were the strengths of the interventions?
5. What were the weaknesses of the interventions?
6. How did professional development improve your teaching and
student learning?
7. What additional professional development opportunity would
enhance your instructional delivery?
8. How was the data used to increase/improve student achievement?
9. What impact did the development of Course of Study have on
your instructional practices?
54
Procedures. The researcher interviewed staff at the Phoenix Arts
Charter School to gather information pertaining to their feelings and thoughts
about the intervention and tutoring program. Patton (2002) states “we interview
people to find out from them those things we cannot directly observe” (p. 340).
In addition, Patton further states that “qualitative interviewing begins with the
assumption that the perspective of others is meaningful, knowable, and able to
be made explicit” (p. 341).
The interviews were conducted at the Phoenix Arts Charter School
throughout the school day, within a 6 months timeline, November 2006 through
April 2007. The interview length ranged from 15 to 30 minutes. The interviews
were conducted with 10 certificated staff members, which included certificated
teachers and administrators. When data gathering became redundant, the
interviewer did not continue with more certificated staff members. Data were
recorded by the researcher during and after interviews through hand-written note
taking method in order to maintain an unobtrusive interview technique. The
observations also included the teacher-student actions and interactions during
the observations of the multiple interventions.

Observations
Observations were the second source of qualitative data collected for this
study. Observations of the multiple interventions were conducted throughout
55
the instructional day during a 6-months span from November 2006 to April
2007. Observations ranged from 30 to 55 minutes in duration. School
personnel, students, and the classroom environments were examined.
Information from the observation was recorded utilizing a handwritten, note
taking method to maintain an unobtrusive observation method by the researcher.
A non-participant role by the researcher was maintained during the observations.
Patton (2002) defines the advantages of observations as a form of data
collection:
1. Direct observations help inquirer to be better able to understand and
capture the context of the setting enabling a more holistic perspective.
2. It provides firsthand experience with a setting with less need to rely on
prior conceptualizations.
3. The inquirer has the opportunity to see things that may routinely escape
awareness among the people in the setting.
4. The inquirer has the chance to learn things where people would be
unwilling to provide information on sensitive topics, especially to
strangers.
5. The inquirer has the opportunity to move beyond the selective
perspectives of others.
6. The inquirer is able to draw on personal knowledge during the formal
interpretations stage of analysis. (pp. 262)

Document and Materials Analysis
The final source of qualitative data collection utilized in this study was
document and materials analysis. Documents and materials analyzed in this
56
study included school districts directives, training manuals, district curriculum
and instruction guidelines.
Document and materials analysis form the basis of the third and final
form of qualitative data collection for this study. The documents and materials
analyzed in this study also included school district directives in the form of
memorandums, policies and guidelines. In addition, other documents such as
training manuals, instructional manuals and curriculum materials were also
included.
Procedure. The document and materials analysis provided an
understanding of the qualitative data collected from the interviews and
observations as part of this study.

Qualitative Analysis
There are various approaches to collecting qualitative data for this study.
To minimize pages and pages of data, the following six-step guideline was
utilized to structure the analysis of this data (Creswell, 2003). The generic steps
developed by Creswell (2003) involve the following steps:
(1) Organize and prepare the data for analysis from interviews, field
notes, sorting, and arranging data.
(2) Develop a general sense of the information and reflect on its overall
meaning.
(3) Begin detailed analysis with a coding process or organizing the
material into “chunks.”
57
(4) Use the coding process to generate a description of the setting or
people as well as categories or themes for analysis.
(5) Advance how the description and themes will be represented in the
qualitative narrative.
(6) Formulate an interpretation or meaning of the data. (pp. 191)

Summative Analysis
The purpose of an intervention study is to determine the statistical
significance through the analysis of quantitative data. STAR data for the CST
and CAHSEE data were collected through the CDE website and used in the
analysis of the independent pre-post groups’ design.
The pre-post design was used to analyze the change at the experimental
school, Phoenix Arts Charter School, from pre intervention (2006) to post
intervention (2007). For each dependent variable described above, the following
statistics were used: (a) an independent groups t-test to determine the statistical
significance of the change, (b) Cohen’s d to assess practical significance, and (c)
percentage gain to assess practical significance per NCLB.

Delimitations and Limitations of the Study
The internal validity of the pre-post design is limited because it was not a
randomized trial. External validity of any single study is limited and the results
can only be generalized to similar populations, measurement, setting, and
treatments.
58
The focus of the summative evaluation of this study was to determine
whether or not the interventions had a positive impact on student achievement
on the CAHSEE. Time constrains exist in the context of the current study, as
results had to be reported by May 1, 2007. For the purpose of this study, and in
keeping within time constraints, pre-post data was only be reviewed using the
2005-2006 and 2006-2007 CAHSEE and CST results.
This study utilized an informal interview process. Interviews were used
to gather information regarding the affects on student achievement. In addition,
this study did not use written surveys or questionnaires, as informal interview
results were utilized specifically for informational purposes and future study.
Limitations are bound to occur within an educational environment due to
the complexity of a naturalistic setting. Much more time would be needed to
examine the implementation and inclusion factors, and should occur
longitudinally over time rather than in a one-year time frame.
59
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The summative evaluation portion of this study incorporated a pre-post
independent quasi-experimental design. The four dependent variables were:
ELA and Mathematics CST performance band scores, the percentage of students
who scored Basic and Above on the ELA and Mathematics CST, and the
percentage of students who scored Proficient and Above on the ELA and
Mathematics CST. The fourth dependent variable was CAHSEE ELA and math
results for 2006 and 2007. The performance band scores were coded as follows:
0 = Far Below Basic; 1 = Below Basic; 2 = Basic; 3 = Proficient; and 4 =
Advanced. The benchmark comparison of 100% pass rate was used as a
standard for comparison.

Pre/post Independent Groups’ Design
This design was used to analyze the change in grade 10 at the school
from 2005-2006 (pre-intervention) to 2006-2007 (post-intervention). The
following statistics were used for CST ELA and mathematics performance band
scores: (1) an independent groups t-test to assess the statistical significance of
the change (p < .15), (2) Cohen’s d to assist practical significance [criterion for
practical significance (d > .20)], (3) raw change from 2006 to 2007 to assess
60
practical significance, and (4) percentage change to assess practical significance
(criterion for practical significance = 10% improvement).

California Standards Test Results
Table 2 shows the pre-post significance test findings (p < .15) for
Phoenix Arts Charter School (grade 10).

Table 2

Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA and Math Performance Band Change:
Statistical Findings

Groupings
Pre N
2006
Post N
2007
Pre M
2006
Post M
2007

Difference

t-ratio
Observed
P

Grade 10
ELA
43 59 2.05 2.23 +0.19-.814 .418
Grade 10
Algebra I
12 22 .83 .68 -0.15 .546 .592
Grade 10
Geometry
21 21 1.14 1.42 +0.28-1.01 .319
p < .150

Rows one, two and three results shown in Table 2 indicate that overall in
the experimental school, there was not significant increase in CST ELA,
Algebra I, and Geometry performance band scores from 2006 to 2007.
ELA, t (82.81) = .418, p > .15; Algebra I, t (18.34) = .592, p > .15; Geometry, t
61
(39.59) = .319, p > .15. In light of the small sample size, the lack of statistical
significance was expected.
Because statistical significance is highly dependent on sample size and
very large differences on a practical level may not be statistically significant, the
practical significance of each difference was assessed in three ways: raw change
from 2006 to 2007, effect size, and percentage change. The raw change is the
post-test score minus the pre-test score. Effect size was computed using the
ratio of the change from 2006 to 2007 to the pre-test standard deviation.
Percentage change was assessed using the ratio of the change from 2006 to 2007
to the pre-test mean. Results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Pre- Versus Post-Interventions CST ELA, Algebra I, and Geometry
Performance Band Differences: Practical Significance

Grouping Pre M Pre SD
Pre-Post
Change
Effect
Size
Percent
Change

ELA
Grade 10
2.05 1.23 +.19 .16 .09
Algebra I
Grade 10
.83 .83 -.15 -.18 -.18*
Geometry
Grade 10
1.14 .96 +.28 .29** .25*

*p > .10
**p > .20
62
Table 3 shows that the pre-test algebra I and geometry means fall near
1.00. In 2006 the average student in Phoenix Arts Charter School was
performing at the Basic level in algebra I and geometry. Using the tenth grade
CST ELA students in the experimental school as the sample, 12% of the
students were performing at Far Below Basic (FBB), 23% were at Below Basic
(BB), 28% were at the Basic level (B), 23% were at the Proficient level (P), and
14% of the students were at the Advanced (A) level on the CST ELA pre-test.
Using the tenth grade CST Algebra I students in PACS as the sample,
42% of the students were performing at Far Below Basic, 33% were at Below
Basic, 25% were at the Basic level, 0% were at the Proficient level and 0% of
the students were at the Advanced level on the Algebra I CST pre-test. Using
the tenth grade CST Geometry students in the experimental school as the
sample, 24% of the students were performing at Far Below Basic, 52% were at
Below Basic, 10% were at the Basic level, 14% were at the Proficient level, and
0% of the students were at the Advanced level on the Geometry CST pre-test.
Table 3 displays the practical significance for each of the targeted
groups. Practical significance was examined in three ways:
Raw Change. In one instance the degree of improvement from 2006 to
2007 was substantial. Among CST Geometry tenth grade students, the observed
gain change 2006 to 2007 was .28. (about one-fourth of a performance band).
63
Effect Size. One group exceeds the pre-study standard of .20 by a
substantial amount, CST Geometry 10
th
graders (.29). In this group the effect
size was greater than one-fourth a standard deviation.
Percentage Change. Another way to assess practical significance is to
examine the percentage change in the performance band scores from pre to post.
Our preset standard for practical significance was 10%. The last column of
Table 3 shows that on the CST Geometry, there was a 25% increase from 2006
to 2007. The size of the gain is particularly noteworthy, but this gain needs to
be interpreted in light of the fact that pre-test performance band scores were at
the Basic level to begin with.
Tables 4 and 5 summarize the pre-post results for two additional indices:
percentage of students who scored Basic and Above and percentage of the
students who scored Proficient and Above (as per NCLB). The reason that the
percentage of students scoring Basic and Above was added in addition to the
NCLB requirement was that in California, it is likely that a goal of 100% Basic
and Above is a more realistic 2014 target for Phoenix Arts Charter School.
The findings in Table 4 show that a practically significant change in both
CST ELA and Geometry performance occurred in the tenth grade. Although
one of the changes was in the 58% improvement range, the results have to be
qualified to the extent that the pre-test rate was .24 and thus there was
considerable room for improvement in Geometry.
64
Table 4

Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CST ELA, Algebra I, and Geometry Percent Basic
and Above
Percent Basic and Above

Grouping Pre
(2006)
Post
(2007)
Pre-Post
Change
Percent
Change
ELA
Grade 10
.65 .75 +.10* .15*
Algebra I
Grade 10
.25 .09 -.16 -.64
Geometry
Grade 10
.24 .38 .14* .58*
* = >.10

Table 5

Pre- Versus Post-Interventions CST ELA, Algebra I, and Geometry Percent
Proficient and Above
Percent Proficient and Above

Grouping Pre
(2006)
Post
(2007)
Pre-Post
Change
Percent
Change

ELA
Grade 10
.37 .43 .06 .16*
Algebra I
Grade 10
.00 .00 .00 .00
Geometry
Grade 10
.14 .14 .00 .00

* = % change > .10
65
Table 5 shows little change in the percentage Proficient at Phoenix Arts
Charter School and thus illustrates that most of the improvement were taking
place at the lower levels. One notable exception was that the percent Proficient
in ELA increased by 16% of the CST.
Table 6 presents the effects on CST English Language Arts, Algebra I,
and Geometry performance rates for 2006 to 2007. The performance categories
are represented on Table 6. Both pre-intervention (2006) and post-intervention
(2006) performance percentages are listed and the percentage of change from
pre-intervention to post-intervention. In addition, the number of students tested
per subject level at the Phoenix Arts Charter School is given.

Table 6

Performance Categories for 10
th
Grade—CST: ELA, Algebra I, and Geometry

Subject/year N
Far
Below
Basic
Below
Basic Basic

Proficient Advanced
ELA 2006 43 12% 23% 28% 23% 14%
ELA 2007 59 5% 20% 32% 31% 12%
Difference +16-7%-3%+4% +8 -2%
Algebra I 2006 12 42% 33% 25% 0% 0%
Algebra I 2007 22 41% 50% 9% 0% 0%
Difference +10-1%+17%-16% 0% 0%
Geometry 2006 21 24% 52% 10% 14% 0%
Geometry 2007 21 10% 52% 24% 14% 0%
Difference 0-14%0%+14% 0% 0%

66
For ELA, tenth grade students produced reductions in the Far Below
Basic category at a decrease of 7%, the Below Basic category with results of
-3%, and Advanced category with results of -2%. In performance, percentages
were in the Basic category at +4% and Proficient category at +8%.
Algebra I students did not have a positive move “to the right” and results
demonstrated poorer performance for 2006 to 2007. Possible factors
contributing to these results are explained in the following chapter.
Table 5 presents data that show students in geometry increased
percentage results by 14% in the Proficient category and decreased the number
of students at the Far Below Basic performance band by -14%. The increase
and decreased results in the Proficient and Far Below Basic performance bands
are noteworthy, and indicative of progress in this area.
Overall, across the three subject categories, students at the Phoenix Arts
Charter School have made changes in a positive direction. The student
population that made the most increased changes was in geometry moving more
students closer to reaching the Proficient and Above target goal as required by
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) standards. The basic premise of Table 6
demonstrates that the school made positive changes and moved student
populations into categories of higher student academic achievement. Decreased
performance in Algebra I was one exception to these positive findings.
67
California High School Exit Exam Results
Table 7 displays pre- versus post-intervention comparisons which
include mean scaled scores, raw pass rate, and percent pass rate on the
California High School Exit Exam for the Phoenix Arts Charter School 2006
to 2007:

Table 7

Pre- Versus Post-Intervention CAHSEE: Statistical Findings

Groupings

Pre
N
2006

Post N
2007
Pre
Mean
Scaled
Score
2006
Post
Mean
Scaled
Score
2007

Number
Passed
2006

Number
Passed
2007

Percent
Passed
2006

Percent
Passed
2007
Grade 10
ELA

46 61 387 381 41 55 89% 90%
Grade 10
Math
48 63 375 381 39 51 81% 81%

Results shown in Table 7 indicate that at Phoenix Arts Charter School
there was not a statistically or practically significant increase in the CAHSEE
ELA and math performance from 2006 to 2007. However, Table 8 indicates
highly successful pass rates when compared to district and state CAHSEE
results for grade 10 students.

68
Table 8

California High School Exit Exam Performance Results for Mathematics and
English Language Arts (Grade 10)

Institution Subject
2006 Percent
Pass Rate
2007 Percent
Pass Rate
ELA 89% 90% School—PACS
Math 81% 81%
ELA 71% 74% District
Math 72% 75%
ELA 77% 77% State—CA
Math 73% 77%

Table 8 compares the first administration of the CAHSEE for tenth grade
students on February 2006 to first administration for tenth grade students on
February 2007. These data results demonstrate that the pass rates for the
Phoenix Arts Charter School exceed the district and state pass rates for the
CAHSEE. When compared with the district, the school has an increased pass
rate on ELA by 16% and Math by 6% on the 2007 CAHSEE test results. When
comparing 2007 Phoenix Arts Charter School CAHSEE results with the state
performance results, the school has an increased pass rate on the ELA by 13%
and for math of 4%. Overall, the school is compared with the district and state,
their student performance on the CAHSEE exceeds the district and state pass
rate percentages. Taken together, the differences on the CST ELA are
particularly noteworthy because they exceed our criterion for practical
significance (10%).
69
Table 9 compares the graduation rate for senior students for 2006 and
2007. These data illustrate that the graduation rates for Phoenix Arts Charter
School exceeded the district and state graduation rates for 2006 and 2007.
When compared with the district, PACS had an increased graduation rate by
17% for 2006 and 13% for 2007. When comparing 2006 and 2007 PACS’s
graduation results with the state graduation results, PACS had increased
graduation rates by 15% and 17%, respectively. Overall, when PACS is
compared with the district and state, PACS student graduation rates exceed the
district and state graduation rate percentages.

Table 9
Graduation Rates by School, District, and State

Institution
2006
Percent Graduation Rate
2007
Percent Graduation Rate

School—Phoenix Arts 100% 100%
District 83.4% 86.9%
State—CA 85.0% 83.1%

Table 10 compares the California Academic Performance Index (API)
between other dependent and independent charter schools within the district
with similar demographics and concurrent opening date of 2003. When
comparing 2007 PACS API results (638), the results exceed all other charter
schools except Technological High School (672).
70

Table 10

API scores: Dependent (D) and Independent (I) Charter Schools

School API Scores: 2006 API Scores: 2007
Technological High School (D) 686 672
PACS (I) * 638
Dragon High School (I) 613 631
Metropolitan High School (D) 626 605
Beginnings High School (D) 447 546
America High School (D) 536 544

* = No score recorded by the CDE
71
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overview
The previous chapters in this study have provided the rationale and
methodology as to the researcher’s use of multiple interventions, namely,
(a) a standards-based intervention and (b) professional development in curricula
alignment and their collective impact on the achievement of students at the
Phoenix Arts Charter School. The following sections in this study elaborate the
implications of the quantitative findings, integrates the conclusions gathered
from the qualitative data collected, and makes recommendations for further
study.
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact (positive, negative,
or neutral) of a standards-based intervention and curriculum alignment on the
academic achievement of 10
th
grade students at the Phoenix Arts Charter School.
The effect that the interventions had on the teachers’ practice and student
performance in the 10
th
grade in the experimental school, the Phoenix Arts
Charter School, can be analyzed by the change in performance bands of the
California Standards Test (CST) and the pass rate on the California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE) from pre-intervention (2006) to post-intervention (2007).
72
In addition, CAHSEE test result comparisons are further compared to school,
district, and state levels.
Participants in this study consisted of the student population (439
students) at the Phoenix Arts Charter School, 7-12 grade secondary charter
school. Students who were identified and had participated in the interventions
for this study were 10
th
grade students (approximately 50 students). Other
participants (28) consisted of the teaching and administrative staff who had
agreed to develop and implement standards-based curriculum and to share their
beliefs regarding the impact the interventions had on students’ achievement.
Every certificated staff member contributed to curriculum development in their
subject area, but not every staff member was interviewed. The intent of
including staff member participants was to gather information regarding
implementation and effect. When data became redundant, than sampling from
the staff member participants ceased to be collected. The results of qualitative
data gathered are explained in the findings sections below concerning the
experimental school, the Phoenix Arts Charter School. In total, 10 interviews
and 20 observations were conducted.
Documents and materials analysis consisted of curriculum and
instruction guidelines at federal, state, and district levels; training manuals;
instructional manuals; curriculum materials; and district memorandums. The
qualitative data collected supports this study in determining the fidelity of the
73
interventions’ implementation and contributes to the implications of this study.
In addition, this study gave insight into the effectiveness of the interventions and
whether teachers should continue, modify, or eliminate the interventions.

Summary of Findings
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of
multiple interventions at the Phoenix Arts Charter School with regards to
student achievement, particularly the pass rate on the CAHSEE. The following
section provides evidence in answering two essential questions that guided this
study: (a) does a standards-based curriculum alignment intervention have a
positive effect on the academic achievement of 10
th
students as measured by
CST scores and the CAHSEE pass rates and (b) is there a relationship between
teacher interventions and students achievement on the CAHSEE? Limitations
are bound to occur within an educational environment due to complexity of a
naturalistic settling, but overall the depth of impact that multiple interventions
had in the academic achievement of 10
th
grade students at the Phoenix Arts
Charter School was positive.

Summative Findings
When reviewing the findings of 10
th
grade students for the experimental
school, the Phoenix Arts Charter School, some positive changes were made in
74
the CST ELA and geometry test scores (Tables 2 and 3). The mean and the
percentage of students who scored basic and above increased, although the
changes were not substantial in size.
Based on findings reflected in Table 2, the 10
th
grade geometry had the
largest mean change of +.28 on an ordinal proficiency band scores. Table 2
shows the results of the analyses. Although this number is not large, the results
reflect a consistent positive change in moving the 10
th
grade students in
geometry toward the performance categories of proficient and advanced. These
findings demonstrate that the percentages of students decreased at the far below
basic level by -14.0% and increased at the basic level by +14.0% in the two
performance bands. The percentage of students performing at the following
three performance bands in geometry remained unchanged, below basic,
proficient, and advanced. This result reflects that 10
th
grade geometry students
had made increased performance in these two levels on the performance bands.
Tenth grade ELA findings demonstrated a mean change of +.16. The
change is modest, but it is significant to note that the percentage of students
performing at the far below basic level decreased by -7.0% and below basic
level decreased by -3.0%. In addition, the basic level increased by +4.0% and
the proficient level increased by +8.0% on performance bands . However, at the
advanced level students decreased in performance category percentages by
- 2.0%. Despite the decrease in performance band at the advance level, the
75
positive change in the other performance bands indicates that the 10
th
grade
students in ELA were moving towards higher levels of proficiency.
At the 10
th
grade level for Algebra I, the overall mean change reflected a -.15%
decrease in growth. Algebra I students decreased the percentages in the basic
and below basic by -16% and -17%, respectively. However, it is noteworthy to
mention that there was a decrease in the far below basic performance band by
1.0%. There was no change at the proficient and advanced performance levels
which remained at 0%. The result reflects that the Algebra I students performed
at a level of decreasing proficiency.
The Phoenix Arts Charter School made a modest percentage increase on
the CAHSEE from 89% to 90% pass rate in ELA; although, CAHSEE math was
neutral with no academic change of 81% pass rate from 2006 to 2007. The
district pass rates were 74% ELA and 75% Math and the state pass rates were
77% ELA and 77% Math on the 2007 CAHSEE test results. When comparing
2007 Phoenix Arts Charter School CAHSEE results with the district and state,
Phoenix Arts Charter School student performance on the CAHSEE exceeds the
district and state pass-rate percentages.

Formative Findings
In addition to the quantitative findings that focused on the growth of
student achievement and compared post scores, it is imperative to mention the
76
qualitative findings that accompanied this study. These findings provided data
in answering the essential question:
Is there a relationship between interventions and student achievement on
the CAHSEE?
The qualitative findings consisted of 10 interviews and 20 observations.
Teachers interviewed agreed with the development and implementation of
standards-based curriculum alignment. The uniformity in how the intervention
was development and implemented school-wide was identical in every interview
and observation providing total saturation in the interview and observation
processes. Document and material analysis included state guidelines,
memorandums, policies, and curriculum and instruction manuals. As previously
mentioned, the formative data collected supports this study in establishing the
fidelity of the interventions’ implementation and contributes to the implications
of this study.
Curriculum alignment to the state standards was used by teachers in
every core class. Each teacher developed a syllabus and a course of study for
their corresponding subject. The course of study included: (a) an overview of
weekly sequencing which was correlated with state standards and textbook
units, (b) objectives/benchmarks, (c) skills for student achievement, and (d)
assessments.
77
Teachers found that when using a roadmap for academic success,
students’ subject comprehension increased. Teachers agreed that having a
course of study helped in the effective deliverance of instruction and helped
them to focus on the short- and long-term academic goals. A social science
teacher commented that “the course of study really helped to focus teaching and
learning in my classroom and has helped students by establishing benchmark
goals.” Overall, teachers and administrators agreed that teaching and learning
had increased through the use of a course of study that was aligned to the state
standards.
A weakness in the development and implementation of the course of
study was the fact that teachers were developing the course of study after the
school year started. Teachers spent extra time after school and on the weekends
writing curriculum instead of concentrating on classroom instruction and lesson
development. Overall, teachers had positive perceptions for the development of
the course of study and were excited to have participated in the intervention.
In conjunction with the above intervention, teachers participated in staff
development. Out of the 10 interviews and 20 observations, the staff who was
interviewed agreed that the staff development was beneficial by providing
support and guidance. According to a math teacher, “staff development helped
increase student learning by giving me the skills necessary for success in my
classroom.”
78
Weaknesses expressed by the teachers related to the lack of time
available to fully implement the new knowledge within the confines of the
workday and extracurricular responsibilities. Overall, the staff members had a
positive attitude towards the staff development and expressed a desire to allocate
increased funding for continuous improvement through more staff development
opportunities.

Implications
Over the process of this study, and upon analyzing the CST and
CAHSEE data, it was interesting to note that there was some increase in student
achievement during the 2006-2007 school year. However, not all positive
results could be measured statistically. There were other factors that contributed
to the success of the school. At the school level, the administrator worked
closely with the staff through curriculum development and professional
development creating a trust and camaraderie between the administration and
staff and between staff members. The trust among staff members and the
administration created an environment of risk-taking without the fear of
vulnerability over failing. At the teacher level, teachers were not threatened by
the presence of the administration within the classrooms due to a sense of a
school community of trusting, supporting, and caring individuals working
towards one goal of personal and school-wide growth for all. According to
79
Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline (2004), “a competent system requires several shifts-
from unconnected thinking to systems thinking, from an environment of
isolation to one of individual autonomy to collective autonomy and collective
accountability” (p. 1). The staff believed that the goals they had collectively
agreed to were challenging, worthwhile, and contributed to improved student
achievement throughout the school.
Results gleaned from this study indicate that overall statistical findings
were not significant. However, under the NCLB requirements, the goal is to
move all students to the level of proficient or above. When considering this
mandate, in the area of English language arts (ELA) the percentage of students
who scored proficient and above was an increase of 6% more students scoring in
the proficient or above levels.
The greatest percentage change was at the performance band scores at
the percent basic and above. In the area of ELA, there was an increase of .15 for
10
th
grade students and for geometry, there was an increase of .58 for 10
th
grade
students. While not a tremendous increase, it does represent a positive increase
in these two groupings. Teachers attributed the increase in ELA and geometry
to the interventions of standards-based curriculum alignment and focused
professional development. The development of standards-driven curriculum for
each course ensured a viable curriculum. According to Marzano (2003),
80
“guaranteed and viable curriculum. . . as having the most impact on student
achievement (p. 22).
The results are interesting when you look at the CAHSEE pass rate for
10
th
grade and the graduation rate for the senior class. When compared with the
district, Phoenix Arts Charter School surpassed the pass rate on ELA by 16%
and math by 6% on the 2007 CAHSEE test results. When comparing 2007
Phoenix Arts Charter School’s CAHSEE results with the state performance
results, the school surpassed the pass rate on the ELA by 13% and for math 4%.
Overall, when the school is compared with the district and state, its student
performance on the CAHSEE exceeds the district and state pass-rate
percentages.
The Phoenix Arts Charter School’s graduation rates were notable when
compared to the district and state graduation rates for the senior class of 2006
and 2007. When compared with the district, Phoenix Arts Charter School had a
100% graduation rate for 2006 and 2007 compared to the district’s 83.4% for
2006 and 86.9% for 2007. When comparing 2006 and 2007 Phoenix Arts
Charter School’s graduation results with the state graduation results, the state
had 85.0% and by 83.1%, respectively. Despite not showing statistically
significant gains on the CSTs, students were succeeding academically and
exceeded both the district and state graduation rates. Clearly, there were other
factors that contributed to the success of students who attend the Phoenix Arts
81
Charter School that were not measured by CSTs. Two predominate factors that
contributed to student success were (a) a safe and orderly environment, and (b) a
curricular emphasis on the arts.
As stated by Marzano (2003, p. 53), “If teachers and students do not feel
safe, they will not have the necessary psychological energy for teaching and
learning.” A Phoenix Arts Charter School student commented, “I feel safe at
Phoenix Arts Charter School. Students get along with each other and there are
no gangs or fights.” Phoenix Arts Charter School students had a safe and
supportive environment which fostered positive interactions.
Catterall’s (1998) study demonstrated that students who are highly
involved in the arts in middle school and high school outperform those who are
not involved in the arts on a multitude of academic indicators, and the
relationship holds even for students in the lowest SES quartile of the United
States (Catterall, 1998). In addition, these students earned higher grades and test
scores than those who were not involved in the arts. The high arts students were
also less likely to drop out of high school, and they watched fewer hours of
television than did the low arts student (Cattreall, Chapleau, & Iwanaga, 1999).
A 10
th
grade student stated, “I love going to school now because of all the art
classes. I didn’t fit in at my last school and I would miss school often.”
When viewing the overall results, Phoenix Arts Charter School
experienced practically significant outcomes in the areas of ELA and geometry,
82
increasing the number of students who moved into the basic and above levels on
the California Standards Test. In regards to the CAHSEE, the ELA pass-rate
percentage score increased slightly and mathematics pass-rate percentage score
remained neutral from 2006 to 2007, which exceeded district and state
percentage pass rates. Phoenix Arts Charter School maintained 100%
graduation rates in 2006 and 2007, greater than both district and state graduation
rates. The positive results may be attributed to using the interventions:
standards-based curriculum alignment and targeted professional development.

Site-Based Recommendations
Although this study is limited in nature, the use of data, the development
and implementation of standards-based curriculum alignment, and targeted
professional development resulted in positive practical outcomes at the Phoenix
Arts Charter School. Through increased collaboration and problem-solving, the
staff developed and implemented a course of study for each of the subjects
taught at the charter school with a clear focus of providing a viable curriculum
to improve student achievement.
This study offers sufficient support, summative and formative results, to
recommend that the interventions are viable and could be replicated by other
similar schools. The staff had a willingness to ask questions and to look at real
83
answers in order to get to the heart of the problems and move in a direction of
school improvement.
Some recommendations to support a school to implement these
interventions would be: (a) to develop curriculum during the summer months
when teachers were not engaged in teaching in a classroom, (b) engage teachers
in meaningful and focused staff development that addresses the school’s goals
and long-term outcomes, and (c) establish continuous inquiry and monitoring
through the use of data.

Recommendation for Further Study
This study focused on three interventions and the impact these
interventions had on academic achievement on the CAHSEE. However, it was
difficult to truly measure the achievement of students based on analyzing CSTs
and CAHSEE results alone. As stated previously, there were other factors that
needed to be considered that were not measurable by standardized testing. One
of the areas mentioned was in the area of the arts. Researchers have made
claims that the arts in education raises SAT scores; improves reading, math and
spatial skills; increases overall academic performance; and builds self-esteem,
self-discipline, creativity, community cohesion, and greater tolerance for
differences. This study concurs with many of these findings.
84
Educators must understand that accepting results produced by CSTs and
other standardized tests offer only partial or limited views of practice. Such
limited views ultimately are unable to take account of unique particulars within
the life of a classroom and school environment. There are other factors that
should be taken into account when evaluating educational practice and the effect
other factors have on teaching and learning. According to Hetland and Winner
(2004), “the arts are the only arenas in which deep personal meanings can be
recognized and expressed, often in nonverbal form” (p. 158). At the Phoenix
Arts Charter School, the arts gave back the passion in education and created an
environment of community cohesion, tolerance for differences, self-discipline,
creativity, overall academic performance, and imparted a profound and lifelong
appreciation for the arts.
Further research is required to measure the achievement of students at
the Phoenix Arts Charter School, but unfortunately, the school has closed.

Limitations
This study was limited by several factors which should be taken into
account when considering its findings. Due to the limitations of this study,
caution is exercised in the generalized assumptions and results about the impact
of the interventions on the academic improvement of the students.
85
Internal Limitations
An internal limitation was intrinsic in the use of a pre-post nonequivalent
control group design. Given the overall positive results, there are many
extraneous factors that were not addressed that may have influenced the
outcome of the effects. One factor is the limitation of sampling variability
which hinders the true measure of the amount of change. During the process of
the school year, the sample population may have been altered resulting in an
increase or decrease of grade-level performance due to the effect of sampling
variability.
As a result of eminent school closure, unforeseen consequences which
challenged the climate of the school were: (a) a significant decline in student
enrollment and (b) the loss of veteran teachers during this study. Due to the
instability, the school lost veteran teachers to the district and had to fill the
vacant positions with comparatively inexperienced teachers during the 2006-
2007 school year. In addition, many of the academically talented students not
only followed the veteran teachers, but sought placements in other areas schools
which provided a stable environment and arts enriched curriculum.
Inexperienced teachers played a role in limiting possible outcomes due to the
unfamiliarity to the standards-based curriculum.
A significant limitation to this study was the fact that the staff and
students were demoralized by the closure of the school at the end of the 2006-
86
2007 school year. This definitely had an impact on teaching and learning, as
well as on students’ academic success. Prior to the district’s decision to not
support independent charter schools within the district, Phoenix Arts Charter
School’s test scores were the second highest in the district, just below the
“Gifted and Talented Education” high school test scores. After the district’s
deliberate and calculated measures which undermined the charter school,
Phoenix Arts Charter School’s test scores began to lose its high academic
standing within the district. The political environment regarding the relationship
between the district and the charter school and a disagreement with the terms of
the charter was the impetus for school closure by the Phoenix Arts Charter
School Board of Directors.

External Limitations
Lastly, another limitation to this study is the lack of data available from
the state and federal reporting agencies which caused an external limitation to
this study. The validity of this study is limited to the reliability of the California
Academic Performance Index and of the elements that make up the Adequate
Yearly Progress accountability model. This study is limited to the reliability of
the demographic data reported by the California Department of Education.
Expanding the information provided to schools to include disaggregated
87
information by subgroups would allow schools to more effectively group
students based on particular characteristics.

Conclusions
This study, which included the implementation of three interventions,
demonstrated positive results. The results did not reflect sufficient change in the
statistical or practical result of 10
th
grade students on the CSTs; however, on the
CAHSEE and graduation pass rates, Phoenix Arts Charter School surpassed the
district and state pass rates demonstrating academic success of the students. The
findings of this study suggest that schools must develop site-specific
interventions to meet accountability targets to ensure that all students achieve
federal standards as mandated by the “No Child Left Behind ” Act (2002) in
order to change the lives and destiny of all children and to promote real school
change.
88
REFERENCES

Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. M. (1996). Schools that work: Where all
the children read and write. New York: HarperCollins.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H.
Freeman.
Bangert-Downs, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The
instructional effects of feedback in test-like events. Review of
Educational Research, 61(2), 213-238.
Barr, R., & Parrett, W. (2007). The kids left behind. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.
Bottoms, G., & Anthony, K. (2005). Raising achievement and improving
graduation rates: How nine high schools that work are doing it.
Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
California Department of Education (2006, March). California public schools’
data from Dataquest. Retrieved March 30, 2006, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/documents/asstpgqa.doc
California Department of Education (2007). California public schools’ data
from Dataquest. Retrieved October 24, 2007, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/documents/overview.asp
Catterall, J. (1998). Involvement in the arts and success in the secondary
school. Americans for the Arts Monographs, 1(9), n.p.
Catterall, J., Chapleau, R., & Iwanaga, J. (1999). Involvement in the arts and
human development: General involvement and intensive involvement in
music and theater arts. In E. Fiske (Ed.), Champions of change: The
impact of the arts on learning (pp. 1-18). Washington, DC: The Art
Education Partnership and The President’s Committee on the Arts and
the Humanities.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to
selecting the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
89
Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Critical issue: Realizing new learning for all
students through professional development. Retrieved December 4,
2007, from
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/profdevl/pd200.htm.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality
teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (2005). A good teacher in every
classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children
deserve. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Edmonds, R.R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational
Leadership, 37(1), 15-27.
EdSource. (2005, June). The state’s official measures of school performance.
Mountain View, CA: EdSource, Inc.
EdSource (2006, February). The California High School Exit Exam gets real.
Retrieved March 30, 2006, from
http://www.edsource.org/pub_abs_cahsee06.cfm.
Educational Testing Services. (2006). California High School Exit
Examination. Retrieved March 30, 2006, from
http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.
Eisner, E., & Day, M. (2004). Handbook of research and policy in art
education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement.
Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. F. (2007). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and
performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Gilbert, T. (1996). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance,
tribute edition. Washington, D.C.: International Society for
Performance Improvement.
90
Hetland, L., & Winner, E. (2004). Cognitive transfer from arts education to
nonarts outcomes: Research evidence and policy implications. In E. W.
Eisner & M. D. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art
education (pp. 135-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Johnson, R. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task
performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mafi, G. (2006, March). Student engagement. Slide presentation at USC in
EDUC 522 Class Section II, Sacramento, CA.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996, September).
What matter most: Teaching for America’s future. Retrieved October
24, 2007, from http://www.nctaf.org/documents/WhatMattersMost.pdf.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002). United States Department of
Education. Retrieved February 10, 2007, from
http://www.nclb.gov/next/overview/index.html.
O’Day, J. (2002, fall). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293-329.
O’Day, J., Bitter, C., Kirst, M., Camoy, M., Woody, E., & Buttles, M. (2004).
Assessing California’s accountability system: Successes, challenges,
and opportunities for improvement. PACE Policy Brief, 4(2). Retrieved
November 14, 2005, from http://pace.berkeley.edu/reports/PB. 04-2.pdf.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequaility. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
91
92
Rand Education (2007). Standards-based accountability under no child left
behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states.
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Publications.
Reynolds, D., & Teddlie, C. (2000). The process of school effectiveness. In C.
Teddlie & D. Reynolds (Eds.), The international handbook of school
effectiveness research (pp. 134-159). New York: The Falmer Press.
Rosenholtz, S., (1991). Teacher’s workplace: The social organization of
schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rummler, G., & Brache, A. (1995). Improving performance: Managing the
white space in organizations (2
nd
ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schmoker, M. (1991). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2
nd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons
learned from a ten-year study of school effects. New York: Teachers
College.
Tucker, S. (1996). Benchmarking. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
United States Department of Education (2002). Public Law 107-110.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act adopted January 8, 2002.
Retrieved March 16, 2006, from
www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html#sec101.
United States Senate. (1999). Senate Bill XI: Public School Accountability Act.
Retrieved March 15, 2006, from www.leginfo.ca.gov.
Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Kline, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a
culture of continuous improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
APPENDIX A

ACTION PLANS, PHOENIX ARTS CHARTER SCHOOL

CAHSEE Data: At least 96% Pass Rate for Students.

Focus Area

Actions To Be Taken

Time Line

Resource/ Cost
Monitoring
Implementation

Evidence of Success
Skills and
Knowledge
Release time for
teachers to analyze
disaggregated test
results, collaborate with
the same single-subject
teachers both at PACS
and George Washington
High School (best-in-
class), and incorporate
strategies for improving
student learning.

Counselors monitor all
students’ academic
progress and notify
parents of deficiencies.

Beginning
September
2006
Q1-Q4
Ongoing
General Funds
and
Grant
($50,000.00)
Principal/Director
Counselor, Teachers

Observation, walk-
throughs, lesson plans,
master schedule,
evaluations
100% pass rate needs to
be maintained.

Increase in number of
students enrolled in
college preparatory and
AP courses.

Increased GPA’s.

93
Appendix A: Continued

Focus Area

Actions To Be Taken

Time Line

Resource/ Cost
Monitoring
Implementation

Evidence of Success
Motivation Based on CAHSEE
data, students will have
short-term benchmarks
in specific areas of
deficit.

Extended day tutoring
at lunch or after school
as needed for students
to meet pass rate
requirements.

Develop Individual
Learning Plans (ILP)
when needed

Q1-Q4
Ongoing
September
2006
General Funds
(as needed)
Principal/Director
Teachers
Observation, lesson plans,
master schedule,
evaluations
Increase in number of
students who meet pass
rate requirements of
100%.

Decrease in number of
students who require
remediation or extended
day tutoring.
Organizational
Barriers

The administration will
purchase CAHSEE test
preparation booklets,
practice materials, and
technology.
Q1-Q4
Ongoing
Summer
2006 purchase
General Funds
($10,000,00)
Principal/Director Improved test scores,
maintain 100% pass
rate.
94

Appendix A: Continued

Curriculum-High School Student Achievement: All Students Meet Standards for Core Subjects
and Passing the California High School Exit Exam

Focus Areas

Actions To Be Taken

Time Line
Resource/
Cost
Monitoring
Implementation

Evidence of Success
Skills and
Knowledge
Teachers will develop
and align their “Course
of Study” to meet the
California State
Standards.

All teachers will
incorporate standards-
based curriculum in
daily lesson plans.

Teachers will be
encouraged to have
high expectations of all
students and to have
highly engaged daily
instruction.

Q1-Q4
Ongoing
General Funds Principal/Director

Observation, lesson plans

Review CAHSEE results

Review STAR results
Increased number of
students at Proficient or
Advanced on the CST.

Students will complete
required college
preparatory courses
with passing grades.

Increase pass rate of
students on the
CAHSEE.
95

Appendix A: Continued

Focus Area

Actions To Be Taken

Time Line

Resource/ Cost
Monitoring
Implementation

Evidence of Success
Motivation Reading and math
tutoring classes will be
provided for students
who demonstrate by
way of test scores that
they need extra help in
these areas

Pre- and post-
assessments will
determine student’s
benchmarks.

Students will be given
short-term achievable
goals.

Q1-Q4
Ongoing
September
2006
General Funds
(as needed)
Principal/Director

Observation, lesson plans,
master schedule

Teacher evaluations of the
tutoring groups

Tutoring groups’
attendance sign-in sheets
monitored on Power
School
Increase number of
students at Proficient or
Advanced on CST.

Increase pass rate of
students on the
CAHSEE.

Tutor groups’
attendance sign-in
sheets with 95% or
better attendance.
Organizational
Barriers

Standards-based
textbooks and
supplemental materials
and resources will be
purchased.

Q1-Q4
Ongoing
Summer
2006
General Funds
($20,000.00)
Principal/Director, Master
teachers
Teachers using new
textbooks and materials
to close the
organizational gap and
achieve goals.
96

Appendix A: Continued

Professional Development: All teachers Will Participate in Professional Development
that Provides Student Support to Pass the California High School Exit Exam

Focus Area

Actions To Be Taken

Time Line
Resource/
Cost
Monitoring
Implementation

Evidence of Success
Skills and
Knowledge
Training in
disaggregating test data.

Training in differential
instruction and small
school design.

Train teachers in the 8
steps lesson approach
(Hunter lesson design)

Training on the “new
taxonomy”
(Marzano, 2003)

Training in content
standards and
curriculum
development.

CAHSEE Training

Training in the
consensus view of
professional
development
(Elmore, 2002)
Q1-Q4
Ongoing
Summer
2006
General Funds
and
Grant
($50,000.00)
Principal/Director, Master
teachers, and consultants

Observations, lesson plans,
evaluations

Increase number of
teachers demonstrating
knowledge and usage of
various strategies by
observation and lesson
plans.

Improved test scores,
better lesson plans and
delivery, principal
observations

Increase number of
students at Proficient or
Advanced on the CST.

Increase pass rate of
students on the
CAHSEE.

Teachers view
professional
development as a
“collective good”

97

Focus Area

Actions To Be Taken

Time Line

Resource/ Cost
Monitoring
Implementation

Evidence of Success
Motivation Teachers will have the
opportunity to select the
professional
development training.

Q1-Q4
Ongoing
September
2006
General Funds
(As needed)
Principal/Director
Teachers

Observation, lesson plans,
master schedule, and
evaluations
Increase number of
students at Proficient or
Advanced in CST.

Increase pass rate of
students on the
CAHSEE

Motivated teachers
Organizational
Barriers

Increased allocation of
funds for professional
development based on
growth in enrollment
(ADA) and Grants

Frontloaded
professional
development will be
offered during the
summer staff training.

Q1-Q4
Ongoing
Summer
2006
General Funds
and
Grants
($50,000.00)

Principal/Director, and
Master teachers
Increased pass rate of
students on the
CAHSEE

Teachers will
implement skills and
knowledge from
frontloaded professional
development in
planning lessons before
the start of the 2006
school year

98
Appendix A: Continued

APPENDIX B
TEACHER EVALUATION OF THE TUTOR GROUP

1. What are the criteria you use to define Proficient in your CAHSEE
subject area?

2. How do you measure quality outcomes and progress in this area?

3. What were your largest barriers to implementing your tutor group?

4. What steps and actions have given you the best return in performance
improvements?

5. How might you improve your teaching effectiveness?

Note: This evaluation will help to determine how successful the tutor groups
were in achieving the pass rate on the CAHSEE. It will give an insight on what
will be needed for future tutor group success in helping students pass the exam.
In addition, it will help to keep an eye on the benchmarking goal—to learn and
adapt best practices for student success. (Adapted from Tucker, 1996))
99
APPENDIX C
WALK-THROUGH OBSERVATION NOTES AND TEACHER FEEDBACK

Teacher:______________ Date: ________________ Time: ______________
Instructional Area Observed
Subject: ________________________________________________________

Standards Assessment
Standard is Referenced (board or work) ______
Lesson Clearly Relates to Standard ______
Appropriate Rigor for Grade Level ______
Comments:

Strategies
Checking for Understanding ___ Maintaining Student Engagement ___
Access to the Core ___ Classroom Management ___
Observed:

Impact on Students

Comments/Reflective Questions/Commendations/Recommendations:
100
APPENDIX D
RELEASE DAY ACTIVITY EVALUATION
Participant: ____________________________________________________
Date: _____________________________ Length of Time: ______________
Goal of the Release Day: __________________________________________
1. Agenda of the release day activities.
2. What did you learn from the release day activities?
3. How will what I did today have application in my classroom?
4. What additional support is desired?
______________________________________________________________
CIRCLE ONE: 4 = Highest rating 1 = Lowest rating
My overall rating of the release day activities is:
4 3 2 1
To what extent will what I did today improve instructional delivery?
4 3 2 1
To what extent will today’s activities assist me in meeting the educational
needs of my students?
4 3 2 1
101
102
APPENDIX E
PHOENIX ARTS CHARTER SCHOOL
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY EVALUATION
Title: __________________________________________________________
Presenters: _____________________________________ Date: ___________
1. What did you learn from this activity?
2. What additional support is desired? Questions? Comments?
_______________________________________________________________
CIRCLE ONE: 4 = Highest rating 1 = Lowest rating
My overall rating of the session is:
4 3 2 1
To what extent will what I learned today have application in my classroom?
4 3 2 1

To what extent will what I learned today have improve/modify my
instructional delivery?
4 3 2 1
To what extent will what I learned today assist in my ability to meet the
needs of diverse learners in my classroom, including English Language
Learners, GATE, etc.?

Name (optional): _____________________ School: _____________________
Grade Level: ___
Teachers Paraprofessional Administrator
Other
Adapted from SCUSD

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to describe, analyze, and present solutions to the performance gap of high school tenth grade students at the Phoenix Arts Charter School (PACS) on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and the California Standards Test (CST). The framework underlining this study is the performance improvement research by Clark and Estes (2002), Barr and Parrett (2007), Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006), Marzano (2003), and Zmuda, Kuklis and Kline (2004). Data from the (1) CSTs, (2) CAHSEE, and (3) qualitative data collected in the form of questionnaires, interviews, observations, documents and materials analysis from administration and staff of PACS were used.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

English learners' performance on the California Standards Test at Aviles Elementary

PDF

Raising student achievement at Eberman Elementary School with effective teaching strategies

PDF

The implementation of strategies to minimize the achievement gap for African-American, Latino, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students

PDF

Examining the effectiveness of teacher training on the improvement of California standardized test scores at Eva B. Elementary School

PDF

A case study of factors related to a high performing urban charter high school: investigating student engagement and its impact on student achievement

PDF

Passing CAHSEE but failing math and English: what best predicts high school classroom achievement?

PDF

The impact of restructuring the language arts intervention program and its effect on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

A case study of an outperforming urban high school: the relational pattern between student engagement and student achievement in a magnet high school in Los Angeles

PDF

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

PDF

The implementation of studio intervention at a medical magnet high school

PDF

A study of an outperforming urban high school and the factors which contribute to its increased academic achievement with attention to the contribution of student achievement

PDF

Evaluating the efficacy of the High Point curriculum in the Coastline Unified School District using CST, CAHSEE, and CELDT data

PDF

A case study to determine what perceived factors, including student engagement, contribute to academic achievement in a high performing urban high school

PDF

Closing the achievement gap: breakthrough in the urban high school

PDF

The effects of open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction on the test performance of English language learners (ELLS) and re-designated fluent English proficient students ...

PDF

A case study of student engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school

PDF

The effects of culturally responsive standards based instruction on African American student achievement

PDF

Quantifying student growth: analysis of the validity of applying growth modeling to the California Standards Test

PDF

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

PDF

Improved math achievement in an urban high school: a case study of a high school in the Vista Unified School District

Asset Metadata

Creator de la Cuesta, Kathlene (author)

Core Title Raising student achievement on the California Standards Test and California High School Exit Exam at the Phoenix Arts Charter School

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/11/2008

Defense Date 02/21/2008

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

Tag CAHSEE,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name California (states), educational facilities: Phoenix Arts Charter School (geographic subject), USA (countries)

Language English

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), Hexom, Denise (committee member), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (committee member)

Creator Email kjdelacuesta@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1103

Unique identifier UC1275024

Identifier etd-delaCuesta-20080411 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-52282 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1103 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-delaCuesta-20080411.pdf

Dmrecord 52282

Document Type Dissertation

Rights de la Cuesta, Kathlene

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu