University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

School-level resource allocation practices in elementary schools to increase student achievement

(USC Thesis Other)

School-level resource allocation practices in elementary schools to increase student achievement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

SCHOOL-LEVEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION
PRACTICES IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TO
INCREASE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

by
Sonaleena Patnaik Hargrove

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Sonaleena Patnaik Hargrove

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my friends and family for their love and support throughout my life,
especially during the past three years. Thank you for your encouragement,
dedication, faith, and generosity of heart. I am forever grateful that your
commitment to myself, Andrew, and Jordan has brought me to the completion of my
doctorate program and dissertation. Special thanks go to the Stathams, the Daousts,
the Brights, the Owens, the Lykins, the Scottos, the Nichols, the Mutchs, the Kungs,
the Taylors, the Broughtons, the Kerekes, the Bonesteeles, the Bradfords, the Sneads,
the Josts, the McVickars, the Hangers, the Uyematsus, the Abros, the Hodnes, the
Millers, the Kraemers, Claire, Shannon, Chris, Jen, Meg, Nikki, Whitney,
Antoinette, Mary, Ericka, Vicki, Annie, Kristen, Christine, Jodi, Denise, Madeleine,
Tara, Sherilyn, Erma, Sandy, Holly, Julia, Arleen, Michael, David, Michelle, Lydia,
Terry, Kathy, Elaine, and Kumi. Thanks for being my family in southern California.
I especially thank my children, Andrew and Jordan, for being patient,
accepting, and providing me with the motivation to be diligent in completing this
doctorate program. They are the most loving, caring, amazing, laid back, and well-
behaved sons that any parent could ask for.
Special thanks go to my three favorite uncles, the Drs. Patnaik, and my aunts.
I will be grateful for their support, high expectations for me, and outstanding model
for public service and philanthropy. They have shown me what it truly means to be
part of my family and that no challenge endeavored for the greater good of the world
should be feared but should be embraced and celebrated. I also thank my uncle, Dr.

iii
F. K. Patnaik, for inspiring me to pursue the professional field that I was created for
by God’s design, and to then achieve the utmost in excellence. I thank my Lord,
Jesus Christ, for providing me with my family and the understanding I now have.
I also thank my chair, Dr. Larry Picus, committee members, Drs. Gilbert
Hentschke, Dominic Brewer, and John Nelson, and my professor Dr. Laurie Love for
their support, encouragement, and patience in helping me complete the dissertation
process.
I thank my dear cohort friends from the 2007 Thursday Night Family and my
dissertation thematic group. Their encouragement along the way in the doctoral
program and during my life over the past three years has been greatly appreciated
and will be forever remembered.
I thank Cathy Krop for her diligence and help in editing my dissertation. I
also thank the Principals of the schools used in the case studies of this dissertation.
Thank you for your support and willingness and openness to share the strategies of
your schools with me so that I, as well as others, can learn about what has brought
success to your schools. It was an honor to hear your stories.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii
Chapter One. Introduction 1
Chapter Two. Review of the Literature 15
Chapter Three. Methodology 68
Chapter Four. Results 75
Chapter Five. Summary, Implications, and Conclusions 116
References 139
Appendices:
Appendix A. Case Study 1: Aspen Skies Elementary School 145
Appendix B. Case Study 2: Coastline Elementary School 164
Appendix C. Case Study 3: Early Sunset Elementary School 180
Appendix D. Case Study 4: Phoenix Sand Elementary School 197
Appendix E. Case Study 5: Raindance Elementary School 216

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: ARRA Funds Available to School Districts 23
Table 2.2: Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 49
Table 3.1: Criteria and Reasons for Sample and Population 70
Table 4.1: Resource Use for Core Academic Teachers 79
Table 4.2: Resource Use for Specialist and Elective Teachers 81
Table 4.3: Differences in Kindergarten and Preschool Programs between
Actual School Resource Use and the EBM’s Recommendations 82

Table 4.4: Case Study School Practices 98
Table A1: Aspen Skies Elementary School Percentage of Students Scoring at
Proficient and Advanced Levels on CSTs 146

Table A2: Aspen Skies Elementary School Resource Use (FTEs and Dollars) 160

Table B1: Coastline Elementary School Results for Percentages of Students
Scoring at Proficient and Advanced Levels on the CSTs 165

Table B2: Coastline Elementary School Resource Use (FTEs and Dollars) 175

Table C1: Early Sunset Elementary School Percentages of Students Scoring at
Proficient and Advanced Levels on the CSTs 181

Table C2: Early Sunset Elementary School Resource Use (FTEs and Dollars) 192

Table D1: Suspension and Expulsion Rates for Phoenix Sand Elementary and
District 2006-07 through 2008-09 199

Table D2: Phoenix Sands Elementary School Percentages of Students Scoring at
Proficient and Advanced Levels on the CSTs 200

Table D3: Phoenix Sand Elementary School Resource Use (FTEs and Dollars) 212

Table E1: Raindance Elementary School Percentages of Students Scoring at
Proficient and Advanced Levels on the CSTs 217

Table E2: Raindance Elementary School Resource Use (FTEs and Dollars) 229

vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: 2008-09 Revenues for K-12 Education Based on the Enacted Budget 19
Figure 2.2: California’s Grade 4 Mathematics and Reading NAEP Scores 2007 21
Figure 2.3: Per-Pupil Expenditures in California School Districts 27
Figure 2.4: Proportion of State Funded Programs by Purpose 31
Figure 2.5: Proportion of Federally Funded Programs by Purpose 31
Figure A1: Hierarchy of Interventions for Struggling Students 158
Figure B1: Coastline Elementary School’s Professional Development Resources 169
Figure B2: Coastline Elementary School’s Intervention Resources for
Struggling Students 174

Figure C1: Early Sunset Elementary School’s Percent of Students Scoring at
Proficient and Advanced Levels on the CSTs during 2007-2010 182

Figure C2: API Results of Early Sunset Elementary School Students in 2009 by
Subgroup 183

Figure C3: Early Sunset Elementary School’s Interventions for Struggling
Students 190

Figure D1: Phoenix Sands Elementary School Interventions for Struggling
Students and District and School-based Professional Development
Support 210

Figure E1: Hierarchy of Interventions for Struggling Students 226

vii
ABSTRACT
Schools aim to achieve high student performance outcomes that were never
expected by society, government leaders, and many education professionals in the
United States. They must educate students to achieve grade-level standards to
proficient or advanced levels. Schools must achieve this goal with limited financial
resources. California’s public schools have been under-funded for decades. They
now aim to achieve high standards of student performance with additional reductions
made to their school budgets.
The focus of this study is on the resource use and allocation of schools that
have increased student performance during times of on-going fiscal constraint. This
dissertation focuses on the resource use and allocation practices of schools that have
significant numbers of English learning and economically disadvantaged students. It
has been a struggle for many schools with significant percentages of English learner
and economically disadvantaged students to raise levels of student achievement on
standardized tests. The study examines how schools have managed to increase these
students’ achievement by providing quality instructional programs while receiving
fewer resources to fulfill their goals.
The study consisted of qualitative analyses of five elementary schools in the
Southern California region as compared to the Picus-Odden Evidence-based Model.
The major findings revealed that schools that have provided quality instructional
programs to improve student achievement prioritized spending on professional
development on evidence-based instructional strategies and immediate student

viii
interventions for struggling students. Findings also showed that the case study
schools have reduced resource use and allocation for strategies that have improved
student achievement in previous years due to on-going budget reductions.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The United States and global communities stand at a unique position in the
development of the world. On a large scale, common citizens have begun to
collaborate, correspond, investigate, and problem solve at rapid rates due to the
impact of technology. Although the United States has stood at the forefront of many
industrialized nations historically, its population will be challenged in its competition
and collaboration with other countries due to the lack of high skill-set preparation
(Friedman, 2005). The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)
identified an achievement gap in U.S. students by measuring the performance of 15
year olds enrolled in mathematics in 2003 (PISA, 2003). PISA (2003) found that the
United States has more students who scored at lower proficiency levels and has
fewer students who scored at higher proficiency levels than in other industrialized
countries (PISA, 2003).
The overall achievement gap between students in the United States and
students from other industrialized countries has widened over time (PISA, 2003).
The disparity in achievement between U.S. students and students in other
industrialized countries is expected to continue in coming years given current
education practices (Friedman, 2005). The National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) collects and analyzes student performance data annually by
assessing students enrolled in grades 4, 8 and 12. NAEP long-term trend
assessments report that 31% of eighth-graders tested in 2007 performed at or above

2
the “proficient” level of achievement in mathematics while nearly 70% of their peers
performed at or above the “basic” level (NAEP, 2007). Many of the
underperforming students on the NAEP 2007 are English language learners and
African-American students (NAEP, 2007).
Public schools in the United States are charged with a revolutionary mission
in public education by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001) - equipping all
students to achieve high standards. No industrialized nation has attempted to prepare
all school-aged individuals to achieve high expectations and compete using
educational policy. The NCLB (2001) mandates that all students perform at levels
that demonstrate “proficient” or “advanced” mastery of skills tested on standardized
achievement tests by the year 2014. Under the newly instated national
administration of 2009, the public school system is expected to conquer complex
challenges and sprint to achieve the goal that all U.S. students demonstrate
“proficient” and “advanced” skills on standardized measures of achievement by 2014
as mandated by NCLB (2001). Expectations for schools have changed significantly-
-to help all students achieve high learning expectations--without significant changes
in resources to help schools achieve this goal.
Current funding and resource allocation strategies for California public
schools have been inadequate and ineffective in providing students with the
opportunities and preparation necessary to score “proficient” or “advanced” on
standardized achievement exams. Current funding and resource allocation practices
help under 30% of students in California achieve at “proficient” and “advanced”

3
levels on expected learning objectives (NCES, 2006). Funding and resource reforms
are necessary to increase the numbers of students achieving at “proficient” and
“advanced” levels to 100% as required by NCLB (2001) from the current status of
less than 30 percent (NCES, 2006).
Increasing learning outcomes in students who have not attained a
“proficient” or “advanced” score requires strategies that are specific to their needs
and, therefore, requires the use of resources that are aligned to addressing their needs
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Public schools must have access to appropriate and
sufficient resources to achieve the goals of NCLB (2001) by addressing the learning
needs of their students (Odden & Picus, 2008).
School districts in California are limited in their control of their revenues
and resources. School district incomes are affected by state-determined funding
formulas and mandatory state and federal programs that demand their participation.
School districts receive funding based on the average daily attendance (ADA) of the
number of students enrolled. Eighty-five percent of the general fund money
distributed to school districts is usually spent on staff salaries and benefits. One-
third of funds available to public schools in California are from categorical
programs, where money is allocated to schools for specific purposes and cannot be
used to serve other needs at the schools (EdSource, 2009a). Rarely has the amount
of money given to schools in California sufficiently addressed the needs of the
student populations of each school (EdSource, 2008a). The trend in per-pupil school

4
funding for California over the past thirty years has consistently fallen below the
national average. (EdSource, 2008a)
In the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years, California school districts
encountered additional declines in funding over two years compared to other states
that amounted to a decrease of $41.6 billion statewide (O’Connell, 2009, para. 3).
The reduction in school funding has impacted K-12 classrooms across the state
(EdSource, 2009b). Many school districts have responded to the reduction in school
funding by reducing expenditures for personnel (Song & Mehta, 2009). The impact
of reduction in personnel expenditures has negatively impacted schools and their
mission to help students achieve proficiency in that many districts have terminated
teaching and academic support staff positions to address the deficits in funding
(Song & Mehta, 2009).
For the 2009-2010 school year, public schools in California received a
reduced budget of $44,515 million (LAO, 2009). Additional cuts and deferrals have
been made to the reduced budget (O’Connell, 2009, 2009-2010 (K-12) section, para.
2). This funding cut includes eliminating certain grants for specific state funding
opportunities to schools called categorical programs (O’Connell, 2009, 2009-2010
(K-12) section, para. 2). Categorical programs are used in California to fund specific
needs of students, such as funds for economically disadvantaged students (Title I)
and English Language learners. This additional cut in fiscal resources exacerbates
the plight of public schools to increase student achievement without adequate
resources and insufficient use of available resources.

5
The Odden-Picus Adequacy Model constructs evidence-based solutions for
effective resource and funding use to increase student achievement in K-12
education. The evidence-based Odden-Picus Adequacy Model suggests dollars for
educational funding that are based on student populations, both in school size and
specific student learning needs. The Odden-Picus Adequacy Model will be used to
determine how effective schools allocate and spend their limited and recently
declining resources to increase student achievement.
Statement of the Problem
Closing the achievement gap so that all students will have mastered
proficiency presents a challenge that has never been attempted in the history of the
United States. This expectation presents several challenges to public schools. The
first challenge is the endeavor to help all students achieve proficiency. The second
challenge that schools must conquer is finding the means to help all students achieve
proficiency given fiscal limitations and resource allocation practices. In addition to
the above mentioned challenges, schools must also find a solution to address the
needs of students and help them achieve proficiency of learning outcomes with
reduced budgets due to recent cuts in California’s public education system.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to analyze how effective schools respond to
the fiscal decline of resources in California to improve student performance.

6
The research questions for the investigation are:
1. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned
with or different from the resource use strategies used in the Picus-
Odden Evidence-Based Model?
2. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies
at the school level?
3. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
4. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the
recent budget reductions?
The findings from these research questions will provide insight, feedback,
and effective strategies for improving resource use in K-12 public schools. The
findings will inform the resource allocation and spending practices of school, district,
and State level administrators, teachers, parents, communities, and policymakers.
Informed school resource allocation practices using the evidence-based Odden-Picus
Adequacy Model will provide solutions to feasibly increase student achievement.
Importance of the Study
This study will provide information to district and school administrators as
well as to policymakers on effective resource allocation practices using the evidence-
based Odden-Picus Adequacy Model. The findings from this study will inform the
budget and resource allocation practices of school leaders to effectively improve
student achievement in K-12 education. The insights from the study will provide an

7
addition to the limited literature on school-level resource spending and allocation
practices that increase student achievement. Findings from the study may also
provide implications for K-12 funding policies in addition to school-level practices.
Summary of Methodology
Case studies of five elementary schools were conducted to provide
information on how schools allocate limited resources to improve student
achievement. The case studies focused on the resource allocation practices of the
schools during the 2008-2009 school year. Many school districts in California were
challenged with using reduced fiscal resources to operate, manage, sustain, and
improve the learning experiences of students during the 2008-2009 school year.
Interviews of instructional coaches, teachers, district instructional supervisors,
district curriculum supervisors, district professional development coordinators,
principals, superintendents, and focus groups were conducted to uncover practices
implemented by the schools. In addition, observations of data analysis meetings,
classroom instruction, and team meetings were conducted to further investigate the
uses of data, teaching, and collaboration at each school site.
Limitations
The study is limited to five public elementary schools in California that have
demonstrated improvement in student achievement over the past three academic
school years. Many elementary schools in urban school districts within California
have very similar student demographics as found in these five case study schools.
However, the student demographics for English Learner (EL) and economically

8
disadvantaged students are higher in the schools used in this study than the average
for elementary schools in California. The criteria for the schools selected are listed
below as this will provide background for the limitations:
1. Public elementary schools located in the Southern California region
2. Elementary schools that have met their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for
the past three academic school years (2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009)
3. Schools that have qualified for the California Distinguished School Honor
4. Schools have an EL population of 30-40%
5. Schools have a minority student population of 50% or more
6. Schools have a student population where 50% or more is enrolled in the
National Free and Reduced Lunch Program
Randomization was not applied to determine the case study schools since
only schools that met the specific criteria were included in the sample. Furthermore,
only schools that gave their consent and fully disclosed necessary documents were
included in the study. The resulting limitations are that generalizations cannot be
made from the study as findings apply only to the specific schools used in the case
studies. Therefore, findings do not apply to other elementary schools within or
outside California.
Delimitations
There are four delimitations to the study:
1. Schools are located within the Southern California region given time and
travel constraints of the researcher.

9
2. The researcher’s preference to study only successful urban schools has
eliminated schools that did not meet the sample criteria. All schools used for
the case studies are successful urban schools.
3. Resource allocation practices were analyzed using the Picus-Odden
Evidence-Based Model (EBM) (Odden & Picus, 2008) to determine
educational adequacy. Therefore, the implementation of other educational
adequacy models was eliminated from the analysis.
4. Only schools that gave their consent and fully participated were included.
Assumptions
The assumption in this study is that all data collected at schools are
accurate. In addition, although each case-study school may incorporate different
strategies to improve student achievement, it is assumed that similarities and
common themes will be found. It is also assumed that responses from participants
and data from school documents are truthful and accurate reflections of school
resource allocation practices.
Definition of Terms
1. Academic Performance Index (API) – the accountability scoring system used
in California to determine the success of schools by student performance. It is
based on a student performance scale of 200 to 1000 points, with 800 being the
target for all schools.
2. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) – NCLB mandates that each school
receiving federal funding demonstrate adequate growth each year based on

10
various factors including: API, graduation rates, passing rates on the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), norm-referenced standardized
tests such as the California Standards Test (CST), and California
Achievement Test/Survey 6 (CAT 6).
3. Average Daily Attendance (ADA) – schools are given funds from the state
based on a district’s average student attendance. The higher the number of
students in attendance, the more funding the school district will be awarded
by the state.
4. California Standards Tests (CSTs) – part of the STAR program, these
standardized, criterion-referenced batteries of tests are administered annually
beginning in the second grade through eleventh grade. The criteria of each
test address grade-level content standards for California.
5. Categorical Funds- state funds designated to schools to provide for specific
student needs.
6. Class Size Reduction (CSR) – movement in education to reduce the student-
to-teacher ratio to increase student achievement across the grade levels. The
EBM calls for a 15:1 ratio for core instructional classes in grades K-3 and
25:1 ratio in grades 4 and 5.
7. Continuous Improvement – the focus on development by administrators,
teachers, and other school staff to improve student achievement.
8. Core Instruction – refers to the teaching of mathematics, reading/writing,
science, and social science content areas in the elementary grades.

11
9. Educational Adequacy – providing the resources that are necessary to
produce proficiency of grade-level content standards for all students.
10. English Learners (EL) – students who are developing proficiency in the
English language and require resources and services that will help them
achieve written and oral fluency of the English language.
11. Equality- the equal distribution of funds per pupil, where schools are supplied
the same amount of funds per student regardless of the level of student needs.
For example, schools receive the same amount of funds to educate a student
with special needs as they would a student who is advanced in mastery of
grade-level standards.
12. Equity – the distribution of funds based on student needs. For example,
schools would receive more funds to educate a student with more learning
challenges or special needs than they would a student who performs within
the norm.
13. Full Time Equivalent (FTE) – the cost of one full-time teacher’s salary and/or
benefits.
14. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) – National
standardized test given to students to determine what skills U.S. students
have mastered in the core content areas. Comparisons of student performance
are made by analyzing the results from the NAEP.

12
15. National Free and Reduced Price Lunch Program – nationally funded
program that provides free school meals to eligible students from
economically disadvantaged households.
16. No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) – passed in 2001, this act provides
schools with more accountability by requiring all students to demonstrate
proficiency in reading, writing and mathematics. Sanctions are provided by
state and federal governments to schools that fail to achieve the student
performance expectations, or AYP, for consecutive years.
17. Non-core Content – refers to those classes outside of the core content areas
such as art, music, and other special electives.
18. Per-pupil Spending- established amount of funds that schools must designate
to students equitably, despite differences in socioeconomic backgrounds of
students.
19. Picus-Odden Evidence-Based Model (EBM) – educational adequacy model
developed by Odden and Picus that determines staffing needs and other
resources that are required to make all students achieve proficiency in grade-
level standards.
20. Professional Development (PD) – opportunities for growth in educators to be
more effective instructional leaders and facilitators. Collaboration with
colleagues, peer coaching/observation, coursework, training, education, and
conference attendance are examples of professional development
opportunities that increase the teaching effectiveness of educators.

13
21. Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) – a school’s focus on
collaborative culture among staff, on-going learning, collective inquiry into
best practices, a commitment to continuous improvement, and action and
results orientation.
22. Revenue Limits – student-based funding limits that are established by the
state Legislature in an attempt to equalize per-pupil funding. The established
amounts are given to districts to assist districts in meeting the set revenue
limits; districts that exceed the revenue limits through local funding sources
can keep their excess funding.
23. Serrano v. Priest (Serrano) – A California court case that challenged the
inequities of per-pupil spending. In 1976, per-pupil spending amounts were
established within $100. Serrano v. Priest was an attempt to bring equality to
the amount of funding spent on students.
24. Socio-Economic Status (SES) – describes the social and economic status of
individuals by income, parents’ education levels, parent occupation, and
social network.
Organization of Study
Chapter One discussed the study’s statement and background to the
research problem in school finance. The need to know more about how successful
schools have allocated their resources is also explained.
Chapter Two discusses the history of school funding and recent decline of
fiscal resources, the concept of educational adequacy and overview of school

14
funding models, the use of resources in schools, and instructional improvement
practices that increase student achievement.
Chapter Three describes the details of the study, including research
questions, sample of population, instrumentation, and data collection and analysis.
Assumptions and ethical considerations are also discussed.
Chapter Four discusses the findings from case studies performed on five
sample schools and compares the findings to the recommendations made by the
Picus-Odden Evidence-Based Model for school adequacy.
Chapter Five discusses the implications of the findings from the case
studies, the limitations of the study, and the need for more research in the area of
school adequacy to successfully raise student achievement.

15
CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Preparing all students to achieve proficiency in their learning objectives is a
challenge for the majority of U.S. public schools, especially since proficient skill
levels attained by all students has not been the common trend in U.S. public
education. NCLB (2001) established a mandate that all students must achieve
proficiency on state determined learning objectives. A decline in fiscal resources to
achieve these high student outcomes has increased the number of challenges for
many school districts. There is limited literature on the school-level resource
allocation practices that produce significant increases in student achievement during
periods of fiscal constraint. Schools must now address the learning needs of their
diverse students using limited fiscal resources given the reductions in funding in
recent years.
Six main topics dominate the literature on the impact of school finance on
student achievement: (a) the history of school finance in California, which will also
include recent changes to school finance budgets, (b) school-level resource use and
allocation, school finance funding models and educational adequacy, (c) how schools
improve instructional practices to increase student achievement, (d) the purpose and
philosophy of educational adequacy and school finance funding models, and (e) the
Evidence-Based Model for resource use and allocation to improve student
achievement.

16
History of School Finance in California

Four key decisions made by California voters and the California Supreme
Court have impacted school funding in California (EdSource, 2008b). Two of the
decisions were propositions established by California voters, Propositions 13 and 98.
Proposition 13 limited potential revenues for schools by limiting property taxes, and
Proposition 98 attempted to bring a more stable funding system to schools by
guaranteeing that schools receive a minimum level of funding based on California’s
economic condition. The two other decisions are lawsuits regarding equality in the
distribution of funds and equal provision of educational resources. The two lawsuits
are Serrano vs. Priest, 1978, and Williams vs. California, 2004. The decisions in
Serrano vs. Priest established that all public schools are to receive an equal amount
of dollars for each student in attendance to equalize spending between high, middle,
and low socioeconomic communities. The settlement in Williams vs. California
established that schools must improve conditions at high poverty and low-
performing schools to equalize learning opportunities for students.
Historically, many school districts in California have been funded by local
tax revenues. A portion of local property taxes were reserved for the local school
district. Each county in California allocated a different percent of each property tax
dollar to fund schools (EdSource, 1978). Alpine County reserved $.29, whereas
Mariposa County reserved $.70 per property tax dollar for schools (EdSource, 1978).
This provided inconsistent funds for school districts in California (EdSource, 1978).
Also, the differences in socioeconomic levels in California’s communities impacted

17
the amount of funding available to each school district (EdSource, 1978). Wealthy
communities had more property tax dollars to generate revenue for schools given the
higher cost of real estate and therefore were able to spend more money on students.
Middle and low socioeconomic communities received less revenue from property tax
dollars to spend on students. The disparities in school funds raised by property tax
dollars caused school districts to spend unequal amounts of money on students
(EdSource, 1978). School funding practices in California were inequitable, and
therefore unconstitutional (EdSource, 2009b).
In the Serrano vs. Priest court decision of 1976, the California Supreme
Court ruled in favor of providing schools with a particular amount of dollars per
student (per-pupil spending) (EdSource, 2008b). School districts in high
socioeconomic communities are required to share any surplus of funds, beyond the
per-pupil spending quota, with school districts in low socio-economic communities
(EdSource, 1978). Revenue from property tax dollars are redistributed to school
districts based on the size of the district, as larger districts will have a higher number
of students than smaller districts, and district type, such as elementary, unified, and
high school, to ensure that equal amounts of dollars are spent on students (EdSource,
2009b).
Although Serrano vs. Priest (EdSource, 1978) made an attempt to bring
equality to school district budgets for the purpose of achieving equal learning
opportunities for all students, the passing of Proposition 13 (EdSource, 2008b)
placed a restriction on the amount of money that property owners are taxed.

18
Consequently, Proposition 13 reduced the amount of local revenue distributed to
school districts (EdSource, 1978, 2009b). The anticipated redistribution of revenues
based on Serrano vs. Priest was affected since high-wealth districts were unable to
generate higher amounts of funding from property tax revenue to give to lower-
wealth school districts (EdSource, 2008b).
Proposition 98 was passed in 1988 to add stability to school finance practices
(EdSource, 2008b). Proposition 98 determines the amount of funding that California
will allocate to schools from the general state revenue. The amount of funding that
school districts receive under Proposition 98 is dependent on the state’s economic
status (EdSource, 2008b). When tax revenues are increasing, “Proposition 98 has
meant that education is entitled to the same amount allocated the previous year, plus
Average Daily Attendance (ADA) growth and a cost-of-living adjustment equal to
the change in per capita personal income in the state (EdSource, 2008b, p. 11).”
However, in times of economic loss, Proposition 98 ensures that school districts
receive “a decrease in per capita General Fund revenues plus one-half percent of the
prior year’s Proposition 98 spending amount (EdSource, 2008b, p. 11).” The state is
not expected to restore the amounts of money previously allocated to school districts
until tax revenues outperform the amount of personal income per capita (EdSource,
2008b). In addition, schools are required to produce a School Accountability Report
Card (SARC) which provides a summary of the school’s progress in key areas, such
as: academics, facilities and repairs, per-pupil expenditures, salaries of teachers and
administrators, textbook compliance and quality of materials, professional

development, student performance, graduation and dropout rates, suspension and
expulsion rates, school mission statement, parental involvement, school description,
student enrollment, average class size, safety plan, appropriate assignment of
teachers, number of credentialed teachers on staff, and number of support staff
(CDE, 2009). Proposition 98 establishes a minimum level of funding for school
districts and provides an accountability measure by the SARC to provide the public
with information on how schools are performing while using tax revenue funds
(EdSource, 2008b, 2009b). Figure 2.1 illustrates the 2008-09 revenues provided to
schools by Proposition 98 funds.
Figure 2.1: 2008-09 Revenues for K-12 Education Based on the Enacted Budget

Source: EdSource, 2009b
In the Williams vs. California lawsuit in 2000, the state was sued for failing
to provide students with necessary educational tools to give them an equitable
19

20
education, such as textbooks (EdSource, 2009b). The Williams lawsuit settlement
requires that schools upgrade their facilities, quality of teachers, and purchase
sufficient instructional materials to provide students with proper educational
experiences (EdSource, 2009b). It further requires that the year-round school
schedule, where students attend school for weeks at a time followed by several
weeks of vacation through the school year to address overcrowding, be eliminated. It
also provides funds to low-performing schools to repair facilities and improve
teacher quality and placement in subject and special needs areas (EdSource, 2008b).
As evidenced by scores from NAEP and state tests, in Figure 2.2, an
achievement gap between high socioeconomic status, white, Asian, Hispanic,
African-American, economically disadvantaged, and English Learner students still
exists. However, the discussion of providing all students with an equal opportunity
to learn by equalizing resources that schools need to educate students is not new.
Propositions 13 and 98, Serrano vs. Priest, and Williams vs. California have been
attempts to bring equality to K-12 schooling during past decades. The current
undeniable achievement gap among students suggests that these critical attempts to
equalize education are not fulfilling the resource needs of schools to help all students
succeed.

Figure 2.2: California’s Grade 4 Mathematics and Reading NAEP Scores 2007

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), 2007 Mathematics Assessment. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 Reading Assessment. NAEP, 2007, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/
Note: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, Pacific Islander
includes Native Hawaiian, and American Indian includes Alaska Native. Race
categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified. The NAEP Mathematics scale
ranges from 0 to 500. Some apparent differences between estimates may not be
statistically significant.

Recent Changes in California’s School Finance Budgets
The current difficult economic condition in California has impacted 2008-
2009 and 2009-2010 academic school years. The impact of Proposition 98 has been
21

22
to reduce the amount of funding to school districts based on the previous year’s
decline in tax generated revenues (EdSource, 2008b). The current federal
administration has allocated almost $8 billion to the K-12 education system in
supplemental funding called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
of 2009 (EdSource, 2009b). The federal government decided to borrow funds to
address the declining wealth in the U.S. economy. The supplemental federal aid act
is intended to stimulate growth in the economy (EdSource, 2009b). A portion of the
ARRA, $81,570,000,000, is designated to various government grants and programs
to benefit schools, of which California’s schools will receive just over ten percent
(EdSource, 2009b).
ARRA provides schools with funding intended to preserve school services
that impact student needs (EdSource, 2009b). Grants and programs that are allocated
funds by ARRA are Title I, School Improvement Grant, Ed. Tech., IDEA (Part B),
McKinney Vento Homeless, Fiscal Stabilization Fund, and Child Nutrition
(EdSource, 2009b). Potential uses for ARRA funds for the Title I program are
attaining effective teaching staff and collaboration, building school capacity by
teacher and principal training, utilizing instructional coaches for reading and
mathematics, providing extended learning opportunities, and improving and
expanding early childhood education (EdSource, 2009b). ARRA funding for the
IDEA program is a one-time dispersal for the services of students with disabilities.
Possible uses of funds are for technology, professional development for special
education teachers, improving the implementation of student achievement data to

23
improve instruction (data driven decision-making), building preschool services for
students with special needs, and hiring coordinators to facilitate the transition of
students from school to the work force (EdSource, 2009b). Additional uses of
ARRA funds can be designated for long-term reform and improvement of schools
(EdSource, 2009b). Long-term reform and improvement of schools may include the
equitable distribution of quality teachers to high-poverty and underperforming
schools, systems for data driven decision-making, closure and reopening of the
lowest-performing schools to provide improved schools to underperforming areas,
early learning, technology, accelerated programs, and the modernization and
construction of school facilities (EdSource, 2009b). Table 2.1 outlines the uses for
ARRA funds in California. Three programs represent the bulk of ARRA funds. The
purpose of these funds is to provide school districts with additional aid to close gaps
in student achievement.
Table 2.1: ARRA Funds Available to School Districts
Program California’s
Share
Accessing
the Funds
Projected Timeline
to States (U.S. Dept.
of Education)
Projected
Timeline
for First
Round to
Districts
Pre-K-16
Portion of the
State Fiscal
Stabilization
Fund (Reduce
need for
layoffs,
promote
reforms)
$4.9 billion
(new
program)
Application
by the
governor,
commitment
to reforms
and data
collection
67% during April
2009, within two
weeks of an
approved
application; 33%
between July and
October 2009 upon
approved detailed
application
Late May
2009

24
Table 2.1, Continued
Title I, Part A
(Disadvan-
taged
students)
$1.1 billion
(above
existing
allocation)
Current
funding
formula
50% went to CDE on
April 1, 2009; 50%
between July and
October 2009
May 2009
IDEA, Part B
(Special
Education)
$1.3 billion
(above
existing
allocation)
Current
funding
formula
50% went to CDE on
April 1, 2009; 50%
between July and
October 2009
May 2009

Source: CDE, California School Boards Association (CSBA); U.S. Department of
Education (EdSource, 2009b)

As illustrated in Figure 2.1 above, schools will receive Proposition 98 funds,
local revenues, local property taxes, state and federal funds, and lottery funds for the
2009-10 academic school year. In addition, schools will also receive fiscal relief
from ARRA funds. Schools are expected to use these resources to increase the
achievement of all students, especially for low-performing students as mandated by
NCLB (2001). The recent, yet short-term, change to the funding program suggests
that policymakers and state and federal administrators understand that schools need
fiscal resources to close the achievement gap. However, the question remains—how
can the resources be most effectively used to produce high achievement in all
students?
School-level Resource Use, Allocation and Reallocation

A major challenge in school resource allocation is determining how much
money and resources are needed to adequately address the needs of all students in
public schools (Odden & Picus, 2008). The goal of all students performing at
proficient levels has not been achieved in the majority of California’s public schools,

25
especially in schools serving students from low-income backgrounds (Odden &
Picus, 2008). Many public schools in California have yet to bring even half of their
students to levels of proficiency on state tests (SFRP, 2008). Historically, U.S.
public schools have operated with the expectation that only the elite students would
achieve learning objectives to proficient or advanced levels and an even smaller
selection of students from the elite would go on to universities and college-level
institutions (Murphy, 2001).
Resource Use
From 1995 to 2000, the Finance Center of the Consortium for Policy
Research in Education (CPRE) studied the resource allocation practices of school
districts in the United States. Odden and Picus (2008) found similarities in the
spending habits of many of the school districts studied. The findings show that
school districts spend approximately 60% of their resources on instructional services,
which include regular classroom instruction, special education programs, programs
for students who are English language learners, low-achieving students, and students
with special needs (Odden & Picus, 2008). Twenty-five percent of the fiscal budget
of school districts is allocated to special education services (Odden & Archibald,
2000). In addition, school districts spend 8-10% of their fiscal budget on provisions
for student social services, teacher professional development, and development of
curriculum and instructional resources (Odden & Archibald, 2000). Approximately
9-11% of their fiscal resources are spent on the operation and maintenance of school
facilities (Odden & Archibald, 2000). The remaining 26-28% of fiscal budgets is

26
spent on needs that are ancillary to the core instruction in classrooms, yet relevant to
the functions of schools. Four to six percent of school budgets are allocated to
transportation and food services, nine to eleven percent are allocated for
administration costs, three to four percent on central office administration, and six to
seven percent on school site administration (Odden & Archibald, 2000).
RAND (1995) found that high school districts assign more dollars per
student, unified school districts allocate a smaller amount of dollars to students, and
elementary school districts allocate even less dollars per student. Although different
per-pupil expenditures are evident in the three types of school districts found in
California, school district spending habits are proportionally the same for all three.
Figure 2.3 illustrates how the bulk of dollars are spent on instructional staff and
materials. Significantly smaller proportions of education dollars are spent on other
services, school facilities, administrators, school-based programs, and district
operations. Figure 2.3 from RAND (1995) reveals that although high school,
unified, and elementary school districts each receive various amounts of money, the
allocation of funds does not differ regardless of how little or how much money
districts receive. Although per-pupil expenditures are significantly higher today than
the data shown in Figure 2.3 from 1995, the proportions of funds allocated to each
type of school district and the allocation of those resources has not changed.

Figure 2.3: Per-Pupil Expenditures in California School Districts

Source: RAND (1995)

Odden and Picus (2008) found that school districts generally spend school
budgets on the following resources: instruction, instructional support, school and
district-level administration, student support services, operation and maintenance,
transportation, and food services. The resources within instruction include salaries
and benefits for all teachers and instructional aides, books and educational materials,
instructional coaches, and possible services and tuition.
Instructional support resources that schools spend money on are: curriculum
development, staff training, libraries, computer and media centers, salaries and
benefits, purchased services, and tuition and supplies. Spending on school and
district-level administration includes the salaries and benefits of school and district
administrators, secretarial staff, purchased services, and possible tuition and supplies.
27

28
Student support spending includes salaries and benefits of personnel hired to provide
counseling, social work, health, family outreach, speech pathology, attendance,
guidance, and any other support resources for students. Spending on school
operations and maintenance includes salaries and benefits of custodians, carpenters,
plumbers, electricians, groundskeepers and any other support personnel that operate,
maintain, heat, cool, and clean school facilities. Operations and maintenance also
includes purchased services and supplies and utilities that are necessary to keep
schools in operation. Spending on transportation and services applies to the salaries
and benefits personnel who deliver those services, purchased services, and supplies.
Resource Allocation
Spending on instruction has involved the consistent addition of teachers on
staff. Many of the teachers were hired specifically to meet the need for teachers in
special education, as is required by federal legislation (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Additional teaching staff was also hired for the purpose of non-core education
classes, such as art and music. The current overall trend in high schools is for 50%
of the teachers on staff to teach outside the core subjects (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Some money in the increase of educational spending went to raising teacher salaries,
but the contribution to teacher salaries is significantly less than the hiring of
additional specialist teachers (Odden & Picus, 2008). The hiring of instructional
aides, pupil support staff, and specialist teachers are additions to the school budget,
but are not regular classroom teachers of the core subjects (Odden & Picus, 2008).

29
By 1995, the percentage of core subject classroom teachers fell to 52% from 70% 45
years earlier in 1950.
Odden and Picus (2008) found that many teachers in the K-12 education
systems did not work as teachers of the core subjects. Their teaching jobs did not
require spending a full day teaching core subjects, leaving fewer teachers for
students in the core subjects (Odden & Picus, 2008). Consequently there was an
increase in the number of students per teacher in the core subjects (Odden & Picus,
2008). Also, in larger districts with gradually less wealth, larger pupil-teacher ratios
were found and, therefore, larger class sizes (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Odden and Picus (2008) stated that a significant portion of dollars added to
educational spending was used to teach non-core subjects and support for struggling
students in core content areas. The dollars did not go directly to funding the
instruction of core subjects (Odden & Picus, 2008). The allocation of new
educational dollars to non-core subjects and support for struggling students in the
core subjects failed to improve student achievement in core content areas, especially
for struggling students (Odden & Picus, 2008). The increase of students per teacher
in the core subjects has increased teacher load (Darling-Hammond, 2002). The
increase in teacher load significantly creates more teacher responsibilities, making
classroom teaching less effective as there are more students to bring to levels of
proficiency and advancement (Darling-Hammond, 2002). Therefore, the increased
pupil-teacher ratio and increased teacher load consequently impact student
achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2002).

30
Odden and Picus (2008) also found that the amount of money spent on
education has increased, but very small amounts of the new educational dollars went
to improving instruction in the core subjects of mathematics, science,
reading/English/language arts, history/social studies and foreign language. A lack of
substantial investment in the core subjects has failed to improve student achievement
in the core subjects. Furthermore, this can explain why the allocation and use of
additional dollars to education has not been effective in increasing student
achievement. Also, the overall trend for low and high spending school districts is for
a decrease over time in the amount of money spent on the core subjects (Odden &
Picus, 2008). Although money could be spent on providing students with high
quality instruction and smaller class sizes in the core subjects, a significant amount
of money is spent on providing interventions and specialized instruction to students
with special needs (Odden & Picus, 2008).
State and federal dollars are allocated differently by school districts in
California to address federal and state mandates, such as special education and the
meeting of the Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP. Categorical funds,
which are moneys designated for specific purposes and needs of students, are
implemented in California. Figure 2.4 illustrates the allocation of categorical funds.
About one-third of categorical funds are used for instructional improvement, and
another one-third of funds are used for serving the needs of students in special
education. Figure 2.5 illustrates the allocation of federal dollars. About 70% of
federal funds are allocated to serving special needs students as special education is a

federally mandated program. Only 8% of federal funds are allocated for
instructional improvement.
Figure 2.4: Proportion of State Funded Programs by Purpose

Source: EdSource, 2009b
Note: Includes 98% of Categorically Funded Programs, Categorical funds are
specific to California.
Figure 2.5: Proportion of Federally Funded Programs by Purpose

Source: EdSource, 2009b
However, the significant gaps in student achievement show that interventions
for students that schools and the government have spent money on have not been
31

32
effective in raising student achievement (Odden & Picus, 2008). Duke (2006)
asserted that the presence of interventions alone does not in and of itself ensure
improved student performance. Removing funds that could possibly be used to
increase student achievement in the core subjects to allocate them towards
ineffective interventions for students maintains the student achievement gap. Some
intervention programs do not translate resources into the expected results (SFRP,
2008).
Odden and Picus (2008) recommend restructuring resource allocation to increase the
investment on core subjects and spending money on evidence-based strategies of resource
use that have been proven to increase student achievement, especially for students with
special needs who have historically performed under the average performance of
mainstream students. Students with special needs must continue to receive supplemental
services to gain higher levels of achievement (Odden & Picus, 2008). The use of funds for
students with special needs must be used in ways that are more effective in improving
student achievement.
Resource Reallocation
More education dollars for school spending by itself does not necessarily
improve student achievement as achievement gaps continue to remain in all types of
school districts. It is how the resources are used that will impact student
achievement (Odden & Picus, 2008). Odden and Archibald (2000) found that
schools with high percentages of students with special needs and low-income
backgrounds have increased student achievement by reallocating their current

33
resources. School leaders reallocated resources based on the needs of their students.
To determine how resources were reallocated, they prioritized resources that
effectively addressed students’ needs (Odden & Archibald, 2000). School leaders
determined achievement gaps in student performance by using student data. They
analyzed differences in student performance by race, income, gender, attendance,
and transience. Investigating the performance of specific subgroups of students
enabled school leaders to determine where the achievement gaps were present. This
further informed their practice by showing them where their educational dollars
would do the most good and which students to allocate more resources to based on
needs. The prudent practice of reallocating resources was used to improve student
achievement.
One strategy implemented by school leaders in Odden and Archibald (2000)
is the reduction of class sizes. Reduced class size provides core instruction teachers
with reduced loads of students, or teacher load, which enables them to effectively
monitor, assess and improve student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2002). The
Evidence-Based Model recommends smaller class sizes for core subjects than
traditional class sizes (Odden & Picus, 2008). For grades Kindergarten to fifth
grade, a pupil-teacher ratio of 16:1 is recommended. For the core subjects in grades
6-12, a pupil-teacher ratio of 21:1 is recommended. In addition, smaller class sizes
help teachers develop quality, supportive relationships with students as a benefit of
reduced teacher load (Darling-Hammond, 2002).

34
Another strategy used to improve student achievement by reallocating
resources in Odden and Archibald (2000) was to integrate EL students and students
with mild learning disabilities into regular education classrooms. The pull-out
intervention programs for EL students and special education classrooms provided
instruction for the students but did not create improved academic achievement for
them since many intervention programs rely on low-level curriculum and thinking
skills (Darling-Hammond, 2002). Intervention resources did not translate into the
expected results. Placement of EL and some special needs students in mainstream
classes exposed them to higher quality curriculum and authentic pedagogy (Darling-
Hammond, 2002). Receiving quality instruction in the core subjects increased the
achievement of EL student and students with mild disabilities (Odden & Archibald,
2000).
The recent decline of fiscal resources has forced many school leaders to
prioritize school services. The reduced budget has caused many administrators to cut
services, personnel, and educational materials to decrease school expenditures.
Further study on how the fiscal situation in California has impacted the way that
school leaders allocate resources and prioritize spending is needed to inform future
school-level resource reallocation practice.
Instructional Improvement

Many successful schools have increased student achievement by focusing on
the improvement of instruction. Common themes in instructional improvement that
are included in the strategies of successful schools are focusing on core instruction,

35
setting exceptionally high expectations, professional development, the use of
professional learning communities, implementing data driven decision-making,
assessing students frequently for the purpose of informing teaching practice, building
school-level capacity, improving the leadership skills of school administrators,
maintaining a clear vision, and following a cycle of inquiry or continuous
improvement.
Data Driven Decision-Making
Feldman (2003) defines data-based inquiry and decision making as the
process where school personnel analyze ongoing data from multiple sources to
comprehensively interpret their school’s strengths and weaknesses. Odden (2009)
found that many schools that have doubled student performance in a period of 3-5
years have implemented the use of data to determine student needs, inform
instructional practice, and modify the organizational culture and procedures in
schools to meet those student needs. Data used by schools included demographics
on the student population, disaggregated performance data, and data from state
assessments.
Demographic data was used to impact student performance. Odden (2009)
found that “some demographic student analysis can be helpful, but only if it leads to
conclusions about what the district and schools can do to improve performance." (p.
27). Schools that used demographic data maintained high expectations for student
achievement (Odden, 2009). They used the demographic student data to help
identify needs in student learning (Odden, 2009). Educating themselves about the

36
needs of their students using demographic data helped them effectively address their
student achievement gap (Odden, 2009).
The rural Wisconsin school district of Abbotsford found that their student
population of EL students had significantly increased. Industrial changes in the
community had created this demographic change in the local schools. The response
of the school district was to make changes to the curriculum and instruction used at
the schools by restructuring the reading curriculum and implementing instructional
delivery strategies that are effective for EL students. Student achievement increased
to the 95% level of students at or above proficiency and the percentage of low
income students performing at or above proficient doubled, too (Odden, 2009). (p.
26).
Data analysis must come from multiple sources to adequately identify a
school's strengths and weaknesses (Darling-Hammond, 2002). Disaggregated data
provides schools with the opportunities to investigate multiple sources of student
data to impact school and instructional action (Darling-Hammond, 2002; Odden,
2009). Types of disaggregated data include subgroups of students by race and
gender, individual student data, data on cohorts of students, and data on subgroups of
students with special needs such as EL, special education, and gifted (Johnson,
2002). Togneri (2003) stated that multiple measures of disaggregated data are
necessary for proper and effective decision-making. Schools that have increased
student achievement have implemented use of student performance indicators by
subgroups and individual students to determine growth targets and tailor instruction

37
to meet those student achievement targets. In addition, Togneri (2003) concluded
that successful instructional reform in school districts demands a systemic and
coherent response. A systemic and coherent response is evident in the performance
goals of the schools and districts that have doubled student performance (Togneri,
2003; Odden, 2009). Feldman (2003) concluded that “data led to wide-ranging
conversations about barriers to student learning."
Feldman (2003) found that teacher analyses of data informs decisions,
challenges assumptions, and creates a new perspective for collaboration in teachers.
Implementing the use of data, or data driven decision-making, into lesson planning,
design and delivery as an ongoing process improves student achievement (Togneri,
2003). In addition, in order to see the value and relevance of data-driven decision
making, teachers must “learn by doing” (Dufour, 2006). Incorporating the use of
data during staff meetings facilitates the job-site professional development that is
effective in creating a PLC (Dufour, 2006). Teachers will be able to implement data
driven decision-making in effective and appropriate ways to impact student
outcomes through the consistent presentation, interpretation, analyses, and
application of data (Dufour, 2006).
Data-driven analyses can include:
1. identifying students who mastered the content
2. identifying students who did not master the content
3. determining why students did or did not master the content

38
4. deciding how to regroup students for reteaching and enrichment of
learning standards
5. implementing new strategies that may help students understand content in
which they have struggled
6. and, determining how time and other resources could be adapted to
increase teacher and student learning (SFRP, 2008)
Schools that doubled student performance in a period of 3-5 years used data
driven decision-making to effectively close the student achievement gap (Odden,
2009).
Professional Development
Marzano (2003) stated that students who benefit from the instruction of an
effective teacher will gain an estimated 53 percentage points in achievement.
However, students who receive instruction from an ineffective teacher will gain an
estimated 14 percentage points in student achievement, which widens the gap among
students (Marzano, 2003). Gamoran et al. (2003) further stated that there is no
greater impact on student academic and social development than the personal and
professional development of teachers. Ferguson (1991) stated that teachers must be
experts in three areas to make content accessible. Subject matter, needs of diverse
learners, and the learning process are the three areas where teachers must increase
their expertise to benefit student learning (Ferguson, 1991). Professional
development must focus on helping teachers do the tasks of increasing student

39
achievement by implementing effective strategies that address gaps in subject matter,
needs of diverse students, and the learning process (Ferguson, 1991).
NCLB (2001) mandates that schools prepare all students to achieve high
standards and implement a variety of instructional methods to meet the needs of the
diverse student population (NCLB, 2001). Gamoran (2003) found that the amount of
academic content that teachers are proficient in themselves has a strong impact on
what and how they teach their students. As a result, the instructional practices and
content knowledge of teachers affects student learning, proficiency and performance
in the subject matter. Teachers need more content and professional support to teach
students for understanding (Odden & Picus, 2008). Gamoran (2003) stated that to
provide a supportive learning atmosphere, teachers must understand how cultural
norms affect students and find ways to manage cooperation and competition among
students. The level of support perceived by students has a key role in student
engagement in learning activities and benefits student achievement (Pintrich &
Schunk, 2001).
The learning process requires that teacher focus in professional development
must be on instruction and the use of data to inform and improve teaching practice.
The benefits of data driven decision-making on student achievement warrants the
integration of data use into professional development (Marzano, 2003). Data usage in
professional development can include identifying gaps and analyzing trends in
student achievement, as well as assessing instructional practices and curriculum used
in classrooms that affect student performance (Johnson, 2002).

40
Although professional development that is focused on subject matter, the
needs of diverse learners, and the learning process have increased student
achievement (Ferguson, 1991), Odden and Picus (2008) found that more often than
not current spending on professional development practices has little impact on
increasing student achievement. Therefore, spending on professional development
requires restructuring if student achievement is to improve (Odden & Picus, 2008).
The key to student achievement success within the diverse socio-economic and
ethnic composition of public schools includes acceptance of learning gaps, improved
instruction, collaborative school and district leadership, long-term commitments,
adequate funding, and a systemic approach. (Togneri & Anderson, 2003)
Few schools support teachers in efforts that help them develop subject matter
knowledge, strategies that build diverse equitable learning communities, and the
learning process (Gamoran, 2003). If schools continue to inadequately support
teachers through professional development to effectively remedy the trend of low
student achievement, then student underperformance is likely to decrease over time
as schools become more diverse (NCEE, 1983). Educators in the United States will
not be able to help each child achieve proficiency in skills required for the global
market unless they implement appropriate and effective instructional strategies and
curriculum by investing in professional training (NCEE, 1983).
Professional Learning Communities
Setting high expectations for student achievement requires that professionals
who interact with them in schools are also expected to achieve high performance

41
(Darling-Hammond, 2002). Darling-Hammond (2002) stated that high-quality
teaching is dependant on a repertoire of strategies and explicitly sequential plans for
delivering content that build on students’ prior knowledge in conjunction with
collaboration with other teachers. This provides an opportunity to expand
professional knowledge and learning within school staff. All teachers must accept
the responsibility of instructional leadership and collegiality to increase quality
instruction and student learning (Togneri, 2003). Mac Iver and Farley (2003) define
the collective responsibility, instructional leadership and collaboration of colleagues
as a professional learning community.
A professional learning community implements collaboration among
professional educators and the opportunity to challenge ideas to improve student
achievement (Mac Iver & Farley, 2003). Dufour (2006) defined Professional
Learning Communities (PLCs) to be a focus commitment to each student’s learning.
All members of PLCs are guided by and facilitate the fruition of the school’s vision
to help all students learn. Results-oriented goals are used to monitor the progress of
the school to fulfill the vision. Members clearly identify what students must learn,
they monitor student learning, provide explicit and methodical interventions or
support, and supplement and extend student learning (Dufour, 2006).
Collaborative learning experiences enable teachers to modify and develop
pedagogy to help students learn and provide opportunities for school staff to
internalize the school's vision and goals: developing a collective perspective on
teaching practice, and creating a stronger school culture (Darling-Hammond, 2002).

42
Professional learning communities implement sociocultural theory to provide
opportunities that encourage teachers to do what is needed to increase student
achievement (Rueda & Dembo, 1995). By implementing a sociocultural framework,
teachers are encouraged to shift into a professional learning community by
interacting in collaborative social contexts where the effective teachers encourage
instructional growth in their colleagues (Rueda & Dembo, 1995)
Odden (2009) found that schools that doubled the performance of their
students implemented professional learning communities to support struggling
students with differentiated and effective instructional strategies. Teachers were able
to support one another in their instructional practices to help all of their students
achieve grade-level standards (Odden, 2009). Professional learning communities
help to create an ongoing professional development culture in schools by fostering
distributed leadership and embracing instructional change using teacher
collaboration (Dufour, 2006; Odden, 2009). The implementation of professional
learning communities helps teachers develop as learners of “teaching,” which
subsequently supports students in their own learning (Darling-Hammond, 2002;
Odden, 2009). Effective and successful support of teachers by professional learning
communities increases student achievement and hence, closes the achievement gap.
Instructional Materials and Curriculum
Achieving high student expectations requires that curriculum, instruction, and
assessments be aligned to the goals of increasing student performance. Schools
seeking to double student performance must revise or overhaul large sections or all

43
of their instructional programs to develop student mastery to proficient or advanced
levels. Clark and Estes (2002) state that goals must be aligned to the procedures,
strategies, practices and operations of an organization to improve performance (Clark
& Estes, 2002). Schools must align the procedures, strategies, practices and
operations in instruction and curriculum at their schools to provide students with the
appropriate preparation and opportunities to produce high achievement outcomes
(Clark & Estes, 2002).
Reductionist curricula are often used in schools to address the needs of
underperforming students. These programs have neglected to make significant gains
in the performance of low-performing students and close the achievement gap.
Remedial intervention programs tend to focus on low-level skills and reading texts
(Phelps, 2005). Authentic literature and high-order thinking skills are evident in
quality instructional programs that increase student achievement to proficient and
advanced levels. Quality instructional programs that use authentic instructional
materials, high-order thinking and application, and explicit teaching are required to
improve the academic performance of struggling students (Marzano, 2003). Odden
(2009) has found that the quality of curriculum, classroom instruction, and
assessment that are aligned to learning expectations, goals and high student
outcomes are significant in doubling student performance.
Schools that have improved student performance have tailored instruction to
meet gaps found in student performance data (Odden, 2009). In addition, the schools
focused on best instructional practices to help students gain mastery of learning

44
objectives (Odden & Picus, 2008). Quality curriculum demonstrating academic rigor
was implemented in classrooms to increase student expectations and hence, student
performance (Marzano, 2003).
Core Instruction
Schools that have doubled student performance have invested dollars on the
core instruction, which includes providing students with quality teachers and
curriculum in mathematics, science, social studies, foreign language, and language
arts in secondary schools and grade-level teachers in elementary schools (Odden &
Picus, 2008; Odden, 2009). Focus on instruction in the core subjects is critical to
improving student achievement (Togneri, 2003). Odden and Picus (2008) found that
high and low-spending school districts are allocating less money over time to core
instruction. As a result, although more dollars have been spent on education, only
small amounts of money go towards investment in core instruction (Odden & Picus,
2008). Significant portions of the increases in funding were spent on providing
students with extra help and little was spent on "core instructional needs." (Odden &
Picus, 2008)
Assessments
Odden (2009) found that several schools that doubled student performance
within a 3-5 year period utilized results from state tests to inform gaps in their
instructional program and in student performance. Many schools that improved
student achievement implemented performance assessments to identify student
mastery of grade-level standards. Performance assessments provided the added

45
benefit of focusing on teacher effort and student achievement results. Assessments
help teachers and administrators focus on student mastery of high standards (Odden,
2009). Overall, schools that produced significant increases in student achievement
assessed their students frequently and used the results from the assessments to
strengthen instruction and hence impact student learning (Odden, 2009).
School Leadership
Few school leaders know how to allocate resources to improve student
achievement especially when available resources are declining. Newmann (1997)
stated that a wide range of skills and a variety of leadership styles are implemented
by effective school leaders. Using diverse approaches, they tackle four challenges:
1. focusing on student learning and increased student intellect
2. facilitating respectful and participative collaboration among instructional
staff
3. fostering reflective and innovative professional development aligned to
school mission
4. and securing social and structural support for teachers to improve
instructional quality (Newmann, 1997)
The development of leadership in school-site administrators is an investment that
requires the attention of school districts (Darling-Hammond, 2002). School leaders
must learn how to allocate resources at their schools to produce the highest positive
impact on student performance.

46
Services for Students with Special Needs

Significant amounts of funding have been spent on intervention programs and
special education mandates for students with special needs. The impact of these
programs that education dollars are spent on have been ineffective in making
significant gains in closing the achievement gap (Odden & Picus, 2008). In addition,
there is deficient research on how these interventions and programs positively
increase student achievement (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Students with special needs, such as disabled, English Language learners, and
low-income students have learning needs that require extra funds, however the way
the funds have been used to increase student performance is ineffective in achieving
the goal of NCLB (2001). Many school districts implement pull-out programs for
students with special needs; however, the pull-out programs have been ineffective in
boosting their achievement. School leaders have mistakenly thrown money into
programs and mandates without measured outcomes or proof of effectiveness of the
interventions in preparing students and closing achievement gaps (Hanushek &
Rivkin, 1997).
Inclusion in regular education classrooms has improved instruction for many
students enrolled in special education programs. Students are expected to master
grade-level standards and are provided with the curriculum, instruction, and
supplemental resources to achieve proficient learning outcomes (Darling-Hammond,
2002). The increased academic rigor in regular education classrooms promotes high
expectations and performance standards (Darling-Hammond, 2002).

47
Interventions and Support for Students

Interventions and supports that have doubled the performance of struggling
students include small class sizes, tutors who are credentialed teachers, academic
rigor in curriculum and instruction, high-quality and effective teachers , additional
support through extended day programs, and extra time to achieve mastery of
learning goals (Odden, 2009). A high-quality core instructional program with high-
quality teachers who can provide in-classroom support is critical for all students,
especially students with special needs (Odden & Picus, 2008). Smaller class sizes
provide additional supports for struggling students and students with special needs
by reducing teacher load (Darling-Hammond, 2002). Reduced teacher load helps
teachers to effectively provide students with immediate feedback and maintain an
instructional program that achieves learning goals (Odden, 2009).
Tutoring by credentialed teachers is found to be effective in increasing
student achievement (Odden & Picus, 2008). Extended day academic support
provided to struggling students may include after school programs, Saturday school
tutoring, and summer school programs (Odden, 2009). The extra time available to
students to achieve goals provides more opportunities for them to master grade-level
objectives and receive help when needed. The additional support for students with
special needs in conjunction with a high-quality core instructional program facilitates
the grade-level mastery of skills that are required to achieve the goals of NCLB
(Odden & Picus, 2008; Odden, 2009; Marzano, 2002).

48
Time as a Resource
Schools have a fixed period of time to increase achievement in their
students—the 180 day academic school year (Odden, 2009). In California, the time
allotment is further limited by state testing, which occurs several weeks before the
end of each academic school year. Therefore, schools in California have a shorter
period of time to increase student achievement than 180 instructional days would
suggest, making the use of time even more valuable to schools and to students
(Odden, 2009). Schools that have created significant gains in student achievement
have increased the instructional minutes allocated to the teaching of core subjects
and have made diligent use of the time that students are in school (Odden, 2009).
Human Capital
Highly-qualified teachers and administrators are necessary to effectively
increase student achievement. Increasing student performance requires leadership
that can drive the stakeholders, operations, maintenance, and growth in a school in
the direction of achieving high expectations (Odden, 2009; Collins, 2001). Qualified
individuals are not only required to facilitate this process but must also be assigned
to the appropriate roles. The organization of leadership and staff at the school is
fundamental in supporting the school to drive student performance (Collins, 2001).
High Expectations and Goals
Another component evident in schools that have doubled student
performance is the undeniable presence of high expectations and goals for school
vision, student expectations, and school staff (Odden, 2009). The improvement of

49
student achievement is contingent upon high expectations (Pintrich & Schunk,
2002). Schools that have produced significant gains in student achievement have set
goals for learning that exceed the expectations of many educators (Odden, 2009).
The press to achieve the high expectations fueled the motivation of students, teachers
and school leaders to improve classroom instruction and variables that are within the
school’s control that affect student achievement (Odden, 2009).
Table 2.2 illustrates the strategies from Odden (2009) that have closed the
achievement gap for many schools by doubling student performance. Although the
case studies of each school differed somewhat, common themes found in the
practices of successful schools were identified. The common themes that have
increased student performance consist of acknowledging the performance problem,
setting and maintaining high goals, implementing quality curriculum and teaching,
data-driven decision making, professional development, efficient use of time, student
support, professional learning communities, focusing on core instruction, prudent
and frequent use of assessments, serving students with special needs,
professionalism, school leadership, and using human capital.
Table 2.2: Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Step Features
Understand performance problem
• Recognizing low student performance
• Accepting that change is necessary
• Meeting NCLB accountability mandates and AYP
Appropriate use of assessments
• Frequent and meaningful assessments
• Used to inform and modify instruction to meet
standards

50
Table 2.2, Continued
Set and maintain higher goals
• Regardless of student population, standards must be
high
• Maintain high standards to help create a culture of
success
• Student motivation
Adopt new curriculum and improve
instructional practices
• Curriculum must be aligned to new high standards
• Most influential component on student performance
Using data to drive instructional decisions
• Use student data to identify needs and drive
decisions
• Use of appropriate assessment strategies in the
classroom to provide appropriate instruction
Ongoing professional development for
teachers
• Training for teachers to become proficient in
analyzing data to drive their instructional practices
• Increasing effectiveness of teachers
Use time more efficiently
• Make use of every instructional minute comprising
the 180-day school year
• Increase allocation of time to core content areas
Support for struggling students
• Small class sizes
• Tutoring with credentialed teacher
• Rigorous curriculum
• High-quality teachers
Create professional learning communities
• Role of teachers as instructional leaders
• Collaborative school culture
• Intense focus on student learning
Core instruction
• Allocate more instructional minutes
• Increase professional development
• Strengthen program
Professional behavior and promising
practices
• Seeking promising practices in all aspects of
schooling
• Professional behavior by teachers and staff members
• Seeking outside expertise
Students with special needs
• Inclusion in regular education classrooms when
possible
• Increased academic rigor with appropriate support
Human capital
• Finding the right people to carry out the new
demands of improving student performance
• Principal and teacher talent
School leadership
• Invest in school-site leadership
• Learn how to allocate resources to increase student
achievement
Source: Odden (2009); Darling-Hammond (2000)

Schools that have been successful in doubling student performance have
implemented data-driven decision making to investigate the needs of their students.
Using disaggregated student data is instrumental in determining effective actions at
the school level to boost student achievement. Schools have also implemented

51
professional development and professional learning communities to focus on
improving student achievement. Professional development was restructured to
include the issues such as student diversity, data, and pedagogy. PLCs foster teacher
collaboration and the cycle of inquiry in continuously improving schools so that
teachers engage in on-going professional development and stay focused on student
results. In addition, schools also made significant changes to the instruction
provided to students, ensuring that instruction was high-quality and aligned to goals,
and making a greater investment in core subjects. Students in need of supplemental
academic help were supported by smaller class sizes, high-quality teachers, and
effective tutoring by credentialed teachers. Schools also made thorough use of
instructional minutes within the school day to provide all students with instruction to
master all grade-level content to proficient and advanced levels. More time was
allocated to instruction in the core subjects as well to achieve high student learning
outcomes. In addition, schools maintained high expectations and goals for students,
teachers, and staff. Finally, schools utilized the human capital provided to them by
individuals on staff to propel student achievement and school management and
leadership into the direction of improved student achievement.
Consequences of budget reductions on instructional improvement

The recent budget reductions may affect the ability of schools to achieve the
necessary instructional improvement that schools must produce to meet mandates
provided by NCLB (2001). Fiscal resources have been used to pay personnel
salaries at school site and district office levels, as well as fund instructional

52
programs, purchase educational tools and materials, provide services to students,
transportation, operation, and maintenance of school facilities. The majority of the
funds are used to provide salaries for school personnel. Teachers are a significant
portion of the individuals who comprise the school personnel population.
Unfortunately, the reductions in school funding have adversely affected the available
number of jobs for teachers (Song & Mehta, 2009). Many school districts in
California have been forced to cut teacher employment to adequately meet their
budgets (Song & Mehta, 2009). Consequently, many of the schools within these
districts must now achieve the expectations of NCLB (2001) by providing their
students with larger class sizes and with fewer teachers (Song & Mehta, 2009).
Funding Models and Educational Adequacy

Educational Adequacy
The expectations from NCLB (2001) continue to impact the functions of
schools. Dialogue about appropriate funds to achieve the expectations from NCLB
(2001) and ensure that every child is provided with adequate resources is evident in
many states. Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) found that, accounting for inflation,
dollars per pupil increased 3.5 % annually between 1890 and 1990. Odden and Picus
(2008) also found that although there have been significant increases in money
allocated to schools, the funds were not directly allocated to the students to create
improved academic achievement. There has also been proof that dollars per pupil
have grown during periods of economic growth and suffering (Odden & Picus,
2008). During periods of economic growth, the increase in per-pupil dollars was

53
greater than during times of economic misfortune (Odden & Picus, 2008). It is
evident that schools have received greater amounts of money over time to prepare
students. The current achievement gaps among students in the United States and
achievement gaps in U.S. students compared to school-level children educated in
other countries force the question, “Why then does the historical trend of
underachievement in students continue to perpetuate today?”
The historical trend in the United States has been to educate only a small
number of students to achieve grade-level standards to proficiency and prepare them
for advancement to colleges and universities (Murphy, 2001). "While these factory-
model schools may have worked for purposes they were asked to serve 50 years ago-
when fewer than 50 percent of students were expected to graduate and only a handful
were expected to learn to think- they do not meet most of our children's needs today
(Murphy, 2001, p.2)." In the present context of NCLB (2001), all students are
expected to graduate, think, learn, earn proficient or advanced achievement, and
become scholars and professionals. It is unrealistic to expect schools to ensure that
all students attain these goals in a "factory-model school" system where the initial
expectation was not for all students to graduate, think, learn, and become scholars
and professionals.
An overhaul of the educational system is due to help all students attain high
achievement (Odden & Picus, 2008). Odden and Picus (2008) state that school
leaders must now focus on creating, funding and implementing an education system
that effectively prepares students to proficiency standards and beyond (Odden &

54
Picus, 2008). The redesign of the education system and its funding and
implementation is further supported by Lee (1993). Lee (1993) asserted that
policymakers, educational leaders, philanthropies, and analysts, must define and fund
an education system that multiplies resource knowledge and practice. To achieve the
goals of NCLB (2001), schools must be restructured so that their operations and
functions are aligned to the expectations set by NCLB (2001).
The diverse nature of student populations provides a challenge to many
schools that are expected to achieve the proficiency or advancement of every student.
Togneri and Anderson (2003) state that the key to student achievement success
within the diverse socio-economic and ethnic composition of public schools includes
acceptance of learning gaps, improved instruction, collaborative school and district
leadership, long-term commitments, adequate funding, and a systemic approach
(Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Each of these areas provides a difficult challenge to
many schools that wait to be restructured, especially in the area of sufficient funding
(Odden & Picus, 2008).
Former and current systems of funding have been unable to bring all students
to mastery of learning standards (Odden & Picus, 2008). Schools districts have yet
to achieve the proficient mastery of standards across all student groups (Odden &
Picus, 2008). It is difficult to know precisely how much money it would take one
school, let alone many, to achieve the high learning outcomes of NCLB (2001)
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Funding levels are negotiated and changed over time
without scientific or evidence-based knowledge, rather the availability of resources

55
and competing demands dictate the established funding levels. In addition, the
ineffective school funding systems that have persisted for decades maintain the status
quo of the student achievement gap (Odden & Picus, 2008). The School Finance
Redesign Project (2008) found that in school funding systems, “all these system parts
have a logic, but it is not a logic of learning. Regardless of the amount of money
devoted to schools, conventional systems will not connect it to the outcomes that
now matter most (SFRP, 2008)."
Educational adequacy is the theory that schools must be funded using
financially equitable practices so that they can properly help all students achieve
mastery of set learning expectations (Burbridge, 2008). For instance, schools that
serve students whose primary language is English and live in high socioeconomic
communities with their families are more likely to achieve the minimum learning
outcomes with less support services from schools. However, students with special
needs and from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds will need more
assistance in achieving the same learning outcomes since they come to schools with
less of the same resources as student from high socioeconomic backgrounds
(Burbridge, 2008). Therefore, schools who serve students from disadvantaged
backgrounds will need more resources to provide special support services and
interventions for their students than schools whose students come to schools more
readily prepared and with more resources (Odden & Picus, 2008). The
implementation of educational adequacy models to fund schools has created more
equitable funding practices across the states (Burbridge, 2008).

56
Educational Adequacy can be defined as 1. expectations from state’s
curriculum standards, 2. what’s considered a “proficient” score on the standardized
tests and having all but severely disabled students attain that score, and increasing
the percentage of students performing at advanced levels, especially in math and
science, 3. state accountability systems and NCLB (2001) expectations to increase
achievement in students at all levels, 4. sufficient funding to provide the resources
identified in the resource matrix (which include core teachers, specialist teachers,
instructional facilitators/mentors, tutors for struggling students, teachers for EL
students, extended day, summer school, learning/mild disabled students, severely
disabled students, teachers for gifted students, vocational education, substitutes,
pupil support staff, non-instructional aides, librarians/media specialists, principal,
school site secretary, professional development, technology, instructional materials,
and student activities). Adequate education with proposed resources requires schools
to rethink and restructure their education program, and reallocate resources to
achieve the more effective educational program. A clear accountability and
monitoring program for the use of resources is also required for an adequate
education program to achieve the goals set by state’s expectations and NCLB (2001).
Odden and Picus (2008) state that educational adequacy funding consists of
instruction and student mastery of state's curriculum standards, proficient scores for
achievement of state's curriculum standards on state's testing system and the increase
in percentages of student performing at advanced levels, especially in math and
science, standards of the state's accountability system and NCLB that all students

57
will improve in achievement of state's standards, and sufficient funding to access
resources for these outcomes (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Educational adequacy involves the concept of restructuring schools to make
the most of fiscal resources. Burbridge (2008) has found that schools that restructure
their spending and teaching practices make longer strides in improving student
achievement than schools that are given extra resources and do not restructure
themselves. The School Finance Redesign Project (SFRP, 2008) has found that the
current practices of schools do not translate resources into results for proficient and
advanced student achievement. The logic of the current education and funding
system does not follow the “logic of learning (SFRP, 2008).” Additional funds to
education will not increase student outcomes to attain the ambitious goals of today
from NCLB (2001) without effective restructuring (SFRP, 2008).
To achieve the ambitious learning goals of NCLB (2001), educators must:
1. Be able to distinguish core instruction and instructional supports from
competing resource demands;
2. Maintain a comprehensive understanding of effective resource use;
3. Know how to match available resources with instructional needs; and,
4. Make decisions and tradeoffs to strengthen teaching and learning (SFRP,
2008).
Educational adequacy is critical to achieving a standard of high achievement
for all students, as mandated by NCLB (2001). “Equality” is a term often used in
U.S. society as it is a Constitutional right for all. The Serrano vs. Priest (1976)

58
decision sought to bring equality to California’s education system by mandating per-
pupil spending. Policies that mandated equality in funding practices were inadequate
to achieve equal learning outcomes for all. Decades later, the Williams vs.
California settlement propelled the philosophy on school funding from “equality” to
“equity”. “Equity” in school finance acknowledges that students are diverse and
therefore possess diverse needs. Some students have backgrounds that provide them
with resources that fit a profile for success in school, and some students are
supported in areas to succeed outside of the school network. Despite the goal of
Williams vs. California (2004) to create more equitable practices in schools, equity is
a goal that educators and the public often want to achieve, but few educational
institutions demonstrate it (Bensimon, 2004). Educational adequacy funding
practices seek to achieve not only creating equality and equity in public K-12
educational institutions as a whole, but to do so in a manner that effectively provides
schools and the students they serve with the resources for success (Odden & Picus,
2008).
School Adequacy Funding Models
The four main funding models implemented by states to provide public
schools with fiscal revenue are: the successful school approach, also known as the
successful district approach; the cost function approach; the professional judgment
approach; and, the Odden- Picus evidence-based adequacy model, also known as the
expert judgment approach. These four funding models seek to address the needs of
students by determining the amount and type of resources that schools are assigned.

59
The successful school approach, the cost function approach, the professional
judgment approach, and the Odden-Picus evidence-based adequacy model are
described to illustrate how “adequacy” is used to provide schools with resources to
impact student achievement.
The successful school approach is also called the successful school district
approach (Sjoquist & Khan, 2006). The successful school approach investigates how
school districts with high student achievement have applied their resources and how
much money they have spent. The purpose of the successful school approach is to
inform the budget priorities of school leaders seeking to increase student
achievement by implementing the same practices of these successful schools.
Unfortunately, these high-achieving schools are not representative of school districts
with low numbers of at-risk and EL students (Sjoquist & Khan, 2006). The
successful school approach may not provide schools with significant numbers of
underperforming and at-risk students with an appropriately matched budget and
resource use plan to improve student achievement (Sjoquist & Khan, 2006). Schools
that have achieved high levels of student achievement in typically underperforming
and at-risk student populations would more productively inform budgetary and
resource allocation practice.
The cost function approach relies on regression equations to predict student
expenditures that are required to achieve high achievement. The cost function
approach has been used in New York, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Texas, but has only
been implemented in Texas. The regression equations involved in the cost function

60
approach make it an unfriendly and confusing approach to determine school
adequacy for policymakers (Sjoquist & Khan, 2006). Cost function would be a
useful approach if it included more comprehensible tools for policymakers and the
public.
The professional judgment approach enlists the expertise of experienced
educators who determine what is needed for student success based on prototype
schools (Sjoquist & Khan, 2006). A budget and financial plan is created for the
prototype schools. The budget plans are then adjusted for individual schools based
on demographic and regional differences (Sjoquist & Khan, 2006). The professional
judgment approach does not account for financial constraints. The failure to account
for financial constraints makes the professional judgment approach impractical for
public schools as they are often limited in resources and restricted in resource use.
The experienced educators that devise the budgets for prototypical schools in the
professional judgment approach are varied in their experiences as educators and in
their views of high standards for student achievement. In addition, the process of
selecting budgets for prototypical schools based on prior experiences makes the
professional judgment approach a highly subjective method of determining school
adequacy (Sjoquist & Khan, 2006).
The Odden-Picus evidence-based approach “identifies a comprehensive set of
school-level elements that are required to deliver a comprehensive and high-quality
instructional program within a school and the evidence on their effectiveness, and
then determines an adequate expenditure level by placing a price (e.g. an appropriate

61
salary level for personnel) on each component and aggregating the components to a
total cost (Odden & Picus, 2008, p.1).” The components included in the model have
been proven to increase student achievement in evidence-based research (Odden &
Picus, 2008). Unlike the professional judgment approach where recommendations
for adequacy do not account for limits on school budgets, the Odden-Picus evidence-
based approach determines educational adequacy within the perspective that school
budgets are limited (Sjoquist & Khan, 2006).
Unlike past decades, where funding has increased over time, schools now are
impacted by the reduction of funds. Past school spending challenges consisted of
schools receiving small amounts of increased funding each year. Receiving reduced
budgets to achieve high levels of student achievement provides a new challenge to
public schools. Investigating how schools make the most of their reduced budgets to
achieve high learning outcomes for students is critical to the present era in public
education.
Picus-Odden Evidence-Based Model

School finance adequacy court mandates seek to design, fund and
implement a funding system that effectively prepares students to achieve standards
of proficient and advanced. Schools must have the resources necessary to
appropriately help students achieve proficient and above. The Picus-Odden
Evidence-Based Model looks at school-level elements that are required to provide
students with high-quality and comprehensive instruction based on evidence of the
effectiveness of specific strategies to determine expenditures of each component.

62
The Odden-Picus Adequacy Model identifies these school-level components that
produce effective results for student achievement by using randomized assignment,
other types of controls or statistical procedures, and best practices and impact at the
local district or school level.
The Odden-Picus evidence-based adequacy model provides a framework to
help schools align resource use and allocation to improved student achievement
(Odden & Picus, 2008). The model incorporates the use of a high-quality
instructional program, effective evidence-based instructional strategies, and the
determination of adequate expenditure levels for each component of the effective
school function (Odden & Picus, 2008). The Evidence-Based Model emphasizes
spending on core instruction, which is Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and
Social Studies. It also stresses allocating resources towards effective evidence-based
strategies, such as using instructional coaches, providing students with key
interventions, and implementing professional development and programs for special
needs students. It further emphasizes that resources should be spent on items that
strengthen quality instruction to positively impact student achievement (Odden &
Picus, 2008).
The Odden-Picus Evidence-Based School Adequacy model uses three
sources of evidence to base the evidence-based approach:
1. Research that involves randomized assignment:
2. Research with types of controls or statistical procedures; and,

63
3. The impact of best practices and studies at the local district or school level
(Odden & Picus, 2008).
The impact of best practices and studies at the local district or school level
incorporates effective research practices in staff development, instructional
improvement, the educational change process, and curriculum and instruction
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Although California does not include all of the components
of the model within its resource allocation and funding practices, the model is still
useful to public schools in that it provides successful, effective strategies and
solutions to schools that are striving to increase student achievement. Student-based
funding, school-linked accounts, and real dollar calculations can be implemented to
enable educators to flexibly align and use resources to support a school's continuous
improvement process and cope with the unintended consequences of resource
allocation decisions (SFRP, 2008).
Picus-Odden Evidence-Based Model for Elementary Schools

The Picus-Odden Evidence-Based Model for a prototypical K-5 elementary
school includes 432 students. Appropriate adjustments can be made to the Picus-
Odden Evidence-Based Model in K-5 elementary schools that exceed or have less
than the recommended 432 students. The adaptation of resource allocation practices
aligns resource use to goals of schools to increase student achievement (SFRP,
2008). The EBM breaks down the costs of key components of instruction as follows:
1. For instructional materials: $120 per pupil for textbooks, consumables, and
pedagogical aides

64
2. For library resources: $20 per pupil
3. For class sizes: grades K-3 a pupil-teacher ratio of 15:1, grades 4-5 a pupil-
teacher ratio of 25:1
4. Funding for a full-day Kindergarten program
5. For teacher work days: 200 full work days with an additional 10 work days
for intensive professional development
6. For core teachers: 24 self-contained high-quality teachers
7. For specialist teachers: 20% more than the number of core teachers, 4.8
specialist teachers
8. For instructional facilitators and mentors: 2.2 facilitators or mentors
9. For teachers of EL students: 1 for every 100 EL students, 0.43
10. For teachers for struggling students: 1 for every 100 students in poverty, 2.16
11. For extended day teachers: 1.8 teachers
12. For summer school teachers: 1.8 teachers
The student-based funding formula of the EBM helps schools match
resources to student needs within instruction using effective resource use practices.
School leaders have used the EBM to reallocate resources, from less effective to
more effective strategies, to positively impact student achievement. The EBM will
extend the findings of how school resources are prioritized and the impact of these
practices on student achievement in elementary schools.

65
Conclusion

The history of school finance in the U.S. was never designed to help every
student achieve proficient or advanced status in academics, nor was teaching every
student to these achievement levels ever attempted. Policymakers, school leaders,
and the American public are pioneering two new endeavors- one being the high level
of achievement for all students and the second being using an archaic funding system
of limited resources to attain this goal. Although several attempts have been made in
the past to more equitably fund education, the effectiveness of these initiatives to
bring all students to high levels of achievement has failed. The focus on educational
adequacy is necessary to accomplish the goal of high achievement for all students.
The Picus-Odden Evidence Based Model has been effective in increasing student
achievement in schools despite the use of limited resources.
Funding for schools has increased substantially over the past four decades,
however the way that resources are used in schools has been found to have a
significant impact on student learning. Resource use and allocation in the majority
schools has been ineffective in improving student achievement to levels of proficient
and advanced for all students. Schools have allocated resources using similar
approaches, with a declining amount of funding invested in core instruction. For
some schools, strategies that have proven to increase student performance are core
instruction, setting exceptionally high expectations, professional development, the
use of professional learning communities, implementing data driven decision-
making, assessing students frequently for the purpose of informing teaching practice,

66
building school-level capacity, improving the leadership skills of school
administrators, maintaining a clear vision, and following a cycle of inquiry or
continuous improvement.
Schools have improved student achievement in recent years given limited
resources. The investigation to follow will identify how schools have reallocated
and used resources to increase student achievement despite recent reductions in the
amount of funding to K-12 education. Research has shown how instructional and
resource allocation strategies have improved student achievement. More research on
fiscal expenditures is necessary to attain the goal of educational adequacy. Picus and
Odden (2008) have emphasized the following school-level resources to add to the
literature on educational adequacy by staffing and expenditures:
1. The regular instruction program,
2. Educational strategy,
3. Content area,
4. Interrelationships within the patterns of staffing and expenditures, and
5. The relationships of patterns within staffing and expenditures to student
achievement
These issues will determine which components of the school learning
environment require more investment of educational dollars to effectively increase
student performance. The data from this investigation will advise school leaders
how to efficiently use and reallocate resources to improve student achievement.

67
Chapter Three will discuss the methodology of the investigation on how schools
have improved student achievement by the use and reallocation of resources during
fiscal decline and limitations.

68
CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Although more dollars have been allocated towards schools in recent
decades, there has been little return on investment of those educational dollars as
gaps in student achievement are still evident. Literature provides little evidence of
what happens at the school-level to increase student achievement in schools that
have produced significant gains in student performance. Identifying the strategies
that successful schools have implemented to produce significant gains in student
achievement is critical for widespread improvement of student performance. In
addition, it important to look at how the strategies used by successful schools
compare to each other to inform the practice of school leaders.
Research Questions
The following research questions will guide the study:
1. How are the resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Picus-Odden
Evidence-Based Model?
2. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies
at the school level?
3. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?

69
4. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to on-
going budget reductions?
Sample and Population
The successful elementary schools that were used in this study were
determined using criterion sampling.
• The elementary schools are located in the Southern California region.
• Schools have met their AYP for the past three academic school years
(2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008).
• Schools have qualified for the California Distinguished School Honor.
• Schools have an EL population of 30-40%.
• Schools have a minority student population of 50% or more.
• Schools have a student population where 50% or more is enrolled in
the National Free and Reduced Lunch Program.
Table 3.1 lists the criteria and describes the reasons for the selection of the
sample and population. Schools that fit the criteria of significant populations of
students enrolled in English Learner and the National Free and Reduced Lunch
programs, as well as have a significant number of minority students, especially
African-American and Latino students, are representative of the challenges that
many urban schools encounter during period of limited and declining fiscal
resources. Although the state average for minority, EL, and economically
disadvantaged students is lower in California elementary schools, the demographics
in the sample schools are representative of the challenges of many urban school

70
districts in California. Determining what successful schools have done to increase
student achievement will be instrumental to school leaders and practitioners in the K-
12 educational system, as well as to the literature on school level resource allocation
to significantly increase student achievement.
Table 3.1: Criteria and Reasons for Sample and Population
Criteria Reason
The elementary schools are located in
the Southern California region.
Time and travel limitations
Schools have met their AYP since
2005-2006.
Schools have qualified for the
California Distinguished School
Honor.
Sustained success and/or
improvement for all significant
subgroups

Schools have a minority student
population of 50% or more.

Characteristic of many public schools,
many minority students have different
or more needs than “mainstream”
successful students.
Schools have a student population
where 50% or more are enrolled in the
National Free and Reduced Lunch
Program.
More resources and strategic uses
needed to improve student
achievement.

Schools have an EL population of 30-
40%.

Different challenges for schools,
growing population of EL students,
many schools have struggled to make
significant gains in this subgroup.

Instrumentation

Instruments developed by Dr. Lawrence Picus from the University of
Southern California will be employed to investigate the research questions. Dr.
Picus conducted a training seminar on the implementation of the instruments and
provided a procedures manual to the researchers. A web-based database (from
www.lpicus.com) will be used to record findings from the case studies.

71
The school principal from each participating school will complete a consent
form that binds the school’s agreement to engage in the case study with the
researcher. Next, a pre-visit form will be sent to the principal to begin the interview
process for the case study. The pre-visit form requests information about the
school’s staffing list, schedule, funding for daily substitute teachers, budget for
professional development, and hired consultants. The purpose of the pre-visit form
is to provide data on the resource allocation decisions based on funding and their
impact on staffing. The pre-visit form is used to answer research questions 2 and 4.
The data-collection protocol form will be used to record answers for the
scheduled interview with each school principal. The data-collection protocol form
will provide the researcher with more detailed information about the school’s
staffing list, schedule, funding for daily substitute teachers, budget for professional
development, and hired consultants. The researcher will also collect information on
school resource indicators, which include school building size, school unit size,
percent of low-income students, percent of special education students, percent of EL
students, per-pupil expenditures, professional development expenditures per teacher,
length of core instructional time, special academic focus of school, size of core
classes, non-core class sizes, and length of instructional time.
Data from the school principal interviews will be analyzed using the Picus-
Odden Evidence-Based Model. The Picus-Odden Evidence-Based Model for the
prototypical elementary school will be used as the framework to analyze findings

72
from the case studies. Recommendations for staffing for a prototypical elementary
school of 432 students include:
1. Core instruction teachers in self-contained classrooms: 15:1 pupil-teacher
ratio for grades K-3, 25:1 pupil-teacher ratio for grades 4-5, amounting to 24
self-contained high-quality teachers.
2. Specialist teachers: 20% more than the number of core teachers (24), 4.8
specialist teachers
3. Extended support:
a. EL students 0.43 teachers/1 for every 100 EL students
b. struggling students 2.16 teachers/1 for every 100 students in poverty
c. summer school 1.8 teachers
d. extended day programs 1.8 teachers
4. Specialized education (special education, Gifted and Talented Education
(GATE))
5. Professional development (facilitators and mentors for teachers, 2.2)
6. Additional support (teacher compensation, pupil support services,
instructional materials, technology)
The framework for the Picus-Odden Evidence-Based Model is based on
significant amounts of empirical research. The instruments used in the Picus-Odden
Evidence-Based Model have been effectively applied by Dr. Picus in previous
studies. Therefore, the instruments are assumed to be reliable for the purposes of
this study.

73

Data Collection

The researcher will conduct the school site interviews with each principal and
any other school personnel (if needed) and identify relevant data from school
documents. The consent form, pre-visit form, and data collection protocol form will
be distributed to school principals by the U.S. Postal Service. The consent and pre-
visit forms will be completed before the school site interview by the principal, while
the data-collection protocol form will be completed by researcher during the school
site interview. The interviews with principals will be conducted during one-day
visits at each school site.
Data Analysis
The data collected from school site interviews and school documents will be
analyzed and compared to the Picus-Odden Evidence-Based Model. All pertinent
school data will be submitted into the database designed by Dr. Picus. The database
instrument will organize and present the school data to the researcher for analysis.
Patterns of resource use in schools will be analyzed using tables.
Comparisons will be made about the resource use practices employed at the schools.
Trends and similarities in resource use and allocation practices are expected to be
found. The findings will be compared to the Odden-Picus Evidence-Based Model to
determine school resource decisions to educational adequacy.
Challenges the researcher may encounter in the study include major
differences in school resource allocation practices, inadequate documentation of
school-level resource use, weak relationship between school resource allocation

74
strategies and the Picus-Odden Evidence-Based Model, and disparities between
school strategies to improve student achievement and the strategies discussed in the
research literature. In addition, it is assumed that participants and all documents and
data collected are accurate reflections of school practice, function, operation, and
achievement. Challenges in the validity of the responses from all participants at the
school-site levels and accuracy of the documents collected may be found. If
inconsistent data are uncovered, then professional judgment must be implemented to
interpret the conflicting data.
Ethical Considerations

The researcher has completed the ethics training course provided by the
University of Southern California and the Inquiry II course in May 2009. The
courses covered ethical practices and research guidelines involving data from human
subjects. All findings will be reported truthfully to strengthen the study’s credibility,
researcher’s integrity, and honor the credible reputation of the University of
Southern California and its faculty.

75
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Schools in California are expected to raise student achievement of all
students to proficient or advanced levels of performance on standardized tests to
satisfy the requirements of NCLB (2001) and to meet their Academic Performance
Index targets. An effective, quality instructional program using evidence-based
strategies is an approach to raising student performance. Resource use and allocation
in schools must support the quality instructional program to raise student
achievement. The Picus-Odden Evidence-Based Model was used to compare the
resource use and allocation practices of five schools that have improved student
achievement. The student demographics of these five schools include economically
disadvantaged, minority, and EL students. The findings show that although these
schools do not have enough dollars to achieve the recommendations of the EBM, the
use and allocation of resources support many of the strategies employed in the EBM.
The findings will address the following research questions:
1. How do the actual resource use patterns at the school sites align to or are
different from the resource use strategies used in the Picus-Odden Evidence-
Based Model?

2. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?

3. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
plan?

4. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the recent
and on-going budget reductions?

76
Although the schools are allocating resources to the recommended areas of
the EBM, their reduced resources create challenges in satisfying the full
recommendations made by the EBM. The first section discusses the resource
allocations and use at the schools compared to the EBM. The second section
discusses the similarities in the instructional visions and improvement plans that are
employed at the sample schools. The third section discusses similarities in the
implementation of the instructional improvement plan at the schools used in the
sample. The fourth section discusses the impact of the recent and on-going budget
reductions on the instructional improvement plans at the sample schools. The
resource practices at the sample schools do suggest that they find relevance in the
values of the EBM. However, having been dramatically under-funded historically
and recently, the schools did not meet all of the recommendations of the EBM.
1. How do the actual resource use patterns at the school sites align to or are
different from the resource use strategies used in the Picus-Odden Evidence-
Based Model?

The resource use patterns at the school sites demonstrate many of the values
of the EBM. The values included in the EBM that were evident in each of the
sample schools are professional development, quality curriculum and teaching,
interventions for struggling students, very high goals, teacher involvement in the
improvement process, leadership, use of assessments, and data driven decision
making. Although the schools did not meet all of the recommended resource use and
allocation recommendations of the EBM, the schools did allocate many of their
resources to the key components of the EBM. District involvement and

77
supplemental resources employed by the schools in the improvement process were
considered in addition to the values of the EBM.
Professional Learning Communities and Professional Development
All of the schools within the sample implemented PLCs, instructional
coaches, and professional development that impacted teacher practice using
evidence-based teaching strategies. The EBM recommends 10 full days for
professional development training during the summer and between 100 and 200
hours of on-going professional development during the academic school year. The
EBM also recommends specialized professional development for teachers of gifted
and EL students. None of the schools in the sample were able to provide their
teachers with 10 full days of professional development. The number of days
allocated for professional development purposes varied from school to school.
Phoenix Sand Elementary, which received more professional development support
from its district compared to the other schools, was able to provide teachers with 5
days of professional development, offered during “Superweek.”
The EBM also recommends that schools staff one instructional coach for
every 200 students. Most of the schools in the sample did not provide the
recommended FTE for instructional coaches based on their school sizes. However,
the principals of each of the schools did state that they would like to have the funds
for more instructional coaches at their school sites. They also stated that the recent
on-going budget decrease and funding constraints from previous years have made it
a challenge to staff their schools with the present number of instructional coaches.

78
The number and hours for instructional coaches did not satisfy the recommendations
of the EBM for most of the schools. The “teaching school” from the sample, Aspen
Skies Elementary School, did find creative approaches to support the professional
development of its teachers and provide for instructional coaches by generating
income as a professional development resource to other schools.
Curriculum and Instruction
The Picus-Odden EBM recommends providing students with high quality
core instructional programs that satisfy the needs of struggling students. The high
quality core instruction programs must include intensive instruction for struggling
students and ELD instruction for EL students. Pull-out programs have been
ineffective in satisfying the grade-level needs for many struggling and EL students.
Therefore, the EBM recommends that students receive differentiated instruction
within the core instructional program to adequately meet their learning needs. The
differentiation of instruction within the core instructional program has benefits for
struggling and EL students. Gifted students will also benefit from the differentiation
of instruction.
A focus on providing students with high-quality core instruction was a
critical component of classroom instruction in the sample schools. There was also an
emphasis on differentiating instruction specifically for struggling students and ELD
students. One high-achieving school placed an additional focus on differentiating
instruction for GATE or gifted students as well.

79
Core academic teachers are an important component of the instructional
program. The EBM recommends one teacher for every 15 students in grades K-3,
and one teacher for every 25 students in grades 4-12. With the exception of
Raindance Elementary School, the overall findings show that the schools used fewer
core academic teachers than the EBM recommended. The use of fewer core
academic teachers has created larger class sizes in the schools. The same finding is
also true for the number of specialist and elective teachers employed by the sample
schools. The EBM recommends that the number of specialist and elective teachers
should be 20% of the recommended number of core academic teachers at each
school. Four of the sample schools did not meet this recommendation and one
school did not have any specialist or elective teachers on staff. Tables 4.1 and 4.2
illustrate the differences in actual resource use for core academic teachers, specialist
and elective teachers, and the EBM’s recommendations for the school based on
school size.
Table 4.1: Resource Use for Core Academic Teachers
School Number
of
Students
EBM’s
Recommendations
for Core
Academic
Teachers
Actual
Resource
Use for
Core
Academic
teachers
Comparison
between actual
resource use and
the EBM’s
recommendations
Aspen Skies
Elementary
428 24 15 Aspen Skies
Elementary uses
37% less than the
recommended
number of core
teachers

80
Table 4.1, Continued
Coastline
Elementary
School
453 24 16 Coastline
Elementary
School’s resource
use for core
academic teachers
is 33% less than the
recommended
amount of the
EBM.
Early Sunset
Elementary
School
594 34 23 Early Sunset
Elementary used
33% less than the
recommended
number of core
teachers
Phoenix
Sand
Elementary
School
600 34 18 Resource use for
core academic
teachers at Phoenix
Sand Elementary
School is 47% less
than the
recommended use
in the EBM.
Raindance
Elementary
School
1030 56 61 Raindance
Elementary
School’s resource
use for core
academic teachers
is 8% more than
recommended by
the EBM.

81
Table 4.2: Resource Use for Specialist and Elective Teachers
School Number
of
Students
EBM’s
Recommendations
for Specialist and
Elective Teachers
Actual
Resource
Use for
Specialist
and
Elective
Teachers
Comparison
between actual
resource use and
the EBM’s
recommendations
Aspen Skies
Elementary
428 4.8 0 Aspen Skies
Elementary School
did not use
specialist and
elective teachers.
Coastline
Elementary
School
453 4.8 1.2 Coastline
Elementary
School’s use of
specialist and
elective teachers is
75% less than the
EBM’s
recommendation.
Early Sunset
Elementary
School
594 6.8 5.0 Early Sunset
Elementary
School’s resource
use 26.5% less than
the EBM’s
recommendation.
Phoenix
Sand
Elementary
School
600 6.8 3.0 Phoenix Sand
Elementary
School’s actual
resource use is 56%
less than the EBM
recommendation.
Raindance
Elementary
School
1030 11.2 1.0 Raindance
Elementary
School’s resource
use for specialist
and elective
teachers is 9% of
the recommended
use by the EBM.

82
Interventions
Full-day Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten
The schools had interventions for most early elementary students by
providing extended day or full day Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten programs.
The Picus-Odden model recommends full day Kindergarten and preschool programs
to improve student achievement. Although the schools have not implemented full
day programs for Kindergarten, Pre-Kindergarten, and preschool, the schools do
allocate resources for extended day Kindergarten programs to provide students with
more exposure to K-12 education at an early age. Table 4.3 illustrates the difference
between the recommendations of the EBM and the schools’ actual resource use for
full-day Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten programs.
Table 4.3: Differences in Kindergarten and Preschool Programs between Actual
School Resource Use and the EBM’s Recommendations.

School EBM’s
recommendations
for Kindergarten
and Preschool
programs
Actual resource use
for Kindergarten and
Preschool programs
Difference in Resource
Use for Kindergarten and
Preschool Programs
Aspen Skies
Elementary
School
4.75 FTEs for
Full-day
Kindergarten for
76 students at a
16:1 ratio.
2 FTEs for two 20:1
extended day
Kindergarten and 2
FTEs for Full-day
Kindergarten for 36
regular and special
education students,
which is a total of 4
FTEs although the
extended day
Kindergarten teachers
are not instructing
students for the full
instructional day.
Difference in FTEs is
16% less in the actual
resource use, making
class size 20:1 and 18:1
for the Kindergarten
classes. Only Full-day
Kindergarten is offered to
36 of the 76 students.
47% of the Kindergarten
students are receiving the
benefits of the Full-day
Kindergarten called
Collaborative Inclusion.

83
Table 4.3, Continued
Coastline
Elementary
School
1.5 FTEs for Full-
day Preschool for
24 students at a
16:1 ratio.
4.5 FTEs for Full-
day Kindergarten
for 72 students at a
16:1 ratio.
3 FTEs for extended-
day Kindergarten
classes at a 24:1 ratio.
1 FTE for extended-
day Preschool at a
24:1 ratio.
Difference of 2 FTEs for
Kindergarten and
Preschool teachers,
making class size 24:1
over 16:1. No students
are receiving a Full-day
Kindergarten program as
Coastline Elementary
School offers an
Extended-day program
only.
Early
Sunset
Elementary
School
1.5 FTE for Full-
day Preschool
program for 24
students at 16:1. 6
FTEs for Full-day
Kindergarten
program for 96
students at 16:1.
1 FTE for extended-
day Preschool for 24
students, a 24:1 ratio.
4 FTEs for extended-
day Kindergarten at a
24:1 ratio.
Difference in FTEs for
Preschool is 33% less,
making class size 24:1.
Difference in FTEs for
Kindergarten is 33% less
than the recommendation,
making class size 24:1.
In addition, Early Sunset
Elementary School offers
only an extended-day, 5
hour program, rather than
Full-day Kindergarten
and Preschool programs.
None of the Preschool
and Kindergarten students
benefit from a Full-day
program.
Phoenix
Sand
Elementary
School
Not applicable as
Phoenix Sand
Elementary School
includes grades 4-
6 only.
Not applicable as
Phoenix Sand
Elementary School
includes grades 4-6
only.
Not applicable as Phoenix
Sand Elementary School
includes grades 4-6 only.
Raindance
Elementary
School
11 FTEs for Full-
day Kindergarten
for 175 students at
16:1.
9 FTEs for half-day
Kindergarten
programs at a 20:1
ratio. Voluntary
enrollment in
Extended-day
Kindergarten will be
offered beginning in
2009-2010.
Difference in FTEs for
Full-day Kindergarten is
18% less than the EBM’s
recommendation, making
class size 20:1 over 16:1.
Furthermore, none of the
students have attended a
Full-day Kindergarten
program as Raindance
Elementary School has
provided only a half-day
Kindergarten program.

84
The Picus-Odden EBM model recommends providing full-day preschool
programs for students at ages 3 and 4. Full-day preschool programs benefit students
from middle class and economically disadvantaged backgrounds (Odden & Picus,
2008) The preschool programs must be of high-quality to ensure that students from
economically disadvantaged backgrounds will be prepared to meet the same grade-
level expectations as middle-class students.
The EBM also recommends providing quality full-day Kindergarten
programs to all students, regardless of economic background. The benefits of full-
day Kindergarten programs include stronger reading skills and the reduction of
academic challenges for students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
Although most of the schools in the sample did not provide students with full-day
Kindergarten and preschool programs, students did receive more instruction from the
extended day Kindergarten programs that were offered in most of the sample
schools, as opposed to traditional public school half-day programs.
Only two of the sample schools, Coastline and Early Sunset Elementary
Schools, have pre-Kindergarten programs that have enrolled 24 students each. Both
of these schools have only one pre-Kindergarten classroom. The pre-Kindergarten
programs are run on an extended day schedule as opposed to a full-day school
schedule. The pre-Kindergarten programs are staffed with one teacher, at one FTE,
although the pre-Kindergarten students do not attend a full-day of instruction.
Three of the schools in the study sample, Aspen Skies, Coastline, and Early
Sunset Elementary Schools implement extended day Kindergarten programs. The

85
extended day Kindergarten classes are each staffed with one teacher, at one FTE,
although the Kindergarten students do not attend a full-day program.
Students have received more preparation for achieving grade-level standards
with the extended day programs, as opposed to shorter half-day programs. As
recommended by the EBM, the quality full-day Kindergarten and preschool
programs are the most advantageous option for the subgroups of students who have
underperformed in the public school system for the past several decades. More
funding to provide full-day Kindergarten and preschool programs, rather than the
extended day programs, would facilitate the improvement of student achievement.
Evidence-Based Instructional Strategies
The EBM recommends the practice of evidence-based strategies to improve
student achievement. RTI, PLCs, block scheduling, flexible grouping, differentiated
instruction, and providing students with immediate and intensive interventions are
evidence-based strategies. The evidence-based strategies implemented by the
schools in the sample were researched by school staff, were the focus of professional
development trainings, were discussed during staff collaboration, and were realistic
approaches to the improvement of instruction and student learning.
All of the schools implemented Response To Intervention (RTI) within the
core curriculum. Teachers were provided with professional development to embed
the immediate intervention within classroom instruction. In addition, teachers are
also provided with on-going support by their school site PLC to develop their
practice of RTI within classroom instruction. Schools within the study sample also

86
implemented block scheduling to appropriately provide students with intensive
instruction using RTI and flexible grouping. Block scheduling was employed to
support students’ skills mastery in the areas of academic focus, which varied from
school to school. Aspen Skies Elementary School was intentional about providing
block scheduling that included technology, while Raindance Elementary School
focused on English-language arts, and Phoenix Sand Elementary focused on math
and science. In addition, teachers in all of the sample schools had differentiated
instruction for low income students, EL students, special education students, and
gifted or GATE students. Teachers had practiced differentiated instruction for over
three years at each of the schools. All of the schools in the sample implemented the
evidence-based strategies that were appropriate for their students.
Supplemental Instructional Programs
Some of the schools employed supplemental instructional programs in
previous years that strengthened the core curriculum. The supplemental instructional
programs were selected to specifically address the learning needs of students. The
EBM recommends summer school and extended day programs for struggling
students. One teacher for every 15 eligible students is recommended for summer
school and extended day programs. The eligibility pool of students who would
qualify for the supplemental instructional programs is projected to be 50% of the
number of students who qualify for free and reduced priced lunch by the EBM.
Summer school programs are recommended to run for a period of 8 weeks and for 6
hours each day.

87
The few extended day programs that were available to students were run by
outside agencies, not by the schools. Some of the schools in the sample had funded
summer school and tutoring programs for struggling students in the past. However,
recent budget reductions have made the continued provision of these programs
impossible to fund. Aspen Skies Elementary School has embedded a model for
Intercession within the structure of the academic year and instructional day for
struggling students. Although summer school, extended day, and tutoring programs
in addition to a quality core instructional program would benefit struggling students,
students can benefit from the intensive instruction they receive during Intercession
without additional costs for supplemental instructional programs to the schools.
Goals
All schools had a similar goal to increase student achievement so that all
students would eventually score as high achievers on the CSTs. For Phoenix Sand
Elementary School, the goal was to increase the percent of students achieving at the
proficient or advanced levels by 10% in reading, writing, and mathematics over a
period of three years. Aspen Skies focused on increasing the percentage of students
scoring as proficient or advanced in mathematics by 20% and continue the gradual
increase of students scoring at proficient and advanced by 10% in English-Language
Arts, or reading and writing. Coastline Elementary School set a very high goal of
increasing the percent of students scoring proficient or advanced in Science by 20%
over a three-year period and managed to increase the percent proficient by 40% in
Science. Coastline Elementary School’s goals for student achievement in

88
mathematics and English-Language Arts were to increase the percent of students
scoring at the proficient level and higher by 20%. Early Sunset Elementary School
hoped to continue their gradual growth of students scoring at the proficient and
advanced levels by 10% in English-Language Arts, mathematics, and Science during
each academic year. The focus of Raindance Elementary School was to achieve a
15% increase in the percent of students scoring at proficient or advanced levels in
mathematics, English-Language Arts, and Science.
Two schools, Aspen Skies Elementary School and Phoenix Sand Elementary
School, had adopted goals that foster intrinsic student motivation for learning and
also adopted learning standards that surpass the expectations of California State
standards. The three remaining schools adopted the California State standards as
their guide for student achievement. California’s state standards are more rigorous
than the standards of many other states, and many schools have not successfully
accomplished raising student achievement to the level of the standards. All of the
schools in the sample did select very high goals for student achievement, which was
increasing in the percent of students scoring proficient or higher between 10%-20%.
The setting of very high goals is consistent with the recommendations of the Picus-
Odden model.
District
The role of many of the districts in the student achievement improvement
process has included providing coaches and supporting the school’s efforts to
improve student achievement. The districts that did not provide coaches have

89
supported schools by giving the schools flexibility and independence. The flexibility
and independence provided by the districts gave the schools the freedom to choose
relevant actions that would improve student achievement, such as adopting high-
quality curriculum and selecting effective professional development trainings.
Initiative of the Student Achievement Improvement Process
In three of the five case study schools, the previous and current principals have
initiated the student achievement improvement process. In one school, the
improvement process was led by teacher leadership. In the remaining schools, the
student achievement improvement process was initiated by the district to increase
student performance throughout the district.
Leadership
The leadership roles in each of the schools included the participation of
teachers and principals. In one district, the leadership roles were shared by the
district, as the district initiated the student achievement improvement effort, and the
teachers and principals at the school site. The EBM recommends one principal for
every prototypical elementary school of 432 students. All of the schools in the
sample had one principal, and one school with a size of over 1,000 students had an
assistant principal. The EBM recommends that larger elementary schools be divided
into smaller schools and given one principal each to address the needs of the
students.

90
Assessments
Assessment use varied from school to school in terms of frequency, forms of
assessments, and data use from assessments. All of the sample schools did use
district benchmark tests and the CSTs. Many of the schools did choose to implement
more assessments and the frequency of testing of the supplemental assessments.
Supplemental Resources and Actions
All of the schools received Title I Funds that contributed to the instructional
programs. Some schools also received benefits from grants from private
organizations. The administrator at Early Sunset Elementary School implemented
flexible resource use which helped to address specific needs for professional
development and student interventions. Phoenix Sand Elementary School received
the benefits of a district GATE coordinator who facilitated and monitored how
teachers differentiated instruction for gifted students. Raindance Elementary School
received the benefits of a parent liaison who worked with the community and parents
to build support and aid the principal in building capacity through professional
development to increase student achievement. Phoenix Sand Elementary School also
was given Teachers On Special Assignment (TOSAs) from the district to support
professional development as instructional coaches in ELD, writing, Thinking maps,
direct instruction, math, and differentiated instruction. Phoenix Sand Elementary
School’s district also established a district-wide Leadership Academy for training
teacher leaders to build instructional capacity for the district and for the individual
school sites. Aspen Skies Elementary School served as a “teaching school” by

91
providing professional development trainings for other schools in the region. The
school was able to generate funds by providing these trainings to other institutions
for reasonable costs.
2. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?

The instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school level were
distinguished by the culture of the staff at each school. There were many similarities
in the improvement strategies and instructional vision implemented in the case study
schools. For instance, the teaching staff at each of the schools operated as a PLC.
Although the evidence-based strategies employed by each school varied from school
to school, all of the schools invested effort into identifying which evidence-based
strategies would provide an instructional program that would increase student
achievement. Teachers at each of the schools then engaged in training to effectively
implement the evidence-based strategies. All schools set goals for students to
achieve or exceed the California State standards. Teachers at all schools also
differentiated instruction for EL students, gifted students, and struggling students.
Many schools implemented RTI to differentiate instruction. A motivated school
staff and professional culture was also evident in the case study schools.
Aspen Skies Elementary School implemented strategies that focused on
constructivist teaching. Teachers were trained in evidence-based constructivist
strategies and set high goals for student achievement. The standards-based
curriculum and instructional resources that were implemented exceeded the
expectations of the California State standards. Although the staff set goals that

92
would enable students to meet the proficient and advanced levels on the CSTs, the
expectation was for students to become self-motivated scholars. Fostering intrinsic
motivation in students was a school-wide initiative. In addition, flexible grouping
and explicit teaching was embedded within the school’s teaching philosophy. The
explicit teaching, flexible grouping, and thorough record keeping of student
achievement have provided support to struggling learners.
Coastline Elementary School adopted the philosophy for teacher leadership.
An improvement process for student achievement was initiated with teachers at the
forefront of the instructional decisions. Although the previous and current principals
were involved in the improvement effort, the experienced teachers on staff identified
and implemented the practice of evidence-based strategies at the school site. The
teacher leaders were also instrumental in the coaching and training of other teachers
on staff by professional development. Many of the improvement strategies that were
present during the 2008-2009 academic year had been implemented for about 10 or
more years. The improvement process for student achievement does have an
emphasis on the explicit teaching of skills and concepts. Evidence-based teaching
strategies that implement explicit teaching and block scheduling, which is used for
student use of the computer lab and RTI, are evident daily in classroom instruction.
The vision for students at Coastline Elementary School is that they will achieve the
proficient and advanced levels on the CSTs.
Early Sunset Elementary School supported professional development and the
PLC to increase student achievement over the previous years. RTI embedded within

93
core instruction, EL instruction, differentiated instruction, on-going use of a variety
of assessments, and teacher coaching were implemented to help students achieve the
goal of performing at proficient and advanced levels on the CSTs. Curriculum for
struggling learners was also implemented to provide additional support, such as
Reading Recovery. The principal utilizes flexible resource use throughout the
academic school years to allocate funds for professional development and student
intervention purposes based on the progress made during the academic year. The
teaching philosophy at Early Sunset Elementary School is to identify struggling
students and meet their needs using evidence-based strategies. PLCs, assessments,
on-going professional development on evidence-based strategies, and flexible
resource use and allocation support the teachers in identifying struggling students
and meeting their needs, and have made the improvement of student achievement
possible.
Phoenix Sand Elementary School employs data driven decision-making,
evidence-based strategies used internationally, differentiated instruction, instruction
for gifted students, and builds the capacity of its PLC to provide an instructional
program that increases student achievement. The goal for student achievement at
Phoenix Sand Elementary School is aligned to the goal of NCLB (2001), to bring all
students to levels of proficient and advanced in grade-level standards as measured by
the CSTs. Core instruction at Phoenix Sand Elementary School is embedded with
evidence-based strategies for EL and GATE students. Teachers at the school receive
benefits from the district’s Leadership Academy for teacher leadership in

94
professional development and GATE and Preschool coordinators. Professional
development is emphasized at Phoenix Sand Elementary School as a means for
providing an instructional program that will improve student achievement. The
teachers engage in Superweek, which provides them with 5 full days of professional
development and are paid for 15 supplemental hours spent in professional
development trainings. The key to providing quality professional development to
improve student achievement is relying on evidence-based strategies in a recurrent
and repetitive manner. The additional professional development and student
intervention resources that are provided to the school from its district have supported
the school’s mission to improve student achievement.
Raindance Elementary School has implemented PLCs, evidence-based and
explicit teaching strategies, data driven decision making, and the alignment of
curriculum, planning, assessments, and California State standards. The vision for
instruction at Raindance Elementary School is to increase student achievement to
high levels and increase the expectations for instruction to high standards.
Professional development is emphasized in the improvement plan. The principal has
taken the responsibility of training all teachers in evidence-based strategies. The
school has received additional funds for professional development from outside
organizations and has raised it own funds, too, by school-wide fundraisers. The
district has provided an instructional coach to assist in the evidence-based instruction
of ELD and reading. The school has also funded the position of a parent liaison that
raises parent and community support for the school.

95
All five case study schools valued the professional development of teachers
and see a correlation between quality of classroom instruction and student
achievement. They also provided support for struggling and EL students by
interventions that were embedded within the core curriculum. Most students
received interventions during the instructional school day. Budget reductions made
it difficult to provide additional tutoring, extended day, and summer school
programs. Effective, standards-based curriculum has also been implemented at each
of the schools. The principals at each of the schools have also played a key role in
the improvement of student achievement. The principals of many of the schools
have identified how to build the leadership of teachers to develop the improvement
program. One school, Aspen Skies Elementary, has a uniquely strong teacher
leadership component that the current principal has embraced to maintain the
momentum of increasing student achievement.
3. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
plan?

All of the schools received Title I money to accomplish the objectives of the
instructional improvement plans as their student populations include a significant
number of economically disadvantaged students. One school engineered itself as a
professional development resource to other educational institutions and has
generated income to continue its own professional development program and build
the staff’s capacity to increase student achievement. Another school employed
flexible resource use and allocation practices throughout the academic school year,
which meant that funds were allocated and used for specific professional

96
development and academic interventions on an as-needed basis rather than a
predetermined or committed basis.
Strategic allocations of time were made to support the instructional
improvement plan at each school. On-going time allocations were made for teacher
collaboration during each month by staff meetings, grade-level meetings, or by
teacher volunteerism after school. Time allocations were also made during the
instructional day by block scheduling in RTI, reading, and technology to provide
support and interventions for struggling students and EL students.
Professional development was a key component to the instructional
improvement plans at each school. Many schools used instructional coaches to
support the quality and increase of effective instructional delivery. Every school
valued and prioritized professional development as an essential component of the
instructional improvement plan. Professional development objectives were
demonstrated almost every week at each of the schools.
In addition, effective and quality curriculum to achieve learning outcomes
was critical to the instructional improvement process. All schools implemented,
made modifications, or changes to curriculum that created alignment between the
learning goals of the California State standards, assessments, content of curriculum,
classroom instruction, and criterion-based assessments.
Leadership resources were also influential in the progress of the instructional
improvement plans. Building leadership capacity in teachers and at school sites was
implemented to support, maintain, and develop the instructional improvement plans.

97
In most cases, the principals were a key component to the capacity building of the
school and to the growth of teacher leadership. At Coastline Elementary School, the
leadership of teachers was the key component to the capacity-building of the school
to improve student achievement. The role of the principal was to support the
inherited teacher leadership model that had been present at the school for over a
decade.
Interventions were another key component to the implementation of the
instructional improvement plans. Each school employed interventions that supported
students in the primary elementary grades as a preventative measure for potential
student underachievement. Tutoring was provided to students at varying levels by
credentialed teaching staff. The most frequent and consistent intervention provided
to students was the differentiated and intensive instruction that occurred during core
instruction. These interventions were evident at each school used in the case studies.
Table 4.4 illustrates the practices of the resources to support the instructional
improvement plan.

98
Table 4.4: Case Study School Practices

School PLC/
Professional
Development
Curricula
and
teaching
Goals District Assessments Initiative Leadership Supplemental
Resources

Interventions
Aspen
Skies
Elementary
School
1.Sociocultural
theory
2.PLC
3.School-site
professional
development
4.Instructional
coaches from
school
1.
Constructivism
2. CGI
3. Columbia
Reading and
Writing Project
4. High-quality
curriculum and
instruction
5. Evidence-
based
instructional
strategies
6. Implement
standards more
rigorous than
CA standards
7. Teacher
mapping
8.RTI small
groups
(30minutes)
9. ELD
embedded
within core
instruction
1. Proficient
and
advanced
achievement
2. Motivated
learners
3. Math and
language arts
improvement
1.Support
from district,
but the
school is not
part of the
district’s
instructional
plan
1.Several
forms were
frequently
implemented
2.Case
studies
3.Used to
guide and
inform
instruction
4.Anecdotal
records
1.
Teacher-
led
1.Teacher
leadership
2. Frequent
change in
principals
3. Current
principal is
supportive of
teacher
leadership
1.Generating
income by
providing
professional
development
2.Strategic
Opportunity
Grant
3.Cotsen
Family
Foundation
Grant
1.Pre-K/K
2.Special Day
preschool class
3.Class Size
Red.: full-day
K, 20:1 K-3
and 35:1 4-5
4. Intercession
5.Technology
block
scheduling
6.Extended-
day program
7. ELD
embedded into
core
curriculum

99
Table 4.4, Continued
Coastline
Elementary
School
1.PLC,
2. On-going
collaborative
support
3. Marcy Cook
4. Touch Math
5. Robert
Marzano
6. RTI
7. lead
teachers
8. District
provides 3
days of
professional
development:
API data, Sally
Ride,
Marzano.
9. Site-based
instructional
coaches
1. Core
instruction
2.
Differentiated
instruction
3. Lucy
Caulkins
Writing
Program
4. Reading
Recovery
5. Houghton-
Mifflin
6. RTI block
scheduling
7. Computer
block
scheduling
1. Proficient
and
advanced
achievement
on CSTs
2. High
student
achievement
on
Standards-
based report
cards
1. Supports
and monitors
PLC
2. District
coaches for
RTI provided
by Title I
funds.
1.
Assessments
are
implemented
as-needed
2.
Infrequently
used
3. District
summative
assessments
4.
Classroom-
based
formative
assessments
5. Guide use
of
instructional
strategies
6. CSTs
1.
Previous
and
current
principals
2. Lead
teachers
1. Teachers
2. Principal
1. Title I
Funds for past
professional
development
2. Tutoring
3. Summer
school
1. RTI in core
instruction
2.
Preschool
3. Extended day
Pre-
Kindergarten
program
4. Extended day
Kindergarten
program
5. Tutoring with
technology use
6. Summer
school program

100
Table 4.4, Continued
Early
Sunset
Elementary
School
1. PLC
2. RTI
embedded in
core
instruction
3. Standards-
based
instruction
4. Intervention
training
5.
Differentiation
6. EL
instruction
7. Academic
Vocabulary
Development
8. Dufour
9. District
provided
instructional
coaches 2hrs.
per week for
ELD and
guided
reading.
1. Writing
workshops
2. ELD block
scheduling
with
intervention
teachers
3. ELA
programs:
Houghton-
Mifflin,
Hampton-
Brown for
ELD, Reading
Counts.
4. Math
program:
Houghton-
Mifflin
5. Technology
program: CCC
Success Maker
6. Focus on
ELD, guided
reading, and
academic voc.
development.
1. Increase
student
achievement
to proficient
and
advanced on
standardized
tests-CSTs.
1. Supports
PLC
2.
Instructional
coaches are
provided
2hrs./week
for ELD and
guided
reading
1. STAR
testing
2.
Benchmark
testing
3. CSTs
4. Classroom
assessments
5. Student
work
6. Writing
samples
7. Running
records
8. Student
profile sheets
9. On-going
use of
assessments
for
modification
to
professional
development
and
classroom
instruction.
1.
Previous
principals
1. Previous
principals
were critical
2. Current
principal and
teaching staff
1. On-going
flexible
resource
allocation
practices
2. Changes are
made to the
budget
throughout
each academic
year and are
motivated by
professional
development
and student
needs from
assessments.
1. Preschool
2. Extended day
Pre-
Kindergarten
program
3. Extended day
Kindergarten
program
4. Class size
red.: 24:1 in K-
3, 34+ in 4-5
5. Reading
Recovery
6. Intensive
instruction in
ELD and math
from
intervention
teachers
7. Extended day
program
8. Summer
school program
9. Jump Start
10. Technology:
document
cameras
11. ELMAC
parent support
group for EL
students

101
Table 4.4, Continued
Phoenix
Sand
Elementary
School
1. PLC
2. Data driven
decisions
3. District and
school
instructional
coaches
4. Differentiate
instruction
5. Direct
instruction
6. Singapore
math
7. Project G
8. Writing
9. ELD
10. Thinking
maps
11. GATE
12. Superweek
13. Recurrent/
repetitive prof.
development
14. Peer
Assistance
Review
15. Learning
Walks
16. Evidence-
based
strategies
1.
Differentiated
instruction
2. Direct
instruction
3. Singapore
math
4. Write from
the Beginning
5. ELD
6. Thinking
maps
7. Project G
1. Data
analysis at
district-level
2. Goals
from NCLB
(2001) to
bring all
students to
proficient
and
advanced in
CA standards
and CSTs.
3. Build
capacity as a
PLC
1. Provides
instructional
coaches
2. Provides
GATE
coordinator
for GATE
program
3. Provides
TOSAs
4. Provides
school-site
teachers with
the district
Leadership
Academy for
professional
development
1. District
benchmark
tests in ELA
and math
2.
Assessments
are analyzed
using Data
Director
during
collaboration
time
3. Student
and teacher
reflection are
implemented
within
assessment
use.
1. District
office:
Depart-
ment of
K-6 in-
struction
1. Previous
and current
principals
2. Lead
teachers
3. District
personnel
1. GATE
program
2. District
funded GATE
Coordinator
3.
Superweek for
professional
development
4. District’s
Leadership
Academy
5. TOSAs
6. Preschool
Coordinator
1. Preschool
2. Summer
school
3. Core
instruction
embedded with
ELDinstruction;
differentiated
instruction for
GATE students
4. Class Size
Red. is
implemented
during writing,
math, & science
instruction
5. Afterschool
tutoring
6. ELD block
for covering
core content
areas
7. Computer lab
8. Wireless
network
9. Teachers and
students use
technology for
instruction and
independent
research.

102
Table 4.4, Continued
Raindance
Elementary
School
1. PLC
2. Immediate
feedback from
other teachers/
administrator
3. Evidence-
based
instruction
4. Data driven
decisions
5. Setting
goals
6.
Differentiated
instruction
7. High
student
expectations
8. Thinking
maps
9. Assessments
10. Standards-
based
instruction
11. Writer’s
workshop
12. Japanese
Lesson Study
Model
13. Reading
comprehension
14.
Instructional
coaches cover
reading/ ELD
1. Standards-
based
instruction
2. Measuring
Up in math
3. Reading
First in ELA
4. Focus on
reading
comprehension
5. Explicit and
evidence-
based
strategies
6. Alignment
of curriculum,
planning,
assessments,
and CA
standards.
7. Flexible
grouping
8. Thinking
maps
1. High
student
achievement
on CSTs.
2. High
expectations
for
instruction.
1. District
provides
benchmark
assessments
2. District-
wide
decision to
keep classes
low
3. Provides
school with
one
instructional
coach to
cover areas
ELD and
Reading
Specialist
4. Provides
the school
with
flexibility to
progress in
the
instructional
change
process
5. Learning
Walks
6. Requires
school
improvement
plans each
year
1. District
benchmark
assessments
2. Teacher
pacing-plan
3. Formative
and
summative
assessments
1.
Previous
principal
2.
Teachers
1. Previous
and current
principals
2. Teachers
1. Cotsen
Foundation
and Reading
First program
provides funds
for
professional
development
2. School
raises funds
for
professional
development
3. School-site
parent liaison
is funded by
school dollars

103
4. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the recent
budget reductions?

One of the most important resource use and allocation changes that occurred
due to the recent and on-going budget reductions was the decrease of evidence-based
interventions that had supported struggling students in previous years. Some
interventions for struggling students have been reduced whereas some interventions
have been completely cut; bringing a decline to the resources that supported
struggling students in their learning of grade-level objectives. It is possible for the
increases in student achievement to be reduced or begin a pattern of decline due to
the decrease of these evidence-based strategies as academic interventions.
There has also been a decline in the hours and number of instructional
coaches for the purpose of increasing the quality of classroom instruction. All
principals in the case studies stated that they wished their schools received services
from instructional coaches more frequently and consistently. Instructional coaching
positions have been reduced over the past two years to accommodate the decline in
resources given to the schools. Principals believed that their schools had never
received adequate number of hours from instructional coaches in the years preceding
the series of recent on-going budget reductions. Aspen Skies Elementary School, the
“teaching school” within the sample of case studies, has also struggled to continue
providing instructional coaching for its teachers. Principals have looked for creative
ways of addressing the need for coaching at their schools.
Each school in the case studies had principals who often felt the need for an
assistant principal to aide them in school leadership issues. Only Raindance

104
Elementary School with over 1, 000, students was assigned an assistant principal.
Although its principal was thankful to have the aide of one assistant principal, he
also believed that an additional administrator, school counselor, and psychologist
would be helpful in the attainment of school goals. All of the principals believed
that they would be able to fulfill their leadership responsibilities to a greater degree
had they had additional administrators on staff.
Many of the principals also believed that the improvement process would be
adequately supported by the roles of full-time school site psychologists and
counselors. Although evidence-based interventions were often embedded in the core
curriculum to support struggling students, the schools were overwhelmed with
addressing the needs of students who relied on extra support and interventions.
Many of the schools in the case study sample have been slower in satisfying the
needs of these students than they had been in previous academic years due to the
decrease in school personnel as required by the declines in budgets.
In addition to the reductions in instructional coaches and need for assistant
principals, psychologists, and school counselors, the schools have also experienced a
reduction in the number of teachers. All of the schools had at least one teaching
position that could not be sustained for the following school year due to the declines
in budget. The decrease in teachers at each school has not only provided the schools
with less teachers to fulfill their goals for student achievement but has also
negatively impacted the morale, camaraderie, and motivation of the teachers to
continue capacity-building practices to increase student performance. Aspen Skies

105
and Raindance Elementary Schools managed to maintain class sizes due to the
executive decision made by their districts to keep class sizes low.
The major challenge for principals in the recent years of on-going budget
reductions is identifying and implementing the methods for building capacity and
sustainability in evidence-based strategies, PLCs, and the improvement of student
achievement. The maintenance of effective interventions for struggling students, a
quality core curriculum program, and a professional teaching culture have been
affected by the budget reductions. All principals from the case study schools
believed that developing and sustaining a successful school was a great feat in and of
itself before the declines in budget occurred. Continuing their objectives as
successful schools is more challenging and less do-able as the requirements to fulfill
their mission are decreased to levels beyond the minimum requirements of the Picus-
Odden Evidence-Based Model. They believe that their schools could be more
successful if they had the minimum resources required to increase student
achievement.
Strengthening and developing PLCs and instructional leadership in teachers
is another challenge that principals have encountered in the process of increasing
student achievement during on-going budget reductions. Aspen Skies and Early
Sunset Elementary Schools have experienced recent changes in principal leadership.
Aspen Skies Elementary School has managed to continue in the student
improvement process given the strong instructional leadership of teachers. An
established, resilient, and collective instructional leadership team of teachers is

106
important for increasing student achievement by PLCs, especially during changes in
principal leadership and in teacher personnel reductions.
The principals did state that they wished additional funds were available to
supply their schools with resources that would develop the instructional programs to
increase student achievement. The additional funding would supply their schools
with more opportunities for professional development. The opportunities for
professional development would include more instructional coaches, teacher release
times and substitute teachers, and effective teacher trainings that are vital for the
continued quality classroom instruction.
Additional funding would also be used for providing students with more
preparation for the world’s highly technological global market. Students and
teachers need more training in the use of technology and more access to technology
in classrooms. Supporting classroom instruction with technology aids teachers in
providing classroom instruction that is relevant to the competitive market that
students will encounter. It will also foster student literacy and preparation in the use
of technology. There are many software programs that are designed to aide students
in achieving proficiency in the California State standards as well as give them
exposure and preparation for the technologically-driven global society.
District support has made a positive impact on student achievement in one
school, Phoenix Sand Elementary School, from the case study samples. The use of
district coordinators for GATE and preschool and of instructional coaches for math
and literacy have supported the school’s mission to improve student achievement to

107
the level of the district’s more affluent school communities. Some schools in the
sample received district support by their autonomy in decision-making and by
flexibility and freedom from district mandates. Successful schools employ effective
tactics for improving student achievement. Successful schools with district support
can achieve their mission to increase student achievement even further than they
could without their district’s support.
Discussion

This chapter discussed four research questions:
1. How do resource use patterns in schools differ from and align to
the recommendations of the Picus-Odden EBM?
2. What instructional vision and improvement strategies are evident
at the school level?
3. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
4. How have resource use and allocations in schools changed due to
on-going budget reductions?
None of the schools met the complete recommendations of the EBM as the
schools did not have funds to satisfy the EBM’s recommendations. Schools did,
however, implement resource use and allocation practices that incorporated the
categories of the EBM such as professional development, quality core instruction
curriculum and teaching, interventions for struggling students, setting very high
goals, including teacher involvement in the improvement process, leadership, use of

108
assessments, and data-driven decision making. Resource use practices employed by
the schools that are not part of the EBM have also been discussed such as school-
generated incomes for professional development, district involvement, community
support, and supplemental resources from the district.
Every school implemented PLCs to increase the quality of classroom
instruction. Most interventions for struggling students were embedded within the
core instructional minutes of the school day by the use of RTI and other evidence-
based instructional strategies. Strong teacher motivation to participate in PLCs and
deliver quality core instruction was evident at every school.
The allocation and resource use patterns for core academic and specialist and
elective teachers did not satisfy the recommendations of the EBM and was varied at
each school. The resource use at each school varied between 8-37% less than the
recommendations of the EBM for core academic teachers. The resource use for
specialist and elective teachers were more varied than the resource use for core
academic teachers, which could suggest that the schools prioritize the use of core
academic teachers because they believe that it is more beneficial for student
achievement than specialist and elective teachers. The resource use for specialist and
elective teachers varied with schools using 9%, 26.5%, 37.5%, and 75% less than the
recommendations of the EBM. Coastline Elementary School allocated $0 for the use
of specialist and elective teachers, relying on the instruction of core academic
teachers to improve student achievement.

109
All of the schools provided interventions for struggling students. None of the
schools satisfied the EBM’s recommendations for full-day preschool and
Kindergarten programs, but most schools did provide extended day, 5-hour programs
for Kindergarten students. Coastline and Early Sunset Elementary Schools were able
to provide 5-hour Pre-Kindergarten programs to students in addition to their 5-hour
Kindergarten programs.
The FTE resource use for Kindergarten teachers was considerably less at
each school compared to the EBM’s recommendations. Resource use for
Kindergarten FTEs at Aspen Skies Elementary School was 16% less than the EBM’s
recommendations with 47% of students benefiting from the Full-Day Collaborative
Inclusion Program. The resource use FTEs at Coastline Elementary School was
33.3% less and at Early Sunset Elementary was 33% less than the recommendations
of the EBM. Raindance Elementary School has 18% less of the recommended FTE
according to EBM and offers students only a half-day and three-hour Kindergarten
program.
Students do receive more instructional minutes from the extended day
Kindergarten programs, as opposed to the half-day three hour programs that are
traditionally offered in public schools, but the extended day Kindergarten programs
do not provide the same amount of instructional minutes as a full-day Kindergarten
program as recommended by the EBM.
All schools in the case studies implemented evidence-based instructional
strategies as is recommended by the EBM. Although each school selected evidence-

110
based instructional strategies that are tailored to satisfy the learning needs of their
students, all of the schools implemented some of the same strategies. RTI, block
scheduling, flexible grouping, differentiated instruction, and intensive interventions
for struggling students were implemented in the schools. In addition, teachers were
provided with on-going support from their school site PLC and professional
development.
The resource use for supplemental instructional programs was varied in the
schools. The supplemental instructional programs available, if any, were provided
and managed by outside support agencies that receive state funding to provide these
services to public school children. Aspen Skies Elementary School did provide
students with a supplemental instructional program during the instructional day by
instituting Intercession during the beginning of the second half of the academic year.
Intercession allows students to receive instruction and improve grade-level and
advanced skills in content areas with focus.
All schools set specific goals to increase student achievement on the CSTs.
They sought to increase the percentages of students scoring at the proficient and
advanced levels by 10-20% over a period of three years. Aspen Skies and Phoenix
Sand Elementary Schools set goals to increase intrinsic motivation to learn in
students as their test scores had been relatively higher than similar schools and their
academic standards surpassed the expectations of the California State Standards.
The remaining schools adopted the California State Standards as their guide for

111
increased student achievement. High goals and expectations for learning are
consistent with the EBM’s recommendations to improve student achievement.
District support was another factor in the improvement of student
achievement at the schools. For most schools, support from the district included
giving the schools the flexibility and independence to make choices that have
positive impacts on student learning at the site level. Districts also provided
instructional coaches and professional development for a few of the case study
schools.
The student achievement improvement process was always launched by
school site leadership, teacher leadership, or district level leadership. In Phoenix
Sands Elementary School, the leadership for the improvement of student
achievement is shared by the school site’s teacher leadership and principal
leadership. Although the EBM does not address which party should push the
improvement of student achievement, the multi-level shared effort to improve
achievement can be an important factor in successful schools.
The EBM recommends 1 FTE for principal at every school with no more than
432 students at the elementary school level. Only one school was able to satisfy this
category. The EBM recommends dividing larger-sized schools into smaller schools
of 432 students or less to increase the school’s effectiveness and employing a
principal to serve each smaller-sized school of 432 students or less.
All schools implemented assessments to determine student learning. Some
schools tested more frequently and used a variety of assessments to make their

112
student learning conclusions and identify areas for improvement. Most schools
relied solely on the CSTs and district benchmark tests. The frequent and varied use
of assessments provides educators with more information on student performance.
The schools did receive supplemental resources and find alternative ways to
increase their availability of funds. All of the schools in the sample received Title I
funds from the government. Early Sunset Elementary School implemented flexible
resource use during the academic year to allocate resources based on student and
professional development needs. Phoenix Sands Elementary School received the
benefits of a GATE Coordinator provided to them by their district. TOSAs and the
district-level Leadership Academy are also provided for Phoenix Sands Elementary
School by their district. Raindance Elementary received additional monies to fund
the position of a parent liaison to foster parental support in their community. Aspen
Skies Elementary School began to market itself as a “teaching school” to other
teaching agencies so that they could earn supplemental funds from providing
professional development trainings to other schools.
School culture played a key role in the instructional vision and improvement
strategies at each school. Consistent with their professional culture, all schools
implemented the PLC model. Evidence-based strategies were selected and
implemented by each staff of teachers. Priority for professional development, high
goals, differentiated instruction, and a motivated teaching staff were also found in
the culture of each school.

113
Instructional philosophy at each school was varied due to the culture of the
teaching staff. Aspen Skies Elementary School implemented constructivist teaching
methods. Coastline Elementary School relied on its practice of strong teacher
leadership and evidence-based strategies that have been in place for over a decade.
Early Sunset Elementary School implemented flexible resource use with funds, on-
going assessments, and teacher coaching at the site level. Phoenix Sands Elementary
School implemented data-driven decision making, school and district level
professional development, and instructional evidence-based practices that the
teachers have received training in for several years. Instructional coaches and a
GATE Coordinator were also supplied to meet their needs from the district.
Raindance Elementary School has implemented data-driven decision making,
evidence-based instructional strategies, professional development funds from outside
sources, instructional coaches, and a parent liaison to build support from the
community.
All schools implemented strategies that increase the quality of core
instruction and have a positive impact on student achievement. Employing the
appropriate and effective instructional tools, providing interventions for struggling
students, and fostering strong administrator and teacher leadership were key tools for
the student improvement process in the sample schools.
The case study schools prioritized the allocation of resources for professional
development. The school leadership and staff viewed professional development as a
relevant factor in providing students with quality core curriculum, which would have

114
a positive effect on student learning outcomes. The schools also made strategic
allocations of time and funds to strengthen the collaboration and growth of their
staffs. The majority of professional development was centered on providing students
with quality core curriculum with evidence-based instructional strategies and
interventions embedded within classroom instruction. This provided students with
interventions and support during most of the instructional day. Schools strategically
allocated their resources to build leadership capacity in their staff. Schools receiving
additional help from their districts were able to build leadership capacity at the
district level as well as the school site.
The on-going budget reductions have affected resource use in the sample
schools. Most schools were able to fund lower numbers of support staff positions,
core academic teachers, and specialist and elective teachers. Although their reduced
budgets have decreased the number of personnel at each school site, the schools
continue to focus on capacity-building practices that will help it sustain the
educational improvement processes that had begun in previous years. The diligent
implementation of evidence-based strategies, PLCs, and quality core curriculum
have been unaffected by the on-going fiscal constraint. School site leaders do desire
more resources to invest in these areas but have been unwavering in their value for
evidence-based strategies, PLCs, and quality core curriculum. It has been difficult
for schools to maintain the effective interventions for struggling students, such as
extended day, summer school, and tutoring programs. The lack of these
interventions from the past may create a decline in the student achievement

115
improvement process. District support has provided more resources to the schools
that have been fortunate to have the additional support. Although this study does not
measure the affect of support from the districts on schools to an absence of district
support in schools, it is clear from the case studies that the schools receiving the
district support do have more and varied resources at their discretion and a possible
advantage over similar schools who do not receive additional district support. The
schools in the sample also show the use of strong PLCs with good teacher leadership.
Many of the schools did have principals who have lead the improvement process, but
not without harnessing the talent and giftedness of their teaching staff.
The findings do show some similarities between school resource allocation
and use and the EBM. They also show some consistency in school level practices
within the case study schools as a group. Another key finding from the case studies
is that there are not enough educational dollars to match the recommendations of the
EBM as the schools are under funded and continue to experience reductions in
budget. More importantly, the absence of funds and resources that would help the
schools achieve their potential has not hindered the intuitiveness or priorities of
school level leaders to allocate resources to improve student achievement.

116
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
The purpose of this study is to determine which elementary school resource
use and allocation practices increase student achievement in underachieving
communities as compared to the Picus-Odden Evidence-Based Model. In this
chapter, comparisons will be made between school resource practices and the EBM’s
recommendations in the areas of student academic interventions, professional
development, evidence-based instructional strategies, supplemental instructional
services, goals, district support, school leadership, assessments, and supplemental
resources and actions. The chapter will demonstrate that all of the schools had
insufficient educational dollars to implement the recommendations of the EBM. In
addition, this chapter will discuss instructional vision and improvement strategies
and the resources employed to implement the instructional improvement plans. The
schools see a direct correlation between quality of classroom instruction and student
achievement. Instructional visions and improvement strategies were determined by
the culture of the school staff. PLCs, quality professional development, high goals
for student achievement, effective core instruction, and academic interventions
increased student performance. This chapter will conclude with a discussion on how
on-going budget reductions have changed resource allocation and resource use
practices in schools. The schools implemented methods to support the instructional
improvement plans that do not rely on fiscal resources, such as on-going teacher

117
support, motivation for improvement, alignment of academic operations, teacher
capacity-building, and frequent use of intensive interventions for struggling students.
The purpose of this study is to identify the resource use and allocation
practices of five successful schools that have made significant gains in student
achievement, and compare their resource uses and allocation practices to the
recommendations made by the Picus-Odden EBM for each of the five schools. All
of the schools had insufficient resources to provide for all of the elements of the
Picus-Odden EBM. They allocated significant amounts of money to the areas that
are similar to the strategies found in the Picus-Odden EBM. They could not,
however, allocate the recommended amounts of money to the categories of the EBM
as they did not have sufficient funds to do so. It is difficult to determine if the
schools were able to satisfy the recommended resource use and allocation practices
made by EBM during past academic years as California’s school funding formulas
have historically created a system of under funding. The EBM’s recommendations
are based on the specific student demographics and numbers of students enrolled at
each school, therefore, each of the case study schools had recommendations made by
the EBM that differed from the other schools in the study as each school differed
from the others in student numbers and demographics.
School Strategies Compared to the Picus-Odden Evidence-Based Model
All sample schools implemented professional development that focused on
evidence-based teaching strategies. The schools implemented professional
development by executing PLCs, instructional coaches, and teacher training that

118
targeted specific instructional needs. Schools varied in the amount of professional
development they gave teachers. None of the schools were able to provide the 10
full days of professional development recommended by the EBM. Phoenix Sand
Elementary School provided its teachers with the most full-days for professional
development of all the sample schools, which amounted to 5 days. The full 5 days of
professional development at Phoenix Sand Elementary School was supplied and
funded by its district. Although the schools attempted to follow the
recommendations of the EBM, Coastline, Early Sunset, and Raindance Elementary
Schools had insufficient dollars to provide its teaching staff with one instructional
coach for every 200 students enrolled. Aspen Skies and Phoenix Sand Elementary
Schools exceeded the EBM’s recommendations for instructional coaches using
supplemental funding resources. Aspen Skies Elementary School was able to fund
instructional coaching positions by grants and school-generated income. Phoenix
Sand Elementary School was provided instructional coaches from the district’s
funds.
All schools provided high quality core instruction to their diverse student
population. Differentiation of instruction was the focus to increase the quality of
classroom instruction. None of the schools were able to achieve the EBM’s
recommended staffing numbers for core academic teachers with the exception of
Raindance Elementary School. The most instructional minutes per school day are
allocated to the core instruction classroom. Therefore, the sufficient numbers of
qualified teachers who can deliver effective core instruction are critical to the student

119
achievement improvement process. The EBM’s recommendation are one core
teacher for every 15 students in grades K-3 and one core teacher for every 25
students in grades 4-12. Only Raindance Elementary School satisfied the EBM’s
recommendations for core instruction teachers. The smaller number of core
academic teachers at the four remaining schools has made class sizes larger, with
more students per teacher and increased teacher load.
The EBM’s recommendation for specialist and elective teachers at a given
school is 20% of the EBM’s recommended number for core academic teachers for
the given school. The purpose of specialist and elective teachers is to provide
additional enrichment, intensive and specific instruction to students. Aspen Skies
Elementary School did not have any specialist and elective teachers on staff. The
remaining four schools had specialist and elective teachers on staff but did not
achieve the EBM’s recommendations for 20% of the recommended number of core
instructional teachers.
Interventions
Early exposure to a quality core instruction program is critical for many
economically disadvantaged and middle class students. The EBM recommends full-
day preschool and Kindergarten programs to all students to reduce the amount of
academic intervention needed later by struggling students. None of the elementary
schools offered preschool programs since preschool does not fall under the present
obligations of elementary education. Aspen Skies Elementary School offered a full-
day Kindergarten program to 47% of its Kindergarten students. None of the

120
remaining elementary schools provided students with full-day Kindergarten
programs. Early Sunset and Coastline Elementary Schools offered Kindergarten and
Pre-Kindergarten students 5-hour extended day instructional programs. The FTE’s
at Early Sunset and Coastline Elementary Schools for pre-Kindergarten and
Kindergarten teachers is 33% less than the EBM’s recommendations. The extended
day programs do provide students with more exposure to the core instructional
program and may have a more positive impact on student achievement than
traditional 3 hour programs. The EBM’s recommendation for Kindergarten is to
provide students full-day Kindergarten programs to deliver more quality core
instruction to students.
Evidence-based Instructional Strategies
The EBM recommends that all schools implement evidence-based
instructional strategies that are effective for the specific student populations enrolled
in the schools. There were differences in the evidence-based instructional strategies
that were implemented at each school to fulfill the needs of each school’s student
population. RTI, PLCs, block scheduling, flexible grouping, differentiating
instruction, and providing students with immediate and intensive interventions were
the key evidence-based instructional strategies employed at the schools.
Supplemental Instructional Services
The EBM recommends an 8 week, 6-hour per day, and 15:1 student-teacher ratio
summer school program for struggling students. The EBM estimates that the number
of struggling students who would need the benefits of summer school programs is

121
50% of the number of students who qualify for the Free and Reduced Priced Lunch
program. None of the sample schools offered summer school programs that attained
the EBM’s recommendation. Some elementary schools had on-site extended day
programs run by other agencies that do not utilize credentialed teachers. Aspen
Skies Elementary School embedded an Intercession program during the winter
period of each academic year to provide additional support to struggling students.
Goals
All schools set targeted student performance goals for the CSTs. The schools
focused on improving student achievement in different content areas. The selected
content areas of focus were contingent upon the learning needs of the student
populations. The targeted increases in student achievement also differed for each
school, ranging from 10-20% in a given content area. The learning standards for
academic achievement differed slightly between schools with Aspen Skies and
Phoenix Sand Elementary Schools adopting learning standards that are more
rigorous than the California state standards. Early Sunset, Coastline, and Raindance
Elementary Schools focused on California’s state standards to set academic goals
and gear classroom instruction.
District
Support from the local district varied within the schools. All districts gave
the schools flexibility and independence to determine and create curriculum and
effective professional development trainings to improve student achievement.
Providing school level flexibility and independence allowed the districts to support

122
the instructional improvement process that occurred in the PLCs. Flexibility and
independence from the districts were the sole support provided to Aspen Skies and
Raindance Elementary Schools. Phoenix Sand, Coastline, and Early Sunset
Elementary Schools were given instructional coaches by their districts. Phoenix
Sand Elementary School also benefited from the GATE Coordinator and Leadership
Academy provided by its district.
Leadership
The EBM recommends one principal for every elementary school with 432
students or less. Elementary schools with 432 students or less have had positive
impacts on student achievement due to their manageable size. Raindance
Elementary School had over 1,000 students and employed an assistant principal in
addition to a school site principal. All other elementary schools had one school site
principal and no assistant principals. The model would recommend dividing
Raindance Elementary School into two smaller schools and allocating one principal
to each of the smaller schools, for a total of 2 school site principals. The smaller
school model has been found to improve student achievement by creating a more
manageable learning environment for school principals.
The initiating party of the student achievement improvement process varied
in each school. Previous and current principals, teacher leaders, and district
influence were the key players in the school improvement process. Teachers and
principals maintained the momentum of the student achievement improvement

123
process by making daily attempts to provide a quality instructional program and
achieve each school’s mission.
Assessments
All schools utilized CSTs and benchmark tests to measure student learning
and the effectiveness of their instructional programs. Additional assessments to
supplement the CST and benchmark tests were employed frequently at some of the
elementary schools.
Supplemental Resources and Actions
All of the elementary schools benefited from Title I funds and/or grants from
private organizations. Early Sunset Elementary School implemented on-going
flexible resource use during each academic year to satisfy student and professional
development needs. Phoenix Sand Elementary School received funds from the
district to pay teachers for additional professional development and school-level
TOSAs for instructional coaching. Raindance Elementary School received a funded
parent liaison from community funds. Aspen Skies Elementary School found a way
to generate its own professional development funds by providing professional
development trainings to other education institutions.
Instructional Vision and Improvement Strategies
The culture of the school staff determined the instructional vision and
improvement strategies in the elementary schools. All schools operated as PLCs,
implemented evidence-based strategies that would be effective in improving the
achievement of their student population, set learning goals that met or exceeded the

124
California state standards, differentiated instruction, implemented RTI, and
maintained staff motivation and professional school culture.
The leadership and staff at the elementary schools saw a correlation between
quality of classroom instruction and student performance. Quality professional
development increases the effectiveness of the core instructional program to supply
students with appropriate interventions. In conjunction with strong school leadership
from the principal and teachers, professional development and core instruction
embedded with interventions provides students with the support necessary to achieve
grade-level standards.
Resources used to Implement School Instructional Improvement Plans
Title I funds and school-level resource use creativity were two key resource
factors that impacted the implementation of the school instructional improvement
plans. All of the elementary schools utilized resources from Title I funds and the
creativity of their school site to implement the instructional improvement plans.
Title I funds provided for instructional materials, resources, and core and specialist
teachers.
Creativity was evident at Aspen Skies Elementary School by generating
income as a teaching methodology resource to other schools. Most of the elementary
schools creatively employed the allocation of time to support their school’s
instructional improvement plan. Aspen Skies and Phoenix Sand Elementary Schools
allocated blocks of time for intensive reading instruction and technology education.
Although Aspen Skies did have the funds to supply its school with more staff and

125
resources to support student learning using technology, they incorporated an
intensive block scheduling time to provide students with interventions and provide
teachers with more student achievement data. Phoenix Sand Elementary School
implemented block scheduling to provide reading interventions for EL students. The
intensive instruction provided during the reading block gave the Phoenix Sand
Elementary School an opportunity to close the achievement gaps in their EL
students.
All of the schools allocated blocks of time for teacher collaboration and to
develop PLCs during staff meetings and school-level professional development
meetings. Early Sunset and Coastline Elementary Schools provide teachers with
opportunities to meet on Wednesday afternoons in grade-level teams, grade-level
PLCs, or as school-wide PLCs to improve instructional practice. Phoenix Sand
Elementary School implements PLC meetings by grade-level on a weekly basis.
Raindance Elementary School implements its PLC model every two weeks with the
school site administrator serving as a facilitator for each grade-level team. Aspen
Skies Elementary School implements a PLC model that has served the school for
nearly thirty years, which is led every week by the teaching staff. The collaboration
that occurs during the PLC time occurs in grade-level teams and in school-wide
teaming.
There are additional factors that are not necessarily resources, but are actions
that supported the implementation of the instructional improvement plans.
Additional factors that supported schools in implementing the instructional

126
improvement plans are on-going professional development, instructional coaches,
motivation for improvement, alignment of academic operations, capacity-building in
teachers, and frequent instructional interventions. On-going professional
development and use of instructional coaches were prioritized at each of the
elementary schools. School motivation for the continuous improvement of
classroom instruction was in and of itself a resource that supported the instructional
improvement plans. The schools also made an alignment between standards,
curriculum, instruction, and criterion-based assessments to gear the instructional
program to achieve goals. School site principals focused on teacher capacity-
building to further implement the instructional improvement plans. Schools also
provided students with frequent, differentiated, and intensive instructional
interventions.
Changes in Resource Allocation and Use Due to Recent Budget Reductions
The elementary schools made several changes to their normative resource
allocation and use practices since the on-going budget reductions were enforced.
There are also some school practices that have not been adversely affected by the on-
going budget reductions. The changes to resource use and allocation will be
discussed first.
The schools have decreased the amount of evidence-based interventions for
struggling students that were implemented during previous years. These evidence-
based interventions include summer school, tutoring, and extended day programs.
Most schools chose to discontinue allocating educational dollars to the supplemental

127
intervention programs to continue to prioritize the quality of core instruction
programs with limited resources.
Funds for professional development have been reduced. Instructional
coaches have been removed or have had their hours decreased at the schools. A
decrease in education dollars to fund professional development trainings is evident at
the schools, too. There were not enough instructional coaches and funds for
professional development that were allocated to the schools before the on-going
budget reductions were enacted. The schools have attempted to achieve an increase
in student performance with these previously limited, and now decreased, resources
for professional development.
Resource use for psychologists and counselors at the school sites was reduced
to balance the decreased budget. The schools were forced to increase student
achievement with less supplemental help from psychologists and counselors.
Without the help of psychologists and counselors, school staffs have been slower to
assess, identify, and make accommodations for students with learning and behavioral
needs. The EBM recommends supplemental specialists in these roles to support
students in need of extra interventions. The reduction of psychologists and
counselors has left schools overwhelmed with addressing the needs of their students
without supplemental resources.
The on-going budget reductions have had a significant impact on motivation
and morale of teachers. The elementary schools and their districts released members
of their quality teaching staff to balance their budgets. The lay-offs of teachers have

128
had an adverse effect on the collective morale in the currently employed teachers at
the schools. The principals of the schools have shared that they do see a reduction in
teacher motivation as members of the teaching staffs have been laid off. The
reduction in the numbers of teachers on staff and in teacher morale and motivation
has made it increasingly difficult to raise student performance.
Implementing technology in the core instruction classroom has been a
challenge for schools in preceding years. The recent and on-going budget reductions
have made it increasingly difficult for schools to provide students with a
technologically improved instructional program. There are less educational dollars
to achieve the basic needs of the school, therefore, funds for technology use have
declined or have continued to be neglected in the schools. The global economy
relies on technology use and quickly adopts new innovations to advance human
efficiency. If technology use is continually neglected, then student preparation for
participation in the global economy will need to be supplemented by other sources.
The schools districts also experienced adverse effects from the reduction in
budgets. Many districts have laid-off personnel in addition to teaching staff, have
reduced interventions for struggling students, have reduced spending on professional
development, have cut supplemental education programs such as in art and music,
and have supplied schools with less funds.
However, there are eight key patterns of behavior in the schools that have not
been reduced by their constrained budgets: setting high goals for student
performance, implementing PLCs, evidence-based instructional strategies, data

129
driven decision making, the continued effort of the school staff, building leadership
capacity, providing professional development for core instruction, and maintaining
their instructional philosophies and the belief that all students can achieve high
standards. Although many of these behaviors have been impacted by the budget
reductions, the diligence to continue to administer the behaviors has continued.
The schools did apply school improvement strategies that are included in
Odden’s (2009) ten steps for increasing student achievement. The ten steps include:
understanding the current student performance status, curriculum mapping or
improving the core instructional program to address the standards, setting high goals,
implementing evidence-based instruction and curriculum that is aligned to
performance expectations, using data driven decision making, providing effective
professional development, allocating time to achieve goals, providing interventions
for struggling students, building the capacity of leadership and the professional
culture, be a professional organization by consulting experts or a PLC, and
increasing human capital by hiring and maintaining a talented and highly qualified
staff. Although the schools did not have the education dollars to apply all of the
strategies to the fullest potential, they did implement the strategies with their existing
funding and resources.
The sample schools were unable to satisfy the EBM’s recommendations for
the number of core teachers, instructional coaches, substitutes, certificated tutors,
librarians, and specialist and elective teachers. Recommendations for professional
development days and extended day, tutoring, and summer school programs were

130
also unmet. As a result, class sizes were larger, teachers had less professional
development opportunities to improve instruction, there was little support from
instructional coaches, and students did not receive the intense interventions as
recommended by the EBM.
The values of the EBM that were implemented by the sample schools include
the implementation of evidence-based instructional strategies, a quality core
instructional program, and professional development and PLCs that provide teachers
with on-going training and support during the academic year. Although professional
development and working as a PLC is valued in all of the sample schools, there were
not enough funding resources available to achieve the professional development
recommendations of the EBM. Schools did provide struggling students with some
interventions, which were embedded within the core curriculum. The students would
benefit from additional forms of intervention the summer school, tutoring, and
extended day programs would provide. Embedding intensive interventions within
the core instructional program was a creative way for schools to support struggling
students without incurring the additional financial and time costs of programs that
are executed after the instructional day. All of the schools in the sample found at
least one creative way to preserve the values presented by the EBM as closely as
possible, including generating income as professional development consultants,
raising funds from the community, soliciting donations, and using volunteers to
fulfill certain personnel roles.

131
Implications
The EBM is designed to support the components within schools that enable
students to achieve high performance goals. The main components are quality core
instruction, professional development, interventions for struggling students, highly-
skilled teaching staff, and supplemental resources that support the student
achievement goals. Providing quality core instructional programs with alignment to
high student goals, learning objectives, and assessments are vital to improving
student achievement. Professional development supports the core instructional
program and trains teachers to differentiate instruction to support all students.
Struggling students need appropriate and effective forms of support to help them
achieve grade-level standards within the core instructional program. Supplemental
resources such as psychologists, counselors, or librarians support the instructional
program. The schools have managed to follow the EBM as closely as possible with
limited dollars.
Following the EBM’s recommendations with more precision would increase
the level of student achievement. The major components of schools would have
adequate resources to fulfill the needs of the student populations. The added
resources would supply more opportunities for improved quality of professional
development, core instructional programs, interventions for struggling students, and
school function.
Teachers need professional development resources to continue their growth
in differentiating instruction for a variety of diverse students. Schools and districts

132
must find a way to provide teachers with the recommended 10 full days of
professional development outside of the academic year and the 100-200 hours of on-
going professional development during the academic school year. The use of
instructional coaches to assist teachers in the implementation of evidence-based
strategies would support and facilitate the instructional improvement process further.
Although compensating teachers for their time spent in professional development, as
Phoenix Sand Elementary School has attempted to do, would be an additional
expense to the school budget, it could be considered and factored into the school’s
expenses to satisfy the recommendations of the EBM.
Schools must continue to use the evidence-based instructional strategies that
have been employed for the past three years. The principal of Phoenix Sand
Elementary School had stated that “repetition and recurrence” of training in the
evidence-based instructional strategies builds the school’s capacity as a professional
and collaborative agency to improve student achievement. Although evidence-based
strategies may vary slightly or dramatically from school to school, they must be
appropriately selected to address the needs of students. For this reason, evidence-
based strategies will vary from school to school. Regardless of which strategies are
selected and implemented, schools must allocate resources that support the
professional development of teachers, provide on-going instructional support by
coaches, teacher collaboration time, PLCs, and on-going professional development
workshops during the academic school year.

133
Full-day Kindergarten and Preschool programs were not evident in the
sample schools. Students did seem to benefit from the extended day Kindergarten
programs that were available to them. Funding full-day Kindergarten and preschool
programs would be an additional expense to school districts, but the district would
save 8-10 dollars for every one dollar spent on full-day programs (Odden & Picus,
2008). Districts should consider supplementing the funding for Kindergarten
programs and creating preschool programs that will provide students beginning at
ages 3 and 4 with full-day instructional programs.
Providing struggling students with extended day and summer school
programs, as recommended by the EBM, would increase student achievement by
supporting students who perform below the proficient level on the CSTs. Each of
the schools in the sample did provide students with quality core instructional
programs that satisfied the needs of many of their students by differentiation of
instruction. Struggling students need additional support on top of a high quality core
instruction program to achieve the proficient and advanced levels on the CSTs.
Schools that provide students with these resources make greater gains in student
achievement and satisfy the expectations of NCLB (2001).
The success of Phoenix Sand Elementary School has revealed that the
supplemental support of its district has helped it push the improvement of student
achievement even farther. More districts could value the strategies of the EBM and
support their schools in the implementation of the EBM recommendations. The
strategies valued by the EBM include on-going professional development,

134
instructional coaches, implementing evidence-based instructional strategies, and
quality, differentiated core curriculum.
The practice of generating resources at Aspen Skies Elementary School
revealed that it is possible for schools to make money to fund the different
components of the EBM. Aspen Skies Elementary School generated income by
selling their professional development strengths to other schools. Other schools can
implement this strategy by marketing their strengths or by outsourcing themselves in
what they do best to other agencies. Creativity and willingness were necessary to
employ the income generating operation at Aspen Skies Elementary School. Many
schools can implement the same creativity and willingness to construct income
generating solutions.
Early Sunset Elementary School revealed that flexibility can be applied to the
resource use and allocation practices in schools. The principal implemented flexible
resource use to invest dollars in the professional development and student
intervention areas of most need. There were not enough dollars in the school budget
to satisfy the recommendations of the EBM at all of the schools in the sample.
Perhaps, the flexible resource use and allocation of dollars is an effective approach in
attempting to meet the recommendations of the EBM. The case studies have
revealed that more education dollars are necessary to successfully achieve the
recommendations of the EBM.
The study suggests that investing education dollars in the key components of
the EBM to improve the instructional program does produce positive outcomes for

135
student achievement. The case studies point to the fact that the sample schools
receive less than the optimum level of funding to achieve all of the recommendations
made by the EBM. Furthermore, on-going budget reductions in the present and
coming academic years are threatening the use of strategies that have improved
student achievement, such as professional development trainings and interventions
for struggling students. Although the sample schools have managed to sustain some
of their capacity during the recent budget reductions, it will become more
challenging to continue and sustain the instructional improvement effort.
Limitations
The schools used in the case studies were limited to the following criteria:
1. Public elementary schools located in the Southern California region
2. Elementary schools that have met their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for
the past three academic school years (2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009)
3. Schools that have qualified for the California Distinguished School Honor
4. Schools have an EL population of 30-40%
5. Schools have a minority student population of 50% of more
6. Schools have a student population where 50% or more is enrolled in the
National Free and Reduced Lunch Program

136
The limitations described above in Chapter 1 did not include obvious yet
undeclared limitations to the sample of schools used in the case studies. The
additional limitations include:
7. Schools that have experienced budget reductions of 30% since the 2007-2008
academic year
8. Schools that belong to districts that have had to lay-off core teachers and
other personnel due to declining funds
9. Schools that have historically received less government funding than the
EBM has recommended.
Further Study

Continued research on additional sample schools would provide more
information on how successful schools utilize their resources to implement an
instructional program that improves student achievement. Research on prototypical
schools used in the EBM that are implementing the EBM’s recommendations would
provide additional information to school, district, and State leaders on how to
improve student achievement using an adequacy model. More research in the area of
resource use and allocation and the effectiveness of the EBM to achieve high student
performance is necessary to further inform State, district, and school level resource
practices. Some of the schools have been able to generate income or find other
sources to fund certain strategies implemented at their schools. Research on how
more schools may be able to generate substantial funds by other than traditional
funding means would benefit the education community and the mass population.

137
Conclusions
School funding must include sufficient education dollars to achieve the
recommendations of the EBM. Although the schools in this study engaged in
resource use and allocation practices that followed the EBM as closely as possible,
the limited and declining resources created an impossible adequacy scenario. The
schools could not fund enough core teachers, specialist and elective teachers,
psychologists or counselors, interventions for struggling students, full-days for
professional development, full-day Kindergarten and pre-Kindergarten programs,
and instructional coaches. Each of these components is vital to increase student
achievement.
The constrained resources placed the schools in a position where they
lacked the minimum level of support needed to improve student learning. Focus on
professional development, PLCs, and RTI to strengthen the core curriculum
supported the schools in improving their instructional programs. Increased
efficiency of the instructional programs maintained if not increased student
achievement in most of the schools. Quality core instruction programs are only one
component of the EBM and of Odden’s (2009) ten steps to doubling student
performance. The other components of the EBM were not fully implemented by the
schools due to the lack of available resources.
More funding to schools is compulsory to improve the quality of core
instructional programs, professional development, provide interventions to struggling
students, and supply schools with additional personnel who can support student

138
learning outcomes. If more school funding cannot be provided by government
resources, then it is important to consider alternative methods for school funding.
Schools will not be able to achieve the goals of NCLB (2001) without the adequate
resources in place.
The recommended resource use and allocations of the EBM positively affect
student learning. Therefore, following the recommendations of the EBM would
benefit schools and student achievement. Although schools may not currently have
the amount of funding necessary to implement the full recommendations of the
EBM, the conclusion can be made that following the recommendations as closely as
possible will have a positive effect on student achievement. Further study is
necessary in schools that have implemented the full recommendations of the EBM to
determine the effectiveness of the EBM to improve student achievement for all
students.

139
REFERENCES
AFT (1998). Educational Issues Policy Brief: mentor teacher programs in the states.
American Federation of Teachers, 5. Retrieved on November 22, 2008 from
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/Policy5.pdf

Blankstein, A.M. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student
achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Brinson, V. R., & Mellor, L. (2005, March). How are high-performing schools
spending their money? A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Education Finance Association, Louisville, KY. Retrieved
February 1, 2009, from
http://www.nc4ea.org/files/Atlantic.pdf#search=%22How%20are%20high-
performing%20schools%20spending%20their%20money%3F%22
California Department of Education (2009). SARC Legislation
and California Education Code related to the School Accountability Report
Card (SARC). Retrieved on September 4, 2009 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/legislation.asp

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and others
don’t. New York: HarperCollins.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Doing what matters most: investing in quality
teaching. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. New
York, NY.
Desimone, L., Porter, A.C., Birman, B. F., Garet, M. S., & Yoon, K. S. (2002). How
do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of
professional development that districts provide to teachers? Teachers College
Record, 104(7), 1265-1312.
Dufour, R. & Burnette B. (2002, Summer). Pull out negativity by its roots: Those
who grow healthy school cultures must root out weeds of bad culture.
Journal of Staff Development, 23(3).
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Indiana: Solution
Tree.

140
Edsource (1978). California Coalition for Fair School Finance, Summary of
Provisions for Post-Proposition 13 Legislation for Funding Education.
Retrieved on July 10, 2009 from
http://www.edsource.org/assets/files/finance/EdS_hist_Post-prop13Legis.pdf.
Edsource (2008a). California School Finance System: The Basics.
EdSource (2008b). How California Compares: Demographics, Resources, and
Student Achievement. Retrieved on July 8, 2009 from
http://www.edsource.org/pub_howCAcompares9-08.html

EdSource (2009a). The Basics of California’s School Finance System. Retrieved on
July 10, 2009 from http://www.edsource.org/pub_QA_FinanceSyst06.html

EdSource (2009b). Resource Cards on California Schools. Retrieved on April 19,
2009 from http://www.edsource.org/pub_resourcecards.html

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.
Friedman, T.L. (2005). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21
st
Century. New
York: Farra, Straus, and Giroux.
Garet, M. S. Porter, A., Desimone, L. Birman, B. & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Gronberg, T.J., Jansen, D.S., Taylor, L.L, and Booker, K. (2004). School Outcomes
and School Costs: The Cost Function Approach. Retrieved on July 20, 2009
from
http://schoolfunding.info/states/tx/march4%20cost%20study.pdf.

Hanushek, E.A. (2006). The Alchemy of “Costing Out” an Adequate Education.
Retrieved on July 9, 2009 from
http://www.schoolfundingmatters.org/content/CostingOut.aspx

Hanushek, E. A., and Rivkin, S.G. (1997). Understanding the Twentieth-Century
Growth in U.S. School Spending. The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 32,
No. 1, pp. 35-68. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/146240.
Hord, S.M., (1990). Realizing school improvement through understanding the
change process. Issues About Change 1(1).

141
Johnson, R.S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure
equity in our schools. California: Corwin Press.
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Talbert, J. E. (2003). Leading for learning:
Reflective tools for school and district leaders. Seattle, WA: Center for the
Study for Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Retrieved on
February 15, 2009, from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/
Lankford, H. & Wyckoff, J. H. (1995). Where has the money gone? An analysis of
school spending in New York. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
17(2), 195–218.

Legislative Analyst’s Office. (July 29, 2009). July 2009, Budget Package. Retrieved
on September 4, 2009 from
http://lao.ca.gov/2009/bud/july_09_budget_package/July_2009_Budget_Pack
age_072909.pdf
Levitt, S.D. and Dubner, S.J. (2005). Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores
the Hidden Side of Everything. New York: Harper Collins.
Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom Instruction That
Works: Research –based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School Leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Miller, L., Roza, M., & Swartz, C. (2004). A cost allocation model for shared district
resources: A means for comparing spending across schools. (CRPE
Working Paper 2004-4). Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public
Education, University of Washington.
Morrissey, M.S. (2000). Professional Learning Communities: An Ongoing
Exploration. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Murphy, J., Beck, L.G., Crawford, M., Hodges, A., & McGaughy, C.L. (2001). The
productive high school: Creating personalized academic communities.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

142
NCES (2006). The Condition of Education 2006. Retrieved on April 22, 2009 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006071.pdf.

O’Connell, J. (2009, February). Action on 2008 and 2009 budget acts. Letter to
County and District Superintendents, Charter School Administrators, and
County Chief Business Officers by the California Department of Education,
Sacramento, CA. Retrieved on March 27, 2009, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/el/le/09ltr0225bdgt.asp.

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

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

Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2000). The dynamics of school resource reallocation. In
A better return on investment: Reallocating resources to improve student
achievement. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory.

Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2001). Reallocating resources: How to boost student
achievement without asking for more. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Odden, A., Goertz, M., Goetz, M., Archibald, S., Gross, B., Weiss, M., & Mangan,
M. T. (2006). The cost of instructional improvement: Resource allocation in
schools using comprehensive strategies to change classroom practice.
Submitted to Journal of Education Finance. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Odden, A. Monk, D. Nakib, Y. and Picus, L. (1995). “The Story of the Education
Dollar: No Academy Awards and No Fiscal Smoking Guns.” Phi Delta
Kappan. 77(2), 161-168.

Odden, A.R. and Picus, L.O. (2008). School Finance: A Policy Perspective,
4th Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Chapters 4 and 6.

Phelps, S. (2005). Ten Years of Research on Adolescent Literacy, 1994-2004: A
Review. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates, North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory.

Picus, Lawrence O. (1991). Incentive Funding Programs and School District
Response: California and Senate Bill 813. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 13(3), 289-308

143
Pintrich, P.R., Schunk, D.H., (2001). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research and
Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Incorporated.

PISA (2003). Program for International Student Assessment, Differences in
Performance by Selected Student Characteristic. Retrieved on April 21,
2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2003highlights_4.asp.

Rebel, M. (2007). Professional Rigor, Public Engagement and Judicial Review: A
Proposal for Enhancing the Validity of Education Adequacy Studies.
Teacher College Record 109(6)

Resnick, L.B., & Hall, M.W. (2005). Principles of Learning for Efforts-based
Education. Institute for Learning: Learning Research and Development
Center. University of Pittsburgh.

Song, J. and Mehta, S. (2009). Los Angeles Times. California school districts
deciding how to cope with state budget cuts. Retrieved on July 9, 2009 from
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/16/local/me-schools16

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school
leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher,
30(3), 23-27. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3594470
The School Redesign Network. (n.d.) Redesigning schools: Ten features of effective
design. Stanford, CA: Author. Retrieved on February 4, 2009 from
http://www.srnleads.org/data/pdfs/10_features.pdf or
http://www.srnleads.org/resources/publications/10_features.html
United States Department of Education, National Assessment for Education Progress
(1999). NAEP 1999 Long-Term Trend Technical Analysis Report Three
Decades of U.S. Department of Education Student Performance. Retrieved
November 20, 2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2004/2005484a.pdf
United States Department of Education, National Assessment for Education
Progress (2004). Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of Student
Performance. Retrieved November 5, 2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard//pdf/main1999/2000469.pdf

United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
(2005). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005. Retrieved on November 5,
2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/(NCES 2006-030).

144
United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
(2005). NAEP 2005 The Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved on February
28, 2007, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieveall.asp

United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
(2009). State Profiles The Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved on July 9, 2009,
from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp.

145
APPENDIX A
CASE STUDY 1: ASPEN SKIES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Aspen Skies Elementary School is located in a low-income urban school
district in Southern California. Ninety-thousand students are served in the district’s
95 different elementary, middle, and high schools. Aspen Skies Elementary School
is only one of its 48 elementary schools with over 400 students in grades
Kindergarten through fifth grade. Aspen Skies Elementary School is similar to many
of California’s elementary schools in that it serves a high percentage of minority
students. Of the school’s student population, 16.7% are African American, 40.79%
are Hispanic, .025% are Native American, 30.22% are Asian, 2.21% are Filipino,
1.47% are Pacific Islander, 7.13% are White (Non-Hispanic), and 1.23% are Multi-
racial or did not respond their racial demographic. Of these students, 70% are
socioeconomically disadvantaged, receiving the benefits of the National Free and
Reduced Priced Lunch Program. Thirty percent of Aspen Skies Elementary
School’s student population consists of English Learner students. In addition, 16%
of their students have disabilities that the school makes accommodations to serve.
The rate of suspensions and expulsions are significantly below the district average
during the 2005-2006 and the 2007-2008 academic school years, with 0.7
suspensions in 2005-2006, 0.0 suspensions in 2006-2007, 0.2 suspensions in 2007-
2008, and 0.0 expulsions during all three academic school years. The purpose of this
case study is to show how the significant improvements in student learning

146
correspond to resource allocation practices during a period of on-going fiscal
constraint and resource reductions.
The professional culture at Aspen Skies Elementary School has created an
overall increase in student achievement over the past 9 years by sociocultural
ideology, constructivism, and teacher leadership.
Table A1: Aspen Skies Elementary School Percentage of Students Scoring at
Proficient and Advanced Levels on CSTs
Percent Proficient and Advanced
SUBJECT 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
Math 53 64 67
Reading 68 72 75
Writing 51 39 54

There has been a steady increase in student test scores over this three year
period. Students test scores show increases of nearly 20% in math, 10% in reading,
and 6% in writing. Although these increases in percentage do not show a doubling
of student performance, student test scores are significantly higher than the state
average of student scores with students scoring 123% better in math, 148% better in
reading, and 145% better in writing than the reported state averages. This suggests
that the instructional program at Aspen Skies Elementary School in the years
preceding 2005-2006 were effective in raising student achievement. The resource
allocation strategies implemented at Aspen Skies Elementary School supported the
instructional program to increase student achievement.
Furthermore, the majority of minority students at Aspen Skies Elementary
School have achieved CST scores at the proficient and advanced levels. Eighty-
percent of African American, 56% of Hispanic, and 61% of Economically

147
Disadvantaged students have scored at proficient and advanced levels in Reading and
Writing. Sixty-one percent of African American, 67% of Hispanic, and 72% of
Economically Disadvantaged students have scored at proficient and advanced levels
in Mathematics. These scores are significantly higher that the state averages for
these subgroups of students. In addition, Aspen Skies Elementary School has
managed to meet its overall requirement for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
whereas other schools in its district, with similar students, did not meet their AYP
requirements for English-Language Arts and Mathematics. The student achievement
data at Aspen Skies Elementary School distinguishes it from other schools and
therefore its resource allocation practices are significant to this study.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Impetus for Change
The improvement process began with the teacher-led desire to see all students
become intrinsically motivated, avid learners and increase their achievement to
proficient and advanced levels. The culture of the constructivist teaching staff was
instrumental in the improvement process. The professional teaching culture at
Aspen Skies Elementary School has been present for several years and has
maintained itself through at least four different school site principals. The cultural
framework of the school includes high expectations and the constructivist teaching
philosophy. High-quality curriculum and research-driven instructional delivery
fueled and steered the movement for improved student learning.

148
Goal Setting
The staff at Aspen Skies Elementary School agreed that all students must
increase their academic achievement to proficient and advanced levels. Students at
Aspen Skies Elementary School are expected to achieve learning outcomes that meet
the California state standards at the minimum. In reading and writing, they are
expected to achieve the learning goals of the Columbia Reading and Writing Project,
which exceed the rigor of the California state standards. Teachers set goals for
student achievement based on high expectations.
Adopting New Curricula to Achieve Goals
The Columbia Reading and Writing Project and Cognitively Guided
Instruction were implemented at the beginning of the improvement process. When
the district decided to implement the Open Court Reading program as a district-wide
initiative, teachers at Aspen Skies Elementary School petitioned to have their school
waived from the mandatory adoption of the Open Court Reading program. Teachers
identified the standards covered in the Columbia Reading and Writing Project that
are relevant to California state standards, however, many of the standards covered in
the Columbia Reading and Writing Project exceed the expectations for student
learning found in the California state standards. Teachers also mapped the
curriculum and generated assessments for the Columbia Reading and Writing Project
to demonstrate the competence of the program to California state standards for the
district’s approval. The district accepted the new curricula as many of the standards
covered exceeded those found in the California state standards.

149
Assessments
Anecdotal records, case studies, summative, and benchmark assessments are
instrumental in the development and delivery of curriculum at Aspen Skies
Elementary School. Aspen Skies Elementary School is required by its school district
to give trimester exams to students. The trimester exams are summative so the
district does allow Aspen Skies Elementary School to make modifications to the
trimester exams based on their own school pacing plans. Upper grades at Aspen
Skies Elementary School are assessed weekly, and students in all grades at the
school are assessed every six weeks to inform classroom practice. Summative
assessments used in the classrooms are included in students’ grades for each term.
Although anecdotal records are not assessment instruments, they are used as
formative and diagnostic tools. Teachers use their anecdotal records to hold
conferences with each student on where they are on the learning continuum.
Teachers also use the anecdotal records to build strategy groups, drive instruction,
and identify key “teaching points” for instructional planning and delivery.
Case studies are also performed by teachers on at least two struggling
students to determine additional forms of curriculum and instructional support to
help the students make proficient gains in achievement. In teams, the teachers
formulate individualized protocols based on individual student needs. The teachers
then determine next steps in instruction and curriculum to help those struggling
students increase their mastery in areas of weakness.

150
Implementing the Research-based Curricula
The staff creates and maintains anecdotal records on each student at Aspen
Skies Elementary School. They use the anecdotal records to plan, map, evaluate, and
improve instruction. In addition, the last two months of each school year, the staff
dedicates themselves to the planning and mapping of the following school year based
on recommendations. Within the constructivist framework, teachers focus on
providing students with individualized instruction, use the resources found in the
students home backgrounds, and value self-selection of topics for learning by
students.
In addition, teachers at Aspen Skies Elementary School implement Response
To Intervention. The RTI model is implemented school-wide over 4 days a week,
and in 4-6 week sessions. The students are split by teachers within their grade-levels
for instruction. A typical grade-level split at Aspen Skies Elementary School will
look like 27 students with relatively the same mastery of skills from a grade-level
working with one teacher, another groups of 27 students from the same grade-level
and mastery working with another teacher, and one group of 7 students needing
intensive instruction working with a different teacher to close achievement gaps.
Splitting the students from each grade-level by achievement within the RTI model
helps the students receive a 30 minute minimum of protected intervention time.

151
Support Teachers with Professional Development
Professional development at Aspen Skies Elementary School includes the
development of educators from schools and districts outside of their own. Aspen
Skies Elementary School provides professional development training to
administrators and teachers from other schools at a cost. The professional
development offered is delivered by school-site teachers at no charge, allowing the
school to take advantage of the full benefit of the revenue generated from the
professional development trainings offered to outside educators.
The “teaching school” model of Aspen Skies Elementary School provides the
funds for school-site teachers to receive more training in the Columbia Reading and
Writing Project and Cognitively Guided Instruction for math. In addition, Aspen
Skies Elementary School also receives supplemental funding from the Cotsen Family
Foundation, which provides resources for professional development at the school
site. Several teachers apply for the Cotsen program and the effective teachers are
selected by the program as mentors for the remainder of the teachers of the school
site. Each Cotsen mentor impacts 5-6 teachers at Aspen Skies Elementary School
for two consecutive academic school years. The mentors train teachers in CGI to
make a school-wide impact in math instruction and achievement.
Aspen Skies Elementary School has implemented the Columbia Reading and
Writing Project for the past 19 academic school years. The collaborative school
environment and high-quality curriculum have made it an authentic professional
environment for new teachers. Teachers new to the Columbia Reading and Writing

152
Project have learned how to implement it in their classrooms by peer collaboration
with experienced teachers. Aspen Skies Elementary School has been unable to fund
the off-site professional development opportunities for teachers during the past 7
years due to budgetary constraints. As a result, several teachers have funded their
own way to trainings out of their own motivation to be effective teachers when the
school could no longer fund their professional development opportunities. During
budgetary resource cuts, an outside consultant is hired to train teachers at the school
site on an as needed basis. This has helped the school to provide teachers with on-
going support with professional development despite economic setbacks.
In addition, the principal at Aspen Skies Elementary School provides weekly
feedback to teachers from his classroom visits. Grade-level meetings, although not
required due to the local teachers’ union’s regulations, are voluntarily held by
teachers to also provide teachers with additional support by collaboration.
Professional Development Days
Teachers at Aspen Skies Elementary School are given four distinct
professional development trainings per year. The professional development trainings
are the CGI Program, Professional Learning Communities, and second CGI training,
and a second training on PLC.
Professional Development Day 1: Cognitively Guided Instruction
Participants in the CGI program are given one day for a substitute teacher.
During this day the participants watch a model lesson taught by the mentor teacher.

153
Focus Group Facilitators then visit participants’ classrooms for observation of
classroom instruction and to provide feedback.
The CGI professional development program is funded by funds raised by
Aspen Skies Elementary School as a “teaching school” for training other teachers
and a grant called the “Strategic Opportunity Grant” which provides for the costs of
substitute teachers. Aspen Skies Elementary School is given $2,500 per day from
each school participating in the professional development opportunities provided by
Aspen Skies Elementary School’s teaching staff. The Aspen Skies Elementary
School teachers, who deliver the trainings, do so voluntarily, without any financial
compensation, which helps Aspen Skies Elementary School to take advantage of
how each dollar given to them for their trainings is allocated for student and future
professional development purposes.
Professional Development Day 2: Professional Learning Communities
The first of the two PLC trainings focuses on planning, mapping, common
assessments, Response To Intervention, professional development, and the
implementation of the PLC. Teachers internalize each of these topics by grade-level.
Professional Development Day 3: Cognitively Guided Intervention
The second CGI training focuses on the professional development for the
entire school staff and spans several days. For the first three days, the doctoral
student of a CGI mentor from UCLA delivers training to the teachers. Using the
doctoral student over the actual CGI mentor has saved Aspen Skies Elementary
School money in professional development since the doctoral student delivers the

154
training at a fraction of the cost of the formerly used CGI mentor. Although the
actual CGI Mentor would have provided more resources to the teaching staff, the
principal believed that the doctoral student did an effective job of training teachers in
the CGI strategy. The teachers receive the training in half-day sessions, spanning 2-
3 hours each. This helps Aspen Skies Elementary School make creative use of their
substitute teachers to facilitate additional savings in cost. After the three days of
training from the CGI consultant, teachers receive an additional 2 hours of training
for 5 days with the consultant for additional feedback and support in implementing
the CGI model for mathematics. Later, teachers who are well-practiced in the CGI
model provide coaching for all the teachers on staff, by small groups, for an
additional 6 days. These additional professional development days take place during
the academic school year. Substitute teachers cover each of the participating
teachers’ classes, while classroom teachers engage in the CGI training for three
hours on each of the six days.
Professional Development Day 4: Professional Learning Communities
Professional development in the use of PLCs continues with grade-level
groups of teachers focusing on planning, mapping, common assessments, Response
To Intervention, professional development, and the implementation of the PLC
model.
Early Childhood Program

Students begin the Kindergarten program at Aspen Skies Elementary School
with varied preschool experiences. The only pre-Kindergarten option available to

155
students from the district is limited to students who qualify for the district’s Special
Day Class program. There is no available early childhood program for the majority
of the students at Aspen Skies Elementary School.
Full Day Kindergarten

Aspen Skies Elementary School does not offer its mainstream Kindergarten
students a full day program, but rather an extended day program. The extended day
program begins at 8 a.m. and ends at 1 p.m. There are 2 Kindergarten classrooms
with 20 students enrolled. In addition to the extended day Kindergarten program, the
district began a new Kindergarten model called Collaborative Inclusion. The
Collaborative Inclusion Kindergarten program compiles 20 general education
students and 16 special education students in one classroom. The 36 students are
then assigned 2 teachers and 2 instructional aides. The class is in session for the full
school day as opposed to the regular Kindergarten classes that operate by the
extended day schedule. The Collaborative Inclusion program is funded by grant
money to pay for the salaries of the 2 teachers and 2 instructional aides. In addition
to paying the salaries of the teachers and instructional aides, the grant money also
funds the cost of a paid consultant who does 7 days of coaching per year on the
Collaborative Inclusion program for the teachers and instructional aides.
The Collaborative Inclusion Kindergarten class is designed to provide more
support to students than the average Kindergarten class. The increased classroom
size creates more student leadership opportunities than the average Kindergarten
classroom. The use of 2 teachers and 2 instructional aides allows for more

156
intervention opportunities for regular education students and students with
disabilities. The higher adult to student ratio than the average Kindergarten class and
full-day schedule are consistent with the Picus-Odden model.
Class Size Reduction
Aspen Skies Elementary School has managed to keep class size ratios at 20:1
in grades Kindergarten through third grade, and 35:1 in grades 4 and 5.
Professional Development
The days for professional development are scheduled throughout the year and
an additional three days are scheduled at the end of the year. The additional three
days of professional development are devoted to teaching Mathematics and English-
Language Arts instruction by Cognitively Guided Instruction and the Columbia
Reading and Writing Project. There is a continued focus on high expectations and
Professional Learning Communities as both of these approaches can be implemented
within professional development trainings.
Instructional Coaches
The principal at Aspen Skies Elementary School clearly stated that coaches
have been an instrumental component to the high-quality instruction received by
students. There are 7 teachers on staff who take on the role of focus group
facilitators for the Columbia Reading and Writing Project. Each group of teachers at
Aspen Skies Elementary School receives 2 days a month of coaching from the focus
group facilitators. There are three coaches for school-wide training in Cognitively
Guided Instruction. Typically, Aspen Skies Elementary School has been able to

157
fully fund 5-6 coaches per year using their monies from the Cotsen grant and
earnings from “teaching” or training educators from outside institutions. The money
that would have paid for the costs of the 5-6 coaches was frozen by the district,
allowing them to hire a reduced number of 3 coaches for CGI training.
Interventions for Struggling Students
Most of the support to struggling students is embedded within the classroom
curriculum at Aspen Skies Elementary School.
During Intercession, intensive tutoring was given to students who are
identified by teachers as needing extra support in grades 2-5. Teachers delivered
instruction to struggling students during the last 6-8 weeks of school, or during the
last trimester. There were three intercession classes with a 10:1 student to teacher
ratio and each class was taught during the regular school day. The teachers are paid
extra for their time spent teaching struggling students during intercession.
Intercession is funded by district money and LEP funds. Students are divided into 2
groups of 20, giving them a 10:1 student to teacher ratio. There is an additional
volunteer teacher who also participates in the tutoring program and tutors 10
additional students.
Support for English Language Learners is built into core curriculum taught
during the school day. Teachers use strategy groups to provide explicit instruction to
students.
The only scheduling modification made to the regular school day is for time
using technology. Students in grades 4 and 5 receive 3 hours per week of computer

time and students K-3 receive 1-2 hours per week of computer time. Title I funds
pay the costs for a full-time credentialed teacher in the computer lab. The role of the
technology teacher is to align the students’ computer times with their current
classroom studies. The classroom teachers take advantage of this computer time to
deliver small group instruction, intervention, and differentiation to the other students
while some students are in the computer lab.
Extended Day Program
There is an extended day program at Aspen Skies Elementary School that is
provided by a partnership with the city. The tutors who work with students are
primarily college students.
Figure A1: Hierarchy of Interventions for Struggling Students

158

159
Parent Outreach and Community Involvement
The school has a Parent Action Team, which is a group that focuses on
generating parent support. There is little to no parent involvement at Aspen Skies
Elementary School. Eighty percent of students qualify for Free and Reduce Priced
Lunch. Students attending Aspen Skies Elementary School are from the local
neighborhood, which is in a low socioeconomic community.
The Improvement Effort
The improvement of student achievement at Aspen Skies Elementary School
was generated by teachers for several years. Teachers were the core instructional
leaders and were motivated to use constructivist and socio-cultural learning theories.
Accountability
The district trimester exams and CST scores are one component of the
accountability in place at Aspen Skies Elementary School. District administrators
visit the school to evaluate the attainment of school objectives by using “walk-
throughs” twice per year. School based accountability is evident at Aspen Skies
Elementary School by the administrator and collaborative teaching staff using the
instructional improvement plan.
Corresponding Resource Use
Comparing school resource allocation practices in improving schools to the
recommendations of the model is the purpose of this study. Table A2 illustrates the
actual resource use at Aspen Skies Elementary School and the recommendations of
the Picus-Odden EBM based on the school’s student size of 428 students, which is

160
similar to the size of the prototype used in the model. Comparisons are made
between the school’s actual resource use and the recommendations of the EBM for a
school of this size. The overall actual resource use at Aspen Skies Elementary
School is lower than the EBM’s recommendations for improving student
achievement.
Table A2: Aspen Skies Elementary School Resource Use (FTEs and Dollars)
Staffing Category Picus-Odden EBM Actual Resource
Use
Comparison between
Resource Use and EBM
Core Academic
Teachers
24 15 Aspen Skies Elementary
uses 37% less than the
recommended number of
core teachers
Specialist and
Elective Teachers
4.8 0 Specialist and elective
teachers are not used
during the instructional
day
Librarian/Media
Specialist
1.0 0 No Librarian
Library/Media Tech
Aides
0 1.0 Aspen Skies has funded a
Library Aide instead of a
Librarian to reduce costs
Certified Teacher
Tutors for EL
0.64 0 Certified teachers
voluntarily tutor their
students.
Certified Teacher
Tutors for At-Risk
Students
2.8 3.0 The teachers are
specifically used for RTI.
Resource Room
Teachers
0 1.0 The resource teacher is
used to run intervention in
the computer lab.
Special Education
Teachers
3.0 3.0 The special education
program mainstreams
students into regular
education classrooms.
Special Education
Aides
1.5 0
Gifted and Talented
Teachers
0 0
Extended Day 1.8 0 No extended day program
exists
Summer School 1.8 0 No summer school
program exists

161
Table A2, Continued
Total # of
Professional
Development Days
10.0 10.0+ There are several more
full days for professional
development that teachers
voluntarily attend and on-
going professional
development is available
as Aspen Skies
Elementary is a “teaching
school” for many other
schools in its region.
Instructional
Facilitators
2.0 3 Aspen Skies Elementary
employs 1.0 more
instructional coach than
recommended by the
model. All three coaches
are hired specifically for
the CGI strategy.
Funds for
Substitutes
2.14 1.2 The actual use is 44% less
than the recommended use
from the EBM.
Instructional Aides 0 0
Counselors 1.0 0.5 The actual resource use is
50% less than
recommended by the
EBM.
Nurses 1.0 1.0 The actual resource use is
consistent with the
recommendations of the
EBM.
Social Workers 1.0 0 There are no social
workers hired as FTEs.
Psychologists 1.0 0 There are no psychologists
hired as FTEs.
Speech/OT/PT 1.0 1.0 The actual resource use is
consistent with the
recommendations of the
EBM.
Health Assistant,
Secretary, Clerical,
Assistant Principal,
Principal
2.8 3.0
Secretary 1.0
Clerical 1.0
Principal 1.0
Their actual resource use
is a slightly higher FTE
than the recommendation
of the EBM.

Lessons Learned
1. Teachers are the critical component and investment in increasing student
achievement. They have spear-headed the movement towards high achievement and

162
their motivation to develop professionally in a collaborative school culture builds the
capacity to increase student performance.
2. All students, regardless of economic status, minority race, home language or
background, or At-risk status, can meet and exceed California State Standards.
3. Differentiated instruction using core instruction, Response To Intervention,
Cognitively Guided Instruction, intensive tutoring, and technology or computer labs
are effective in supporting students.
4. Consistent use of anecdotal records is effective in guiding instruction to increase
student achievement. Anecdotal records can be used as diagnostic assessments to
determine specific student needs.
5. The support provided to At-risk at the Kindergarten level by the Collaborative
Inclusion Kindergarten and Extended Day Kindergarten programs are instrumental in
preventing underachievement.
6. Professional Learning Communities provide on-going support for new and
seasoned teachers. Sociocultural and Constructivist learning theories are evident
within PLCs and foster the growth of teachers and students.
7. Instructional coaches who provide effective in-classroom support for teachers are
critical to the professional culture, development of classroom pedagogy, and increase
in student achievement.
8. Money generating schools can be created by providing services to other schools
and districts. The money generated for their services to other schools can fund their
own professional development and other relevant resource allocation practices.

163
9. High expectations for students is critical for significant gains in student
achievement and high expectations for teachers is necessary to maintain a
collaborative, professional, and effective school setting.
10. High-quality curriculum and evidence-based teaching strategies are fundamental
contributors to the steady increase in student achievement.
Implications
The administrator stated that additional funding for coaches, teacher release
times, and costs for substitute teachers are necessary to continue the quality
professional development program that was implemented at Aspen Skies Elementary
School in previous years. The administrator also stated that additional funds for the
technology program are also critical to the improvement in student achievement.
The principal also stated that that district cannot afford to provide students with
Intercession for the current academic year. The on-going reduction of evidence-
based interventions has affected Aspen Skies for the last couple years. Enough
research-based strategies have been in place to maintain the improvement in student
achievement. It is likely that the reduction of additional evidence-based
interventions will adversely affect student achievement as less support is provided to
all students.

164
APPENDIX B
CASE STUDY 2: COASTLINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Coastline Elementary School educates 453 students from minority and low-
income backgrounds. It is one of 17 elementary schools in its district which has a
total of 31 elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools combined. Its
student population consists of 6.18% African American, .66% Native American,
30.68% Asian, 5.52% Filipino, 30.46% Latino, .22% Pacific Islander, 18.32%
White, and 7.95% Multi-racial or no response. Coastline Elementary School has a
significant socioeconomically disadvantaged population of 53% and EL population
of 26%. Students with disabilities comprise 16% of Coastline Elementary School’s
population. The suspensions and expulsions rates are significantly below that of the
district, with suspensions at 3.2 in 2006-2007, 1.1 in 2007-2008, and 4.6 in 2008-
2009. The expulsion rates were 0.0 in 2006-2007, 0.2 in 2007-2008, and 0.0 in
2008-2009. The purpose of this case study is to compare the resource allocation
practices of Coastline Elementary School to the Picus-Odden Model.
Professional Learning Communities, differentiation of instruction, and
interventions embedded within core instruction were key factors in the improvement
of student achievement. Although these school improvement and instructional
strategies are found in the other case studies within this study, Coastline Elementary
School has implemented these strategies for over one decade. Table B1 illustrates
the improved changes in the percentages of students scoring proficient on the CST at

Coastline Elementary School during the 2006-2007 through the 2008-2009 academic
years.
Table B1: Coastline Elementary School Results for Percentages of Students Scoring
at Proficient and Advanced Levels on the CSTs

SUBJECT 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
ELA 50 50 64
Mathematics56 58 64
Science 32 55 53

Instructional Improvement Strategies
Impetus for Change
The student achievement improvement process began approximately ten
years ago and was initiated by lead teachers and Coastline Elementary School’s
preceding principal. The goal to improve student achievement began with a genuine
concern to see students excel academically and discussions between the former
principal and lead teachers. The current principal shared the collaborative culture of
teachers that was set by the preceding principal. He has maintained the collaborative
PLC culture of the school staff for the past eight years. He believes that the staff at
Coastline Elementary School is dedicated to students and to “thinking outside of the
box” to fulfill students’ needs.
Goal Setting
Student achievement goals have been set by teachers. The goal is that all
students will perform at the proficient and advanced levels on the CSTs. Standards-
based report cards are implemented school wide. Teachers align classroom
165

166
instruction to the standards-based report cards, which has provided on-going support
to fulfilling student achievement goals on the CSTs.
Adopting New Curricula to Achieve Goals
Changes to curricula were made by Coastline Elementary School’s lead
teachers. They selected curricula based on their own experiences of effective
instruction and improved student learning. The curricula changes are Lucy Caulkins
Writing program, Reading Recovery for interventions in core instruction, and
Houghton Mifflin for mathematics. The curricula are aligned to California state
standards and the standards-based report cards. Teachers are expected to and do
teach according to the California State Standards. The teaching of the standards is
viewed by the principal and school staff on assessments.
Assessments
Assessments are used to look at student performance on an “as-needed-
basis.” Most of the discussion at Coastline Elementary School on assessments is
based on the CSTs. The principal stated that the use of more frequent and consistent
assessments is a struggle for the staff at Coastline. Teachers understand that
evidence of standards-based instruction will be found in student CST scores. The
district provides summative assessments by trimester to measure student learning
over the course of each school year. The summative assessments have been used by
some teachers on staff to inform instruction. Few teachers implement formative
classroom assessments to make modifications to classroom instruction. The
principal believes that implementing assessments as a diagnostic tool for

167
instructional purposes is the next step in Coastline’s student achievement
improvement process.
Student achievement data from the CSTs have been used to make
adjustments to instructional strategies. The assessment data and changes to
classroom instruction are discussed during the staff’s PLC meetings.
Support Teachers with Professional Development
Coastline Elementary School has implemented a variety of professional
development resources to increase student achievement. Although PLCs are
implemented district-wide, teachers at Coastline began to develop as a PLC about ten
years ago, 6 years before the district office directed the PLC movement for all of its
schools. Teachers are provided on-going support from their colleagues during each
academic year.
Additional PLC resources were taken from Marcy Cook, Touch Math, and
Robert Marzano’s Classroom Instruction that Works and What Works in Schools.
Professional development trainings from these resources have been implemented
over the past eight years at Coastline Elementary School.
Lead teachers are also used as a professional development resource. Lead
teachers attend professional development conferences, implement the strategies
learned, and then disseminate the strategies to the Coastline Elementary School staff.
The focus of professional development has been on teacher collaboration and
Response to Intervention (RTI), which is used to differentiate learning for students.

168
RTI training was conducted by district staff as well. Coastline Elementary
School’s Title I money was used to pay for the district coaches. The school staff
members deliver professional development trainings voluntarily. Title I funds have
been used in the past to send teachers to conferences, including conferences out-of-
state, and for substitute teachers for purposes of professional development. There
has been a reduction in the use of Title I funding to cover the cost of conferences.
Teachers have chosen to attend conferences incurring the out-of-pocket costs
voluntarily.
The principal has stated that a paradigm shift in how to help kids learn has
occurred among the staff with the ongoing professional development support.
Teacher collaboration during PLC time has been constructive in helping teachers
make adjustments to instructional practice and strategies. Discussions during PLC
time are focused on how to modify instructional practices to help individual and
groups of students. Although the Coastline staff no longer has control over the
structure of their PLC time as the district now monitors the PLCs, the staff is still
trying to add more collaboration to PLC meetings so that teachers will not have to
continue meeting outside of PLC time to collaborate with one another.
The district office also provides three full days of professional development.
The first of the three full days is focused on API data and is delivered in the fall of
each academic school year. The second day of professional development is done in
October and is on site-based school performance based on the work of Sally Ride.
The third day of professional development is focused on Marzano’s work using his

assessments and content from Classroom Instruction That Works. The third training
is given in January. Figure B1 below illustrates the professional development
resources that are implemented at Coastline Elementary School by the school district
and at the school site to support the instructional improvement process. The district
provides training to school staff in Sally Ride, Marzano’s research-based strategies,
PLCs, RTI, and data decision making using API data. Coastline Elementary School
focuses school site professional development on PLCs and RTI using the district’s
resources and then continues to focus professional development on Marcy Cook and
Touch Math from previous years.
Figure B1: Coastline Elementary School’s Professional Development Resources

169

170
Implementing the Research-based Curricula
The motivation and culture set by the lead teachers and supportive staff under
the leadership of the previous and current principals is instrumental in the change
process. Teachers are expected to implement the research-based curricula and
strategies and support one another in their professional development and strategy
use. Although the district respects the professional culture of Coastline Elementary
School by allowing the staff to take ownership of professional development and core
curricula, it does monitor the use of the core curricula and provide additional
support.
The use of instructional coaches has been inconsistent at Coastline
Elementary School. The principal stated that Coastline does need more coaches;
however, the school has not shown the district their need for coaches. Coastline
Elementary School’s steady increase in student achievement has not given the
district enough concern to supply the school with more instructional coaching time.
The principal believes that although there have been personnel reductions made at
the district and school levels, the district would make attempts to supply Coastline
Elementary School with more instructional coaches. Until Coastline Elementary
School provides its district with student data that suggests the need for more
instructional coaches, the district will not provide them with more instructional
coaches. The district will make more personnel cuts for the 2010-2011 academic
year which may cause a reduction in the amount of instructional coaches that has

171
been available to the schools in the district. Much of the instructional coaching at
Coastline Elementary School occurs among the teaching staff.
Interventions for Struggling Students
Several interventions are available for struggling students at Coastline
Elementary School. The main component of interventions is implemented in the
classroom by the core teacher using RTI. Students needing additional help
participate in the afterschool tutoring intervention program which is delivered by
credentialed Coastline Elementary School teachers.
For early childhood education interventions, the district provides students
with preschool for 2 days a week and Pre-Kindergarten 5 days a week. Each
preschool day spans 3 hours and each Pre-Kindergarten day is 5 hours, following the
bell schedule for the district’s extended day Kindergarten classes. Coastline
Elementary school has one teacher for their Pre-Kindergarten program. The Pre-
Kindergarten teacher has earned a doctorate in multi-cultural and teacher education.
There are 23 students in the Pre-Kindergarten class.
The extended day Kindergarten classes have 24 students in each. The
extended day Kindergarten programs span 5 hours a day, making the typical
Kindergarten day 1 hour and 23 minutes shorter than students in the other grades.
Before and after school tutoring funded by Title I funds are available for
students in grades K-5. The tutors are the credentialed staff from Coastline
Elementary School. Each tutoring class has 10 students or less. The tutoring classes
are 45 minutes to 60 minutes long and are in session for two days a week. Students

172
in the tutoring classes also receive instruction in computer use and typing as part of
the tutoring program.
Summer school is offered to students by teacher recommendation and test
scores. The summer school program is to bring more students to the proficient skill
level on the CSTs. It is designed to increase achievement in students performing at
the basic skill level for their grade level. Students achieving below the basic level
and far below the basic level are not eligible for the tutoring program unless they will
attain performance at the basic skill level soon. Students struggling with behavior
problems are also excluded from the summer school program. Students must show
achievement at the basic skill level and have good behavior to be eligible for summer
school. The program is offered 4 days a week in two hour blocks. Students in the
a.m. session attend two hours of summer school in the morning, and students
enrolled in the later session attend two hours of summer school in the early
afternoon. The student to teacher ratio is 20:1. Most of the students who qualify for
summer school are enrolled in the Free and Reduce Priced Lunch Program. All EL
students have also qualified for enrollment in the summer school program.
Scheduling blocks are made twice per week for RTI strategies. Students
receive structured RTI interventions for two sessions per week from trained teachers,
outside of the core instructional classroom.
Coastline Elementary School’s parent outreach support is currently in
development. Parents are concerned for students and participate in parent-teacher

173
conferences, Back-to-School Nights, and Open Houses. However, their involvement
in classrooms and at the school site is non-existent during the academic school year.
As a Title I school, Coastline Elementary School has provided teachers with
ELMOs, smartboards, netbooks, new computers, and a computer lab. The Success
Maker Enterprise program is implemented in the computer lab to provide students
with additional academic support. The program focuses on ELA and math standards.
Students are expected to use the program once per week during their computer lab
block. Teachers have also received one day of technology training to learn how to
use the program to support the core curriculum. In addition, the district provides all
schools, including Coastline Elementary School, with information technology (IT)
support by their own IT office.
Accountability
The student achievement improvement process was orchestrated by the
school site and by the district. However, accountability currently includes changes
in standardized test scores. For many schools, instructional leadership from the
district and the school site are instrumental in the change process and in providing
accountability for student learning. Although no formal accountability strategies are
implemented, it is evident to the principal that instructional strategies are
implemented from his daily classroom visits and by dialogue and instructional
decisions made by teachers in Student Success Team (SST) meetings. The school
culture at Coastline Elementary School allows teachers to choose their own level of
individual accountability. Figure B2 illustrates the intervention resources for

struggling students. All students receive the bottom tier of intervention resources
which includes CCCC Successmaker, RTI, extended day Kindergarten, and extended
day Pre-Kindergarten for qualifying students. The second tier provides a
supplemental tutoring intervention for struggling students. The third and final tier
includes attending Coastline Elementary School’s summer school programs for
students who continue to struggle after receiving tier I and tier II interventions.
Figure B2: Coastline Elementary School’s Intervention Resources for Struggling
Students
Tier III
Summer
School
Tier II
Tutoring during the school year
by credentialed teachers for
students scoring below proficient
Tier I
Response to Intervention in Core Instruction
Student Use of Technology: CCCC Success Maker
Student Enrollment in Extended Day Pre-Kindergarten
and Kindergarten

174

175
Corresponding Resource Use
Table B2 illustrates the comparison between resource use at Coastline
Elementary and the recommendations of the Picus-Odden Evidence-Based Model.
Overall, the resource use at Coastline Elementary School is significantly below the
recommendations made by the EBM. Although resources are invested in areas that
impact student learning, there are limited dollars that can be allocated to those areas
to satisfy the EBM. Although on-going budget reductions place restrictions on
Coastline Elementary School’s potential to achieve the recommendations of the
EBM, allocation of the reduced dollars towards the recommendations of the model
has managed to provide an instructional program that increases student performance.
Table B2: Coastline Elementary School Resource Use (FTEs and Dollars)
Staffing Category Picus-Odden
EBM
Actual
Resource Use
Comparison between Resource Use
and EBM
Core Academic
Teachers
24 16 Coastline Elementary School’s
resource use for core academic
teachers is 33.3% less than the
recommended amount of the EBM.
Specialist and
Elective Teachers
4.8 1.2 Resource use of specialist and
elective teachers is 75% less than
the recommendation of the EBM.
Librarian/Media
Specialist
1.0 0 No resources are allocated to a
Librarian, contrary to what is
recommended by the EBM.
Library/Media
Tech Aides
0 0 No resources are used at the school
nor are recommended for use by
the EBM.
Certified Teacher
Tutors for EL
1.2 0.5 58% less resources are allocated
for Certified tutors of EL students
than recommended by the EBM.
Certified Teacher
Tutors for At-
Risk Students
2.4 0 No resources are allocated for
certified tutors for at-risk students.
Resource Room
Teachers
0 0
Special Education
Teachers
3.0 3.0 The special education program
mainstreams students into regular
education classrooms.

176
Table B2, Continued
Special Education
Aides
1.5 2.3 The resource use for special
education aides is greater than the
EBM’s recommendations.
Gifted and
Talented
Teachers
0 0
Extended Day 1.8 0 No extended day program exists
Summer School 1.8 0 No summer school program exists
Total # of
Professional
Development
Days
10.0 3.0 There is a resource use deficit of
70% for professional development
days than is recommended by the
EBM.
Instructional
Facilitators
2.0 0 Coastline Elementary School relies
on the collaboration of its teaching
staff and lead teachers for
instructional coaching. None of its
resources are used for instructional
facilitators, although the EBM
recommends an allocation of 2.0
FTE.
Funds for
Substitutes
2.45 1.2 The actual use is 51% less than the
recommended use from the EBM.
Instructional
Aides
2.0 2.0 The resource use for instructional
aides is consistent with the
recommendations of the EBM.
Counselors 1.0 1.0 The actual resource use is equal to
the recommended FTE by the
EBM.
Nurses 1.0 0 The actual resource use is zero,
which is less than the
recommendations of the EBM.
Social Workers 1.0 0 There are no social workers hired
as FTEs. This is less than the
EBM’s recommendation.
Psychologists 1.0 0.4 The resource use for psychologists
is 60% less than the
recommendation of the EBM.
Speech/OT/PT,
Health Assistant,
Secretary,
Clerical,
Assistant
Principal, and
Principal
2.4 5.0
Speech/OT/PT
1.0
Health
Assistant 1.0
Secretary 1.0
Clerical 1.0
Principal 1.0
The actual resource use for these
positions is greater than the
recommendations of the EBM.

177
Lessons Learned
1. The PLC has been an effective, on-going professional development resource in
helping Coastline Elementary School build capacity to increase student achievement.
2. A strong core instructional program with embedded interventions has provided
immediate support to struggling students.
3. The evidence-based practice of Response to Intervention has benefited the student
achievement improvement effort.
4. Quality instructional leadership has included former and current principals and
teacher leaders.
5. Instructional coaches provided by the district to support evidence-based practices
are beneficial to the achievement improvement effort.
6. Block scheduling has provided additional support to high achieving students as
well as struggling students.
7. The extended day Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten programs provide additional
intervention to students from low-income and EL backgrounds.
8. The implementation of evidence-based strategies over a substantial timeframe of
8+ years can build the school’s capacity and sustainability to improve student
achievement.
9. District benchmark assessments and CSTs have informed the student achievement
improvement process.
10. Instructional coaches are critical to the improvement of student achievement.

178
Implications
The principal believes that consistent use of district instructional coaches is
necessary for the student achievement improvement process to continue at Coastline
Elementary School. He would also like to see assessments used more frequently for
the purpose of guiding instruction and analyzing student achievement. He hopes that
the district will continue to support the student achievement improvement process by
providing more funds for professional development and allowing the teachers to
make flexible use of their PLC time so that they will be able to collaborate with one
another.
There are a few pending setbacks that will affect Coastline Elementary
School in the coming academic school year. Several key teacher leaders will be laid
off due to budget reductions; therefore the school’s teaching staff will be losing some
of the instructional leadership that has been present over the past ten years. The
administrator and remaining teachers on staff will need to find ways to fill the gap in
instructional leadership and sustain the capacity-building movement that has had a
positive impact on student achievement.
In addition, instructional coaches will be cut. Coastline Elementary School
will have an instructional coach for a fraction of the current time block or no
instructional coach from the district. The district is not able to provide the present,
although reduced, evidence-based interventions, RTI trainings, professional
development trainings, PLC collaboration time, and substitutes for teacher release
times so that teachers can attend professional development opportunities. These

179
reductions in evidence-based interventions may adversely affect the improvement of
student achievement in coming years.
Teachers have chosen to personally fund their own professional development
opportunities over the course of the previous two years during on-going budget
reductions. This practice of self-funded professional development will be difficult
for many teachers to continue during these uncertain economic times. The next
challenge for Coastline Elementary School to overcome is to find a way to provide
funding for professional development to sustain the professional collaborative school
culture, build capacity, and increase student achievement.

180
APPENDIX C
CASE STUDY 3: EARLY SUNSET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Early Sunset Elementary School provides education for 594 students. It is
one of 17 elementary schools in its district. Its district has a total of 31 elementary,
middle, and high schools. Most of the students at Early Sunset Elementary School
are minorities. Thirty-five percent of the students are socioeconomically
disadvantaged. Fourteen percent of students are students with disabilities and 23%
of students are English Learner students. The racial composition of the student
population at Early Sunset Elementary School is 5.56% African American, .51%
Native American, 21.55% Asian, 2.19% Filipino, 25.25% Latino, 1.52% Pacific
Islander, 22.9% White, and 20.54% Multi-racial or no response.
The challenge of improving student achievement in EL students and
subgroups of students who have been low-performing in California has been the
focus of Early Sunset Elementary School for the past 7 years. Early Sunset
Elementary School has been recognized as a California Distinguished School for the
past 3 consecutive 2-year terms, 2004, 2006, and 2008. Although there has been a
recent decline in student CST scores, its similar schools rank is 10. This indicates
that despite its recent setback, Early Sunset Elementary School has managed to make
progress in student achievement that most of its similar schools could not. This case
study will compare the resource allocation practices that have been implemented at
Early Sunset Elementary School with the Picus-Odden model. The comparison will

181
help to determine which resource allocation practices had an impact on the rise in
student achievement.
The implementation of Professional Learning Communities, Response to
Intervention embedded within core instruction, and focus on standards-based
instruction has been instrumental in the student achievement improvement process.
Table C1: Early Sunset Elementary School Percentages of Students Scoring at
Proficient and Advanced Levels on the CSTs

SUBJECT 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
ELA 66 74 66
Mathematics74 73 69
Science 42 60 64

CST scores from previous years show that the majority of students at Early
Sunset Elementary School have performed at proficient and advanced levels since
the 2007 CST. Figure C1 illustrates this trend in student performance. Figure C1
appears on Early Sunset Elementary School’s profile on www.greatschools.net.

Figure C1: Early Sunset Elementary School’s Percent of Students Scoring at
Proficient and Advanced Levels on the CSTs during 2007-2010
CST Results
Scale: % at or above proficient
Grade 2
English Language Arts
80% (2010)
61% (2009)
79% (2008)
72% (2007)
The state average for English Language Arts was 54% in 2010.
Math
80% (2010)
76% (2009)
75% (2008)
77% (2007)
The state average for Math was 62% in 2010.
Grade 3
English Language Arts
51% (2010)
56% (2009)
57% (2008)
62% (2007)
The state average for English Language Arts was 44% in 2010.
Math
69% (2010)
73% (2009)
74% (2008)
81% (2007)
The state average for Math was 65% in 2010.
Grade 4
English Language Arts
74% (2010)
81% (2009)
80% (2008)
68% (2007)
The state average for English Language Arts was 63% in 2010.
Math
72% (2010)
67% (2009)
80% (2008)
71% (2007)
The state average for Math was 68% in 2010.
Grade 5
English Language Arts
68% (2010)
71% (2009)
75% (2008)
66% (2007)
The state average for English Language Arts was 58% in 2010.
Math
61% (2010)
62% (2009)
63% (2008)
67% (2007)
The state average for Math was 60% in 2010.
Source: Taken from http://www.greatschools.org/ on 09/02/10
182

The testing data does show a decline in student achievement as measured by
CSTs. Early Sunset Elementary School was selected for the increase in student
achievement during previous academic years. Despite the recent setback in student
achievement, students at Early Sunset Elementary School continue to outperform the
majority of students at similar schools by subgroup. Figure C2 illustrates the
performance of Early Sunset Elementary School students by subgroup, which was
taken from www.greatschools.net. The lowest performing subgroup is the
Economically disadvantaged students who are close to breaking the 800 mark on the
CST, which is significantly higher than the overall average score of Economically
disadvantaged students in California.
Figure C2: API Results of Early Sunset Elementary School Students in 2009 by
Subgroup
API Results

2009 API Base By Subgroup

854

887

808

874

790

814

All
Students
Asian Hispanic White
Socio-
econ. Dis-
advant.
English Language
Learners

Source: Taken from www.greatschools.net on 09/02/10
Early Sunset Elementary School has a Statewide Rank of 8, which means that
it has performed in the top 20% of schools in California. It also has a Similar
183

184
Schools Rank of 7, which means that with the recent student achievement setback, it
has performed in the top 30% of schools that have similar student demographics.
Resource use and allocation patterns at Early Sunset Elementary School are
important components of this case study. Identifying which resource uses and
allocations were cut in the preceding two years during California’s on-going budget
decrease at Early Sunset Elementary School may inform resource practices.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Impetus for Change
The student achievement improvement process began under the leadership of
the previous principal. He wanted to see student achievement increase, as did many
of the school’s lead teachers and school staff. He implemented an instructional
improvement program that he believed would substantially increase student
achievement. Teachers had little to do with deciding what changes would occur as
the previous principal made the educational decisions for the school.
Goal Setting
The expectation for student achievement was modified to include higher
expectations for students. All students need to meet the standards of the 2001 No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Therefore, all students are expected to show
mastery of grade level concepts at proficient and advanced levels of achievement on
the CSTs.

185
Adopting New Curricula to Achieve Goals
Early Sunset Elementary School implemented new curricula to help students
improve achievement. The high population of EL students prompted the previous
and current principals and teachers to consider providing reading instruction and
writing workshops to students using block scheduling. Reading is given a double
block during the instructional day. Time blocks for ELA vary by grade level and are
based on student needs. The intervention teachers are incorporated within the ELA
block scheduled time to work with all students and provide supplemental instruction
to struggling students. Intervention teachers use the regular core curricula with
accommodations for EL students.
Early Sunset Elementary School uses the Houghton-Mifflin ELA and
mathematics educational resources that have been adopted by the school district.
Reading Counts is used as a supplement in ELA instruction. Hampton-Brown
instructional resource materials are used to provide EL students with additional
curricular support. CCC Success maker is an ELA and Math software program that
was adopted to support student learning in the computer lab.
The current principal stated that the one of the greatest changes to the
adoption of new curricula is the shift in focus to teach students only high quality
Standards-Based Instruction and setting high expectations for student achievement.
Assessments
Assessments are a critical factor in the student achievement improvement
process. Data from STAR testing, CSTs, benchmark assessments, and classroom

186
assessments are analyzed on an on-going basis. Other forms of data indicating
student achievement are also used in conjunction with the assessments to analyze
student learning, the effectiveness of the instructional program to satisfy student
needs, and any modifications that must be made to the available professional
development and instructional program at Early Sunset Elementary School. The
supplemental data include student work, writing samples, running records, and
student profile sheets.
A needs analysis is conducted using STAR data from the CSTs. Classroom
assessments, daily work, and district benchmark assessments are critical to the
analysis of student achievement at Early Sunset Elementary School. Student data
gathered from these indicators show the attainment of the mission and vision for
student achievement at Early Sunset Elementary School. The school’s leadership
team, comprised of one teacher from each grade-level, participates in the assessment
of overall student achievement goals before the start of each academic school year
and once a month during the academic school year. It is the leadership team along
with the input from the rest of the teaching staff that determines which modifications
must be made to the instructional program and use of resources to increase student
achievement. Assessments used with a variety of other student performance
indicators have been a critical factor to the discussions on the student achievement
improvement process.

187
Implementing the Research-based Curricula
Teachers at Early Sunset Elementary School engage in on-going dialogue
about curriculum and instruction. The dialogue is focused on aligning curricula and
core instruction to the standards. Teachers collaboratively decide where to
supplement and make modifications to curriculum when necessary. There is a focus
on ELD, guided reading, and academic vocabulary development.
Support Teachers with Professional Development
Early Sunset Elementary School implements flexible resource allocation
practices for professional development. The principal and teaching staff will make
modifications to the initial resource allocation plan for professional development
throughout the academic year, dependent on the on-going assessment of student
needs and teacher development.
Professional development includes training in the RTI model, intervention
training, differentiation, EL instruction, delivering quality core instruction embedded
with RTI strategies, academic vocabulary development, and the Dufour model for
PLCs, and key standards-based instruction. The district has provided instructional
coaches for 2 hours per week to provide on-going professional development and
support in ELD and guided reading.
Professional Development Days
There are 4-5 half-days of professional development for Early Sunset
Elementary School teachers. Teachers of grades K-3 attend trainings during part of
the school day, and teachers in grades 4 and 5 attend trainings during the other part

188
of the school day. The school has allocated $140 for each substitute teacher needed
to cover the core classes during the professional development days. The topics
covered in professional development focus on ELA and math instruction for ELD
students. Topics covered in professional development are modified based on
instructional and student needs by teachers and the principal.
Interventions for Struggling Students
Early Sunset Elementary School provides interventions for struggling
students using a variety of resources. Prior to elementary school enrollment,
students may attend the district’s half-day preschool program. As early elementary
school students, they may enroll in the district’s Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten
extended day programs. The class size ratio is 24 students for one teacher in each
Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten class. The classes do not have any paid
instructional aides. These classes are provided with instructional aides on a
voluntary basis. Class size remains at 24:1 in grades 1-3. In grades 4 and 5, class
size is increased to 34 or more.
Students also receive intervention during the instructional day from
intervention teachers. An intervention teacher is used for Reading Recovery for half
of each day and for reading intervention for 30% of each day, making the
intervention teacher employed as a 0.8 FTE. A second intervention teacher is paid
on an hourly basis for 5 hours of reading intervention and 5 hours of ELD
intervention. A third intervention teacher is used 15 hours per week for reading and

189
math intervention for struggling students. A fourth intervention teacher at 0.5 FTE is
used strictly for ELD intervention.
An extended day program is available to students struggling in reading or
math. The afterschool sessions are held in 6-8 week terms. The Successmaker
academic software program is implemented within the extended day program to
target specific student learning goals. Credentialed Early Sunset Elementary School
teachers are hired to work with students in the extended day program. The teachers
target key areas for achievement growth in reading and in math using small group
instruction.
Early Sunset Elementary School has a summer school program that only Title
I and EL students can attend by teacher invitation. The summer school class sessions
did take place during the time frame of a typical instructional day during the
academic year, giving students a full day of intensive instruction. However, the class
times have been reduced to 1.5 hours per day for 4 days per week. The summer
school class block also has been reduced to a four week session from a longer
timeframe.
Figure C3 illustrates the interventions provided to struggling students at Early
Sunset Elementary School. All students receive the interventions of CCCC
Successmaker, RTI embedded within quality core instruction, enrollment in an
extended day Kindergarten program, and enrollment in an extended day Pre-
Kindergarten program for qualifying students. Students in need of additional

interventions participate in on-going tutoring from classroom teachers during the
academic school year and the summer school program.
Figure C3: Early Sunset Elementary School’s Interventions for Struggling Students

Title I and ELD funds also provide students with an intervention program
called Jump Start. The purpose of Jump Start is to provide struggling students with
intensive instruction to review grade-level content from the previous academic year.
Jump Start takes place 1.5 hours a day, during eight days before the start of the
academic year. Many of the students enrolled in Jump Start are from
socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds or are EL students.
An English Learner Multi-cultural Advisory Committee (ELMAC) for EL
parents was established to raise support from parents and the community. There are
190

191
5 parents on Early Sunset Elementary School’s school site council. The school site
council parent members formed a parent committee that established and reinforces
the home-school compact for Early Sunset Elementary School families.
Document cameras were provided to each core instructional classroom. The
document cameras are used for standardized test preparation and for the
administration of formalized school and classroom assessments. The computer lab
on site is currently under construction making the document cameras the key source
of student exposure to technology.
Accountability
The improvement process at Early Sunset Elementary School was a
combined effort between the district office and school stakeholders. The use of data
driven decision-making was an instrumental component to the student achievement
improvement process. Effective instructional programs and professional
development trainings from the district’s instructional coaches were also critical to
the improvement process. In addition to the instructional, professional development,
and data driven decision-making support that the staff received, the school site
teachers chose which professional development content they needed and also chose
to implement writer’s workshop into the core curriculum without the influences of
district and school administrators.
The current principal stated that the goal of resource allocation at Early
Sunset Elementary School is to implement a program that is designed to help
struggling students. The formal and informal observations in classrooms made by

192
the principal provide daily accountability for the instructional program. The
principal visits classrooms every school day for thirty minutes.
Corresponding Resource Use
Table C2 illustrates the resource allocation and use at Early Sunset
Elementary School as compared to the recommendations of the EBM. The principal
of Early Sunset Elementary School implements flexible resource use to prioritize
student learning and professional development needs. She identifies which resource
uses would benefit student learning and professional development by identifying the
needs of both on an on-going basis during the academic year. The educational
dollars spent on the categories of the EBM are significantly lower than the
recommendations formulated by the EBM. The motto for educational spending at
Early Sunset Elementary School is to “Make the most of very little.” Early Sunset
Elementary School does not have the availability of enough educational dollars to
satisfy the recommendations of the EBM given its current level of under funding.
Table C2: Early Sunset Elementary School Resource Use (FTEs and Dollars)
Staffing Category Picus-Odden EBM Actual Resource
Use
Comparison between Resource Use and
EBM
Core Academic
Teachers
34.2 23 Early Sunset Elementary uses 33% less
than the recommended number of core
teachers
Specialist and
Elective Teachers
6.8 5.0 Resource use for specialist and elective
teachers is 26.5% less than the
recommendation of the EBM.
Librarian/Media
Specialist
1.0 0 No resources are allocated for a
Librarian, contrary to the
recommendations of the EBM.
Library/Media Tech
Aides
0 0 Zero dollars allocated to a Library Aide
achieves the recommendations of the
EBM.
Certified Teacher
Tutors for EL
1.3 2.0 There is an additional 54% resource use
for certified tutors for EL students than
is recommended by the EBM.

193
Table C2, Continued
Certified Teacher
Tutors for At-Risk
Students
2.0 2.0 The resource use at Early Sunset
Elementary School for certified tutors
for At-Risk students matches the
recommendations of the EBM.
Resource Room
Teachers
0 0
Special Education
Teachers
0 0
Special Education
Aides
0 0
Gifted and Talented
Teachers
0 0
Extended Day 2.34 0 No extended day program exists. The
actual resource use is less than the
recommendations of the EBM.
Summer School 2.34 0 No summer school program exists. The
actual resource use is less than the
recommendations of the EBM.
Total # of
Professional
Development Days
10.0 10.0 The resource use for professional
development days is equal to the
recommendations of the EBM.
Instructional
Facilitators
0 0
Funds for
Substitutes
2.6 Unknown The actual resource use for substitutes
is unknown as Early Sunset Elementary
School implements flexible resource
use throughout each academic year.
Instructional Aides 2.6 13 The resource use for instructional aides
is 500% more than the recommendation
of the EBM. These resources could be
allocated to areas that are in need as
identified by the EBM.
Counselors 1.0 1.0 The actual resource use is equal to the
recommendation of the EBM.
Nurses 1.0 0 The actual resource use is less than the
recommendations of the EBM.
Social Workers 1.0 1.0 The actual resource use is equal to the
recommendation of the EBM.
Psychologists 1.0 1.0 The resource use for a psychologist is
equal to the EBM.
Speech/OT/PT 1.0 1.0 The actual resource use is consistent
with the recommendations of the EBM.
Health Assistant
Secretary
Clerical
Principal
Assistant Principal
5.0 total 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
The resource use for a health assistant,
secretary, clerical, principal, and
assistant principal is 20% less than the
recommendations of the EBM.

Lessons Learned
1. It is important to choose curriculum that supports the needs of students.
2. Student use of technology and evidence-based software programs are effective in
increasing student achievement.

194
3. The use of a variety of on-going assessments informs student achievement and
can guide instruction.
4. Interventions such as extended day Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten can
provide student with additional support, although a full day program as
recommended by the Picus-Odden Model would provide more effective support.
5. Intensive intervention embedded within core instruction provides immediate and
effective support to struggling students.
6. Providing students with instruction by intervention teachers, or specialist
teachers, during the instructional day is an effective use of time.
7. Evidence-based instructional strategies in ELD and guided ready are effective in
improving student achievement in the EL students at Early Sunset Elementary
School.
8. Response to Intervention (RTI) is an effective means of differentiating curriculum
for students and meeting students’ academic needs.
9. Implementing flexible resource use throughout the school year allows for
modifications to be made to the budget based on professional development and
students needs.
10. It is important to maintain capacity-building actions during changes in school
leadership, staff, and transitions to new principals.
Implications
In recent years, Early Sunset Elementary School has had the instructional
leadership of highly educated administrators. Data driven decision-making and the

195
evidence-based research of Doug Reeves on improving socioeconomically
disadvantaged schools and Richard Dufour on PLCs have been implemented as
reform efforts in previous years. The goal of the current principal is to build on the
work of previous administrators, support the previously set improvement process,
and make progress in the improvement of student achievement.
Early Sunset Elementary School has experienced frequent changes in
administration and in the economy, as the school has had four different principals in
the past 5 academic years. The recent student achievement setbacks began the year
the current principal was hired to lead Early Sunset Elementary School. Although
the principal is extremely knowledgeable about school reform issues, she is a first-
time principal and her inexperience in leading a school may have an unintended
consequence on the student achievement improvement process.
Other factors may also contribute to the recent declines in student
achievement. Teacher and school staff morale has declined significantly over the
past two years as many school employees have been laid off by the district due to
budget reductions. Many teachers are insecure and uncertain about their role at
Early Sunset Elementary School. The current principal recognizes the need for
strong leadership at such a time as this and is determined to build teacher morale and
the capacity of the school staff, despite the labor force reductions.
During her first year as the principal of Early Sunset Elementary School, she
stated that it took time to assess and identify where changes needed to take place in
the school. In her second year, she was quicker to respond to the needs of the school

196
with the support and partnership of the teacher leadership team. The goal of the
administrator and teacher leadership team is to train the current teaching staff for
capacity-building and sustainability.
The principal stated that additional technology support from the district or
community would help complete the improvements in Early Sunset Elementary
School’s computer lab. To continue to student achievement improvement process,
the school staff and leaders need more time for professional development, reflection,
and to align the school’s curriculum to the expectations of the California state
standards.

197
APPENDIX D
CASE STUDY 4: PHOENIX SAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Phoenix Sand Elementary School is a 4-6
th
grade elementary school in an
urban district within Southern California. The district has 47 elementary, 10 middle,
9 high schools, and 2 special education schools. Phoenix Sand Elementary School
has approximately 600 students in grades 4, 5, and 6 and shares a campus with a
separate elementary school that covers grades K-3. Phoenix Sand Elementary
School is different from the other schools in its district in that its student population
is 0.09% Native American, 26.68% Asian, 2.07% Filipino, 65.75% Latino, 0.69%
African American, 0.52% Pacific Islander, 4.13% White, and 0.9% of students were
classified as Other or were not specified. Most schools with similar student
performance within the district have a majority population of White students and
Asian students.
Phoenix Sand Elementary School is the only elementary school in its district
with a high percentage of underrepresented high-achieving minority students. It is
also one of the few elementary schools in California with high-achieving Latino and
economically disadvantaged students. Sixty percent of the student population
consists of English Learner students. Seventy-seven percent of the population
consists of socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Twelve percent of the student
population consists of students with disabilities. The significant numbers of
economically disadvantaged students scored higher than the statewide average in
English Language-Arts (ELA), math, and science. Fifty percent of economically

198
disadvantaged students scored at the proficient and advanced levels in ELA, 63%
scored at the proficient and advanced levels in math, and 45% scored at the
proficient and advanced levels in science. Students with disabilities who have scored
at proficient and advanced levels in ELA are at 34%, in math are at 46%, and in
science are at 27%. Each of these historically lower performing subgroups of
students has made gains in student achievement over the past several years.
Over the past three years, Latino students have increased their API
performance by 62 points, economically disadvantaged students have increased their
API by 46 points, and English Learner students have increased their API score by 44
points. Most schools within the district come from middle to high socioeconomic
backgrounds and are from racial groups that are not typically underrepresented at
Universities, or high-achieving communities. Despite the differences in student
demographics and needs at Phoenix Sand Elementary School than in the district’s
other schools, Phoenix Sand Elementary School has managed to produce and
maintain its improvement in student achievement. Furthermore, the percentage of
students at Phoenix Sand Elementary School scoring at the proficient and advanced
marks in STAR testing has been greater than its overall district and state percentages.
The expulsion rate at Phoenix Sand Elementary School over the past three
years is 0.000; however the suspension rate is higher than the district’s suspension
rate. Table D1 illustrates the expulsion and higher suspension rates for the school
and district. Phoenix Sand Elementary School is part of a high-achieving school
district. The majority of its students are minorities, whereas the majority of students

199
in the district are White or Asian. The differences in suspension rates could suggest
that the school is experiencing discipline challenges that their high-achieving school
district’s central office has not adequately prepared them for.
Table D1: Suspension and Expulsion Rates for Phoenix Sand Elementary and
District 2006-2007 through 2008-2009
School District
Year 2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
Suspension 0.024 0.056 0.067 0.025 0.031 0.050
Expulsion 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0001

The improvement of student achievement was strongly supported, initiated,
and implemented by the district. The student achievement improvement process was
established as a district-wide goal. The district selected professional development
opportunities for teachers and administrators.
Teacher application of differentiated instruction, direct instruction and
Singapore math in mathematics, Write from the Beginning in English-Language
Arts, English Language Development (ELD) strategies, and thinking maps has been
instrumental in the instructional improvement process. The purpose of this case
study is to discuss the improvement of student achievement at Phoenix Sand
Elementary School and determine how its resource allocation practices correspond to
the Picus-Odden model.
Student CST scores have steadily improved over the past 7 years. Most
students score at the proficient and advanced levels on the California Standards Test

200
(CST). Table D2 shows the gradual increase in CST scores over 2006-2007 through
2008-2009 years.
Table D2: Phoenix Sands Elementary School Percentages of Students Scoring at
Proficient and Advanced Levels on the CSTs
Year 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
English-
Language Arts
53 54 57
Mathematics 64 65 70
Science 49 58 55

Instructional Improvement Strategies
Impetus for Change. The district-wide student achievement improvement process
began with the district’s Department of K-6 Instruction. The department analyzed
district-wide student achievement data and selected areas for improvement within
classroom instruction. The department also researched evidence-based instructional
improvement strategies and implemented them at the school sites. As one of their
previous consultant coaches, I attended one of the district-wide student achievement
improvement trainings in 2002 and found that compliance with NCLB (2001) was a
motivating factor in new district-wide instructional improvement decisions.
Goal Setting. The focus of the improvement process at Phoenix Sand Elementary
School is to raise student achievement so that all students are demonstrating
proficiency in 80% of math and ELA grade-level standards. In addition, the school’s
goal for EL students is to increase English Language Development (ELD) levels to
fluency within each student’s first three years.
Adopting New Curricula to Achieve Goals. The new curricula and instructional
changes at Phoenix Sand Elementary School have consisted of several components.

201
Phoenix Sand Elementary School adopted Project G and Singapore math for
delivering direct instruction in math, Write from the Beginning for writing
instruction, differentiated instruction to support all learners, thinking maps to provide
explicit instruction and develop high critical thinking skills, and ELD instructional
strategies to address the specific needs of EL students. Using the district’s guidance
for professional development, Phoenix Sand Elementary School adopted Project G,
Singapore Math, Write from the Beginning, differentiated instruction, thinking maps,
and ELD instructional strategies.
The district and school’s goals for student achievement are based on the
California State standards. District-wide and school site curriculum practices also
include reviewing adoptions and instructional programs every 3-4 years to determine
if the resources continue to achieve student goals. Specifically within the district-
wide instructional program, consideration is given to effective teaching strategies for
delivering content to students. Goals at each school within the district are founded
on the California State standards, but teaching methods may vary from school to
school and are determined by the needs of the student population.
In addition to differentiating instruction for EL students, many of the
resources and instructional improvement efforts of the district are focused on high-
achieving and gifted students by the Gifted and Talented Education (GATE)
program. The district has allocated funds for a GATE coordinator. The principal
believes that the district funds the position of the full-time district GATE
coordinator, but some of the costs may have been deducted from the school’s budget

202
by the district before school disbursement. A significant portion of the GATE
students within the district attend Phoenix Sand Elementary School. The district has
approximately 600 GATE students; over 200 of them attend Phoenix Sand
Elementary School. The GATE students enrolled in K-3 attend the K-3 school that
shares the same campus, with the middle and high school GATE students attending
programs at on other school campuses within the district.
Support Teachers with Professional Development. Effective and high-quality
professional development has been a focus of the district for decades. Teachers have
received professional development in all components of the instructional
improvement process, from data driven decision making to differentiating instruction
for EL and GATE students. The district’s and school’s goal for professional
development is to build capacity as a professional learning community. For this
purpose, the district appoints effective teachers to instructional coaching and
leadership roles in the district. These teachers are called Teachers On Special
Assignment (TOSAs). They are given a stipend for purchasing and maintaining
professional attire and are placed in their roles for one or two years before returning
to the classroom or moving into other roles within the district.
Six teachers from Phoenix Sand Elementary School serve as school-site
coaches every summer during “Super Week” to deliver professional development to
fellow teachers at their school site. Coaches and teachers are paid for 15 hours of
overtime for professional development, but participate in professional development
trainings that span beyond the 15 hour time block that the district will compensate

203
them for. All six teacher coaches during “Super Week” provide teachers with the
same content and quality of professional development. The school and district value
consistency within the professional development program they provide teachers.
The six teacher coaches enter the district’s Leadership Academy, where they
attend professional development trainings for 3 days per academic year. All six
teachers are given substitute teachers for each of the three days. Teacher leaders
then share the trainings with the rest of the school staff. The professional
development is recurrent and repetitive to build district capacity for professional
development. This process for professional development has cost the district a
substantial amount of money over the course of several years, but has created
“master” teachers who can support the instructional improvement initiatives and on-
going student achievement goals within the district.
In addition to the summer professional development training, teachers also
have the option of a peer assistance review program on campus, which develops their
instructional expertise through the lenses of themselves and their colleagues. The
entire Phoenix Sand Elementary School staff also participates in learning walks
throughout the school year to establish and maintain dialogue with teachers in other
grade-levels for the purpose of providing students with high and appropriate learning
expectations.
Only fully credentialed substitute teachers are hired to relieve teachers during
professional development days. The principal stated that he “only hangs on to great
subs.” Students are in the classroom with a fully credentialed teacher each day of

204
the school calendar. The use of fully credentialed teachers resonates with the Picus-
Odden model in that credentialed staff has been found to be an effective approach for
increasing student achievement.
Implementing the Research-based Curricula. In addition to professional
development to increase the quality of instruction during each instructional school
day, Phoenix Sand Elementary School implements a number of ways to demonstrate
the high quality learning that students engage in. Differentiated reading groups are
implemented every day to effectively achieve learning outcomes. Conferences with
parents and teachers are led by students to demonstrate their proficiency as self-
directed learners. They are treated with respect as learners and given autonomy.
The administrator at Phoenix Sand Elementary School is aware of the
implementation of classroom instruction by frequent classroom visits and his
participation in grade-level meetings. He focuses on the implementation of the
instructional evidence-based strategies within the classrooms. The evidence-based
strategies are differentiated instruction, direct instruction in math, Singapore math,
ELD strategies, thinking maps, standards-based instruction, and Write from the
beginning for writing. He also looks for evidence of student reflection in the
classroom, either from the students, classroom environment, or student work.
He also looks for the non-negotiables of effective teaching in the delivery of
instruction. Although the teachers and principal do not have a formal definition of
what effective teaching is, all teachers and the principal have thoroughly discussed
the non-negotiables and negotiables of effective teaching. The non-negotiables of

205
effective teaching are derived from the evidence-based strategies that the teachers
implement in the classroom and have learned from professional development
trainings.
Professional development is offered right after the close of the school year
over one week that the staff at Phoenix Sand Elementary School calls “Superweek.”
Professional development trainings are delivered by effective teachers on the school
staff. Teachers are compensated for their time during this week with 15 hours of
overtime pay. During the academic school year, the teachers are also given the
opportunity for more professional development voluntarily. The voluntary
professional development trainings are focused on interests that the teachers have
shared with the administrator, such as technology, art, science, etc. The teachers at
Phoenix Sand Elementary are highly motivated to develop as a Professional Learning
Community and as individual educators.
There are five teachers on staff who serve as instructional coaches to their
colleagues. Each of the five teachers serves a different need for the staff. The
district has given Phoenix Sand Elementary School one Teacher on Special
Assignment (TOSA) as an instructional support coach to provide assistance once a
week. However, the support provided by the TOSA has been sporadic. The school
has not received sufficient instructional coaching from the district. The principal
stated that he would rather have a half-time or full-time instructional coach who can
deliver professional development trainings each week of the school calendar.

206
Assessments. Assessments play a critical role at Phoenix Sand Elementary School.
The district provides the school with benchmark tests. The district-wide benchmark
tests drive instruction by helping teachers identify key content standards to teach.
Math benchmark exams are given by trimester and English-Language Arts exams are
given quarterly. The results are entered into a data analysis software program called
Data Director. The teachers use the analyzed results from Data Director to inform
instruction and provide any necessary support to students. The students’ assessment
results are discussed in grade-level and staff meetings to inform instruction on a
school-wide level. For instance, when third grade teachers realized that most of their
former students were struggling in math problem solving once they transitioned to
the fourth grade, they decided to provide current third grade students with more
explicit instruction in problem solving and practice with word problems. This
provided the third grade students with more support in solving math problems so that
they would be better prepared for the problem solving challenges they will encounter
in the fourth grade math program.
The district has mandated that fifteen minutes of each staff meeting be used
for teacher “collaboration time.” The teachers at Phoenix Sand Elementary School
use the fifteen minute block to discuss student assessment data. Teachers identify
areas for intervention and remediation to students during small group instruction.
Teachers also share individual student assessment results with students in one-on-
one conferences, respecting each student’s right to privacy and ownership of their
learning. Students are then encouraged to reflect on their learning by identifying

207
their own patterns of strengths and weakness and determining how they will close
their achievement gap.
Interventions for Struggling Students. The district and school have provided
struggling students with intensive instruction during a summer school program for
several years. The teachers who taught the summer school classes practiced
evidence-based strategies that would support their professional development and
would deliver the coaching of the evidence-based strategies to the remaining staff in
professional development trainings during the school year.
The district provides free pre-school to all prospective students within the
district boundaries. The preschools are located on several school campuses and hold
class session 5 days per week while many preschools provide students with
education 2 or 3 days per week. The district has an appointed preschool coordinator
who manages, implements, and develops the district-wide preschool program. The
district-wide Kindergarten program is a half-day program, lasting 3 hours and 30
minutes 5 days per week.
A typical class size at Phoenix Sand Elementary School includes 32 or 33
students. A fully credentialed teacher was hired part-time to teach between the
hours of 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The purpose of the part-time teacher is to reduce class
size during the instructional hours for the writing, math, and science content areas.
Afterschool tutoring is provided for students demonstrating achievement gaps
in English-Language Arts and math at the discretion of their classroom teacher.
Classroom teachers provide the tutoring to their own students. The ratio of students

208
to teacher for afterschool tutoring is 8:1 and teachers voluntarily devote their time to
tutoring their own students.
Intensive interventions are provided to students during the instructional day
at recess time. The instructional aides, mostly classified staff, are designated to tutor
students.
The district has provided students scoring Far Below Basic on the CSTs with
summer school interventions for several years. The summer school classes were
taught by credentialed teachers. The district has had to cut the funds for the summer
school intervention for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 academic school years. The
impact of cutting the summer school intervention may reduce student achievement in
the future.
Scheduling accommodations are made for EL students during the morning of
each instructional day. Students participate in an alternating English-Language Arts
and Science/writing/math block for 2 hours. Students also participate in a 30 minute
ELD block. These two blocks in scheduling that cover Science, math, writing,
English-language arts, and ELD include the help of the Special Day Class and
Resource teacher and a part-time credentialed teacher. The use of an additional
teacher and Resource specialist provides smaller class size during the instruction of
the content areas and provides immediate intervention for struggling students during
small group instruction.
Figure D1 illustrates the district and school-based support available to
Phoenix Sands Elementary School to continue the school improvement process and

209
increase student achievement. The improvement of student learning at Phoenix
Sands Elementary School is impacted by the district-wide Leadership Academy,
district-provided instructional coaches, and district level professional development.
School-based support for improved student achievement includes professional
development in evidence-based curricula and instruction, data driven decision
making, and on-going support from instructional coaches. Classroom-based
interventions for improving student achievement include implementing block
scheduling for EL students, afterschool tutoring, and the summer school program.

Figure D1: Phoenix Sands Elementary School Interventions for Struggling Students
and District and School-based Professional Development Support

Technology. Teachers at Phoenix Sand Elementary School are provided with
ELMOs, laptops, IMACs, a computer lab, and part-time computer resource assistant,
and a wireless network. Teachers embed all of the technological resources within
instruction. Students have access to the computer lab and wireless network for
instructional purposes, independent studies, research, and for producing authentic
work.
210

211
Parent Outreach and Community Involvement
Phoenix Sand Elementary School hosts Family Nights, where parents can
attend trainings on “The Ten Commandments” of how to prepare their children for
academic success. Community liaisons are paid by the district to teach the Family
Night classes to interested parents. In 2003, the district paid an educational
consulting firm to write a district-wide parent outreach program that principals could
deliver to parents during parent workshops. Although that current program is not the
same program, the district’s plan to have parents involved in ways that effectively
support students is still evident.
Accountability. The improvement in student achievement was initiated by both the
school and the district. The district formally implemented the strategies for
improved student achievement and was supported and guided by previous existing
teacher goals. There has been a flow in leadership and support between the district
office and teaching staff. The instructional leadership of the previous principal,
current principal, and district has been constructive in facilitating the closing of the
achievement gap at Phoenix Sand Elementary School.
The principal provides accountability to the improvement process by
classroom observations, providing teachers with immediate feedback, conducting
Learning Walks, reviewing and analyzing student assessment data with teachers, and
by his visibility on the school campus. District accountability is provided by the
benchmark assessments in English-language arts and math that are given to students
several times per academic year and analyzing student test score data. In addition,

212
the Assistant Superintendent visits the school site once a year. The principal stated
that the district has a comprehensive understanding of the demographic and
professional variables present at Phoenix Sand Elementary School.
Table D3 illustrates the actual resource use in FTEs for the critical
components of the EBM, and its recommendations for resource use based on school
size, EL, Special education, and economically disadvantaged students. Table D3
also represents the comparison in actual resource use and recommended resource
use. Although Phoenix Sand Elementary School’s actual resource use is lower than
that of the EBM’s recommendations for several components, the resource uses for
instructional facilitators, instructional aides, and gifted education surpasses the
EBM’s recommendations.
Table D3: Phoenix Sand Elementary School Resource Use (FTEs and Dollars)
Staffing
Category
Picus-Odden EBM Actual
Resource Use
Comparison between Resource Use and
EBM
Core Academic
Teachers
33.6 18.0 Resource use for core academic teachers at
Phoenix Sand Elementary School is 56%
less than the recommended use in the EBM.
Specialist and
Elective
Teachers
6.8 3.0 Actual resource use for specialist and
elective teachers is 37.5% less than the
EBM recommendation.
Librarian/Media
Specialist
2.0 0 No resources are allocated for
librarian/media specialists.
Library/Media
Tech Aides
0 1.0 Phoenix Sand Elementary School’s
resource use for library/media tech aides is
one FTE, which is more than the EBM’s
recommendations. Perhaps 1 FTE is
allocated to library/media tech aide as
opposed to the 1 FTE for a librarian to
reduce costs. The cost for a classified aide
is significantly less than the cost for a
librarian.
Certified
Teacher Tutors
for EL
5.0 0 There are no resources allocated for
certified tutors for EL students.
Certified
Teacher Tutors
for At-Risk
Students
6.4 0 There are no resources allocated for At-
Risk students.

213
Table D3, Continued
Special
Education
Teachers
5.8 2.0 The actual resource use for special
education teachers at Phoenix Sand
Elementary School is 66% less than the
recommendation of the EBM.
Special
Education
Aides
4.0 3.0 The resource use for special education
aides is 25% less than the
recommendation of the EBM.
Gifted and
Talented
Teachers
$5000.00 3.0 The actual dollar amount for GATE
teachers is significantly more than the
additional $5,000 recommended by the
EBM.
Extended Day 3.5 0 There are no resources allocated for an
extended day program.
Summer School 3.5 0 There are no resources allocated for a
summer school program.
Total # of
Professional
Development
Days
10.0 5.0 The actual resource use for professional
development days is 50% less than the
recommendation of the EBM.
Instructional
Facilitators
3.0 6.5 The resource use for instructional
facilitators, or coaches, is more than twice
the recommendations of the EBM. The
resource use of 6.5 FTEs for instructional
facilitators has been provided by funding
from grants and district supplementation.
The high number of instructional
facilitators is part of the district’s
capacity-building goals for quality
professional development and classroom
instruction.
Funds for
Substitutes
0 0
Instructional
Aides
4.0 6.0 The resource use for instructional aides is
significantly more than the
recommendation of the EBM.
Counselors 2.0 0.2 The actual resource use for counselors is
10% of the recommended allocation made
by the EBM.
Nurses 2.0 1.0 50% of the EBM’s recommended
resource use is allocated for nurses.
Social Workers 2.0 0 No resources are allocated for social
workers.
Psychologists 2.0 1.0 The school’s resource use for
psychologists is 50% of the recommended
resource use by the EBM.
Speech/OT/PT 2.0 1.0 The resource use for Speech/OT/PT
personnel is 50% less than the
recommendation of the EBM.
Health
Assistant,
Principal,
Assistant
Principal,
Secretary,
Clerical
4.0 4.0
Health Assistant
1.0
Principal 1.0
Secretary 1.0
Clerical 1.0
Resource use for health assistant,
principal, secretary, clerical and assistant
principal positions is health assistant is
equal to the recommendations of the
EBM.

214
Lessons Learned.
1. With adequate support from the district, like coordinators, TOSAs, and support
personnel, Phoenix Sand Elementary School can improve student achievement
substantially more than it would without the district’s additional help.
2. Evidence-based instructional strategies that are implemented internationally or in
other countries can be effective practices in U.S. schools as well.
3. The school’s capacity for improving student achievement has increased by
school-site based professional development and instructional coaches.
4. The synergy between district and school initiatives to build capacity propels the
improvement of student achievement.
5. It is important for professional development to be repetitive and recurrent to build
the capacity of the staff to increase student achievement.
6. Technology must be embedded within the core instructional program to gear
students in the direction of the global economy.
7. Differentiated instruction provides effective teaching for EL and GATE students
within the same classroom.
8. Data analysis is conducted at the district, school, and classroom level. This
informs instruction using data driven decision making and the lenses of several
individuals to assess student needs.
9. Reflections from teachers and students are key instruments to the improvement of
student achievement.

215
10. The District Leadership Academy helps to build capacity for teacher leadership
at the district and school levels.
Implications. The principal believes that a full-time or 0.5 FTE TOSA to provide
weekly professional development would be constructive to the student achievement
improvement process. He also believes that a full-time assistant principal would also
help to achieve school goals for students. The designation of an assistant principal is
at the discretion of the district. Phoenix Sand Elementary does benefit from a school
counselor for one day a week and a psychologist for student testing. These roles are
funded by the district and are outsourced through a private company to reduce
expenses for the district.

216
APPENDIX E
CASE STUDY 5: RAINDANCE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Raindance Elementary School serves 1,030 students from a low-income
community. It is part of a large urban school district that serves 90,000 students.
Most of the elementary, middle, and high schools within the school district serve
low-income communities. The extremely high percentage of Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged students at Raindance Elementary School set it apart from the other
schools in this study, while making it similar to many other schools within the state.
One-hundred percent of the students attending Raindance Elementary School qualify
for the benefits of the National Free and Reduced Price Lunch Program. The largest
student subgroup at Raindance Elementary is the Hispanic population at 85.92%.
The other student subgroups that attend Raindance Elementary are African American
at 6.7%, Asian at 5.63%, White at 0 .58%, Pacific Islander at 0.49%, Multi-racial at
0.39%, and Filipino at 0.19%. Students with disabilities compose 5% of the student
population, English Learners are 56% of the student population, and as stated above,
100% of the student population is Socioeconomically Disadvantaged.
The rate of student suspensions and expulsions at Raindance Elementary
School distinguishes it from similar schools in its district in that only 0.4 suspensions
have taken place in the 2005-2006 school year, no suspensions in the 2006-2007 and
2007-2008 school years, and no expulsions spanning from 2004-2005 to 2008-2009
academic time frame. Although its district has managed to avoid expulsions during
the same time frame, its suspensions were 1.4 in 2005-2006, 0.7 in 2006-2007, and

217
1.6 in 2007-2008. Having 100% of its students classified as Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged makes Raindance Elementary one of the lowest of the low-income
schools in the district. Despite its “lowest of the low” status, Raindance has
managed its resources effectively to provide an instructional program that
maintained a steadily increasing API of 785 and has eradicated possible suspensions
and expulsions. The purpose of this case study is to determine how the resource
allocation practices at Raindance Elementary School have created these
improvements in student achievement during a period of on-going resource
reductions and fiscal constraint.
The improvement of student achievement at Raindance Elementary School
was created by its motivated and dedicated school staff, former principal, current
principal, and Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). The focus of the student
achievement improvement process in this school of 1,000+ students is on increasing
the quality of the core instructional program. Table E1 illustrates the percentages of
students at Raindance Elementary School who have scored at the proficient and
advanced levels on the CSTs during the 2005-2006 through the 2007-2008 academic
years.
Table E1: Raindance Elementary School Percentages of Students Scoring at
Proficient and Advanced Levels on the CSTs
SUBJECT 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
English-Language Arts 36 36 38
Mathematics 52 60 54
Science 38 25 37

218
Over the three year period shown in Table E1, the students’ CST scores do
not show a significant increase in English-Language Arts and show declines in all
three categories of English-Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science. However, the
Statewide API rank for Raindance is 6, which means that its achievement is greater
than 60% of the schools in California, and Similar Schools API rank is 10, which
means that its performance is better than 90% of the schools that share the same
demographics and possibly the same challenges. Raindance Elementary School has
managed to score above the majority of schools in student achievement in Statewide
and Similar Schools API rankings. In addition, Raindance Elementary Schools has
managed to meet both its API and AYP as a “lowest of the low” school, while the
CST scores of other similar schools in its district have qualified for program
improvement.

Instructional Improvement Strategies
Impetus for Change
The improvement process at Raindance Elementary School stemmed from an
altruistic desire in teachers to see students in this low-income and high-crime
neighborhood experience success at school. The change process began several years
before the current administrator joined the staff at Raindance Elementary School.
The principal prior to his arrival along with key lead teachers on staff began to look
at student data, instruction, and curriculum to determine how to increase student
achievement.

219
Goal Setting
The principal and teachers at Raindance Elementary School set high
expectations for student achievement by using the California State Standards to drive
classroom instruction and activities.
Adopting New Curricula to Achieve Goals
The instructional focus for teachers at Raindance Elementary School is to
deliver only standards-based instruction. There are two key standards-based
programs that were implemented during the instructional improvement process to
help teachers achieve their goal, Measuring Up and Reading First. Measuring Up is
a supplemental, standards derived program that teachers implement within their self-
created lessons. Teachers enjoy using Measuring Up since it allows for quick
modifications to lessons, making the differentiation of instruction effortless in their
crowded classrooms. Reading First also provides students with standards-based
instruction with evidence-based instructional techniques. Teachers apply the
evidence-based instructional techniques while delivering lessons to help students
effectively internalize the content. The focus of English-Language Arts instruction
is on reading comprehension.
Raindance Elementary School has used the Open Court Reading program in
the past. Grade-level teachers re-evaluated the use of Open Court curriculum to
determine how to deliver targeted instruction to students. They discovered that Open
Court was better used as a supplement to more rigorous standards-based programs
that are consistently aligned to California State Standards. They found that the best

220
use of Open Court materials is to provide students with “drill and kill” practice of
specific English-Language Arts skills.
Assessments
Students are assessed using common assessments from the district and
teacher-created formative and summative assessments. The common assessments
are given in accordance with the district’s timeline. The teachers decide when to
give the formative and summative assessments based on grade-level pacing plans.
The principal planned and delivered trainings on data driven decision making
to teachers at Raindance Elementary School. The teachers are expected to analyze
student data to help them make instructional and planning decisions to better serve
their students. The principal also facilitates some grade-level meetings to provide
on-going support to teachers on how to use assessment data to achieve student goals.
Implementing the Research-Based Curricula
There are six strategies that the principal and teachers used to implement the
new curriculum. The first was aligning curriculum, planning, assessments, and the
California State standards. The second involved using flexible grouping during
classroom instruction to effectively differentiate instruction. The third strategy is the
use of assessments to inform teachers of student learning and guide classroom
instruction. The fourth strategy is the application of thinking maps to standards-
based instruction to strengthen student understanding of content. The fifth strategy is
the meticulous planning, design, and delivery of explicit instruction. The sixth and

221
last strategy that supported teachers in implementing the research-based curricula is
receiving immediate feedback from the principal and grade-level teachers.
Support Teachers with Professional Development
The principal at Raindance Elementary School provided all of the
professional development trainings to the teaching staff. All of the trainings were
instruction-focused and covered the topics: data driven decision making, setting
goals, differentiating instruction, setting high expectations, thinking maps,
assessments, standards-based instruction, writer’s workshop, reading comprehension,
and the Japanese Lesson Study model.
Professional Development Days

Four full release days were provided for professional development. One full
day was used to analyze student skills from the district’s common assessments. A
second full day was devoted to using writer’s workshop. The last two full days were
devoted to using the Japanese Lesson Study model where teachers identify goals,
create, teach and observe a lesson based on student needs, debrief the lesson, revise
the lesson, teach and observe the lesson a second time, and finally debrief the lesson
once more.
Early Childhood Program

Interested families have the option of the Head Start and Los Angeles
Universal Preschool programs that are offered by outside agencies. The district does
not provide families with any early childhood programs.

222
Full Day Kindergarten
Raindance Elementary School began the option of an extended day
Kindergarten program in the 2009-2010 school years. Its recent development does
not impact student achievement during the time frame of this study. Student
participation in the extended day Kindergarten programs is voluntary. The school
still offers the half-day Kindergarten program to students as well. The extended day
Kindergarten program may impact student achievement in following years but did
not effect student achievement during previous years.
Class Size Reduction
The class sizes at Raindance Elementary School were 20:1 in grades K-3 and
28:1 in grades 4 and 5. Although the EBM’s class size reduction recommendations
are smaller than the school’s actual class size numbers, the school complied with its
district’s mandate to keep class sizes at 20:1 for K-3 and 28:1 in grades 4-5. The
district’s philosophy is that reduced teacher load of any amount will have a positive
effect on student achievement. The district took additional dollars from Raindance
Elementary School’s categorical funds to maintain class size, but the amount is
unknown to the school as it was removed from their budget before funds were sent to
the school.
Professional Development
The professional development days are scheduled to take place during the
academic school year. Raindance Elementary School does follow a year-round
track. There are two Thursday afternoons per month that are dedicated to

223
professional development. The students are given early dismissal every Thursday to
accommodate these afternoons for collaboration and professional development. The
first Thursday afternoon of each month is used for grade-level collaboration and
professional development. The third Thursday afternoon of each month is used for
school-wide professional development. This schedule provides teachers with 2 hours
of professional development training every other Thursday or 4 hours per month.
Raindance Elementary School pays the costs for professional development by
fundraising. They have received donations from the Cotsen Foundation and the
Reading First program to cover the costs of substitute teachers for professional
development days.
Professional development has been focused on alignment of teaching to
assessments and achievement, flexible grouping, assessments, thinking maps, and
providing explicit instruction.
There are a total of three funded instructional coaches to support professional
development. There are two reading specialists who go into classrooms to work with
students in addition to providing teachers with support. Their positions are funded
by Raindance Elementary School. A third instructional coach takes on two roles,
one as an English learning coach and the second as a reading specialist. The third
coach is funded by the district and is assigned only to Raindance Elementary School.
Although the principal is not funded as an instructional coach, he delivered all of the
professional development trainings at Raindance Elementary School himself and
therefore provides on-site support to teachers as well.

224
Interventions for Struggling Students
Most of the interventions provided to struggling students are delivered in the
classroom environment during the instructional day. Interventions are provided to
students using two tiers. Tier I involves the use of flexible grouping and guided
reading groups in English-Language Arts. Tier II involves individualized instruction
from one of the reading specialists. The reading specialists work with students in the
regular classroom. Students who require extra help are not pulled out of their
classroom setting to work with the reading specialists.
Approximately 20% of the teachers at Raindance Elementary School
voluntarily provide struggling students intensive tutoring before or after school.
Therefore, the students who receive tutoring from their classroom teachers are
receiving tutoring from fully credentialed teachers. Providing struggling students
with tutoring from fully credentialed tutors is consistent with the Picus-Odden model
and the literature on closing the achievement gap.
Raindance Elementary School did provide students with Intercession, which
consisted of a reading workshop for struggling students. Students engaged in one
hour of silent reading and received one-on-one tutoring from teachers.
Raindance Elementary School does not have an extended day program or a
summer school program. The local YMCA chapter does offer an afterschool
program to students for three hours per day during the school year. One hundred and
sixty students from Raindance Elementary School take advantage of the YMCA
afterschool program.

225
English Learner students receive differentiated instruction during the
instructional day from core curriculum. Evidence-based instructional practices for
EL students are embedded within core classroom instruction. Although there is no
designated time for EL instruction, EL students receive differentiated instruction
throughout the instructional day. There are no specific scheduling strategies in
place; however, the principal stated that the majority of instructional minutes are
spent on English-Language Arts.
Figure E1 illustrates the two-tiered interventions strategy implemented by the
principal and staff at Raindance Elementary School. Interventions for all students
are included in the Tier I plan, where students receive the benefits of quality core
instruction, evidence-based teaching strategies, EL instruction, flexible grouping,
and guided reading. Students who continue to struggle in achieving grade-level
standards receive additional support from Tier II’s interventions, which include
voluntary teacher tutoring, enrollment in Intercession, and work with the school-site
reading specialist.

Figure E1: Hierarchy of Interventions for Struggling Students

Parent Outreach and Community Involvement
A parent liaison is funded by school dollars. The purpose of the parent
liaison is to acquire resources for the school from outside organizations. The parent
liaison also works with teachers and the principal to provide workshops and training
for parents to target specific student needs. Raindance Elementary School also
received support from a local hotel that volunteered space to the school for
professional development trainings.

226

227
Technology
Teacher technology use is evident by the integration of Liquid Crystal
Display (LCD) projectors and ELMO document cameras. Student use of technology
is nonexistent. Due to budget constraints, the school district decided to close the
wireless network for student computer labs and reduce the number of technology
teachers. A teacher at Raindance Elementary School has taken the responsibility for
updating the school website.
Instructional Change Process
The instructional improvement process was initiated and implemented by
Raindance Elementary School’s teachers and former school principal. Professional
Learning Communities (PLCs) were established under the leadership of the former
principal and lead teachers. The PLC at Raindance Elementary School has been
preserved and developed by the current principal and staff. The district provided
flexibility for the changes to occur at the school-level. The motivation behind the
grassroots mission to improve student achievement is evident today in the level of
professionalism and dedication of the current teachers and principal.
Accountability
School site accountability is evident from the principal’s daily classroom
visits, immediate feedback, and discussion with teachers on student data. Teachers
have a school-wide understanding of the non-negotiables of effective teaching based
on the school’s mission. Data analysis, goal setting, evidence of goal achievement,
and plan of action are within the school’s understanding of effective teaching. Each

228
of these components are discussed and implemented daily within the professional
climate at Raindance Elementary School.
School-site accountability also includes teacher evaluation of student
performance using collaborative and structured inquiry techniques. Collaborative
and structured inquiry techniques are embedded within the PLC that is found at
Raindance Elementary School.
Accountability to the district is done through common assessments that are
given three times per academic year and Learning Walks, where school and district
administrators visit classrooms for evidence of quality learning and improved student
performance. In addition, Raindance Elementary School must submit a school plan,
which emphasizes reading instruction, to the district. The school plan is updated
each year to show the school’s implementation of the plan of action, data analysis,
goal setting, and evidence of goal achievement.
Corresponding Resource Use
Table 2. illustrates the actual resource use at Raindance Elementary School
compared to the recommended resource use from the EBM for an elementary school
of its size and students’ needs. The resource use for core academic teachers is
slightly more than the EBM’s recommendations. The resource use for
Librarian/Media Specialist exceeds the recommendations of the EBM, too.
However, overall resource use for the EBM’s categories is significantly below the
recommendations. Raindance Elementary School does allocate its resources to the

229
categories of the EBM, but is significantly under funded that there are not enough
educational dollars available to satisfy the recommendations of the EBM.
Table E2: Raindance Elementary School Resource Use (FTEs and Dollars)
Staffing
Category
Picus-Odden
EBM
Actual Resource
Use
Comparison between Resource Use and
EBM
Core Teachers

Specialist and
Elective
Teachers
56

11.2
61

1.0
The resource use for core academic teachers
is 8% more than recommended by the EBM.
The resource use for specialist and elective
teachers is 9% of the recommended use by
the EBM.

Librarian/Media
Specialist
2.0 0.6 The recommended resource use for
Librarians is 70% more than the actual
resource use.
Library/Media
Tech Aides
0 0.2 Resources for a library aide are allocated for
6 hours/week.
Certified
Teacher Tutors
for EL
5.8 1.0 17% of the EBM’s recommended resource
use for certified EL tutors is implemented at
Raindance Elementary School.
Certified
Teacher Tutors
for At-Risk
Students
10.3 1.0 The actual resource use for certified tutors
for At-Risk students is about 90% less than
the resource use recommended by the EBM.
Special
Education
Teachers
7.2 1.0 The actual resource uses for special
education teachers is approximately 14% of
the recommendation of the EBM.
Special
Education Aides
0 0
Gifted and
Talented
Teachers
0 0
Extended Day 8.5 0 There are no resources allocated for an
extended day program.
Summer School 8.5 0 There are no resources allocated for a
summer school program.
Total # of
Professional
Development
Days
10.0 4.0 Resource use for professional development
days is 60% less than the recommendation of
the EBM.
Instructional
Facilitators
5.0 3.0 The resource use for instructional facilitators
is 60% of the recommended number by the
EBM.
Funds for
Substitutes
5.0 3.64 The resource use for substitutes is 72% of
the recommendation made by the EBM.
Instructional
Aides
4.3 0 There are no resources allocated for
instructional aides
Counselors 2.0 1.0 50% of the EBM’s recommendation is
implemented at Raindance Elementary
School for counselors.
Nurses 1.0 1.0 100% of the EBM’s recommendation is
implemented at Raindance Elementary
School.

230
Table E2, Continued
Social Workers 1.0 0 There are no resources allocated for
social workers.
Psychologists 1.0 0 There are no resources allocated for
psychologists.
Speech/OT/PT 1.0 1.0 100% of the EBM’s recommendation is
implemented at Raindance Elementary
School.
Health
Assistant,
Principal,
Assistant
Principal,
Secretary,
Clerical
10.3 5.0
Principal 1.0
Assistant Principal
1.0
Secretary 1.0
Clerical 2.0
The resource use for principal, health
assistant, assistant principal, secretary,
and clerical positions is 50% less than
the EBM’s recommendations

Lessons Learned
1. The improvement in student achievement would not have been possible without
the setting of high expectations and goals. It is important for schools to identify
what their students need to be able to do and to value their students enough to set
significant high expectations for their achievement.
2. Improving student achievement required appropriate and effective instructional
materials and curriculum that are aligned to student goals and the school’s mission.
3. Raindance Elementary School chose to align assessments to curriculum, student
goals, and California State standards. The school staff also implemented data from
the student assessments to guide instruction and monitor student achievement.
4. Teachers relied on evidence-based practices to effectively meet the needs of their
students. Evidence-based teaching strategies for EL students were implemented
throughout each instructional day to provide explicit instruction.
5. Working as a PLC was critical to the maintenance and development of a
supportive and collaborative teaching staff. Teacher camaraderie is used to support
professional development and produce effective classroom instruction.

231
6. School-wide accountability is critical to the development of effective classroom
instruction and improvement of student achievement. The current principal is
significant to the accountability culture at Raindance Elementary School. The
teachers rely on the principal to take full charge of the school-wide accountability
movement. Although the district does provide some accountability, most of the
accountability that impacts classroom instruction happens at the school level.
7. Core instruction has provided students with high expectations, quality curriculum,
and a strong content foundation. Core instruction was used to differentiate
instruction for students and provide EL instruction for the school’s significant
number of EL students.
8. The tiered system at Raindance Elementary School has provided struggling
students with extra support. Students who have needed extra support from the
reading specialists have received additional support within the context of their
regular classroom. Participating in the core instructional classroom for the full
school day has exposed struggling students to the full content of the regular
classroom, maintain high expectations, and provided them with adequate support to
achieve grade-level standards.
9. The previous and current administrators have been instrumental in providing
instructional leadership for the teaching staff. The mission of Raindance Elementary
School facilitates the school-wide understanding of effective teaching. Lead teachers
on staff also helped to provide additional instructional leadership that is aligned to
the school mission and leadership of the administration.

232
10. Raindance Elementary School has produced increased student performance by a
motivated and caring teaching staff. Students within this “lowest of the low-income”
community are supported by the relationships that are fostered with teachers at
school.
Implications
The Raindance Elementary School principal stated that access to funds for
professional development is necessary for continued student achievement.
Additional professional development would create more changes in instructional
practice, give teachers the opportunity to build effective lenses for high quality
teaching, develop appropriate pacing and interventions for all students, develop
strong discipline, establish high expectations, and foster consistent collaborative
experiences. The principal further stated that each of these factors would cohesively
produce significant improvements in student achievement.
Although Raindance Elementary school is gifted with a motivated and caring
teaching staff, much of the instructional leadership and accountability is provided by
the school administrator. Developing the instructional leadership and accountability
capacity of the teaching staff is vital to the PLC approach. Teachers will continue
the improvement of student achievement if they are given more accountability and
instructional leadership responsibilities. True PLCs continue to grow even with
changes in school leadership.
Aside from the consistency in evidence-based classroom instruction, support
for struggling students does seem varied at Raindance Elementary School. Perhaps,

233
student would produce more of an increase in their achievement if the school
established more interventions for struggling students. Currently, a percentage of the
students receive supplemental tutoring from teachers and attend the extended day
YMCA program. More struggling students would benefit from consistent tutoring
and support from an extended day program. Raindance Elementary School could
find a way to help more students receive the benefits of these interventions.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Schools aim to achieve high student performance outcomes that were never expected by society, government leaders, and many education professionals in the United States. They must educate students to achieve grade-level standards to proficient or advanced levels. Schools must achieve this goal with limited financial resources. California’s public schools have been under-funded for decades. They now aim to achieve high standards of student performance with additional reductions made to their school budgets.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Better is as better does: resource allocation in high performing schools

PDF

The open enrollment of advanced placement classes as a means for increasing student achievement at the high school level

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: an examination of an academic & financial plan used to allocate resources to strategies that promote student achievement in Hawaii

PDF

How improving schools allocate resources: a case study of successful schools in one southern California urban school district

PDF

Resource allocation and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California with budget reductions

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools

PDF

Resource allocation and instructional improvement strategies in rural single-school elementary districts

Asset Metadata

Creator Hargrove, Sonaleena Patnaik (author)

Core Title School-level resource allocation practices in elementary schools to increase student achievement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 01/26/2011

Defense Date 12/14/2010

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

Tag adequacy models,budget cuts,doubling student performance,educational adequacy funding models,increasing student achievement,instructional program improvement,OAI-PMH Harvest,school funding,school resource allocation,school resource use,school revenue

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email patnaik@usc.edu,sonaleena@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3628

Unique identifier UC1151857

Identifier etd-Hargrove-4310 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-439969 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3628 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Hargrove-4310.pdf

Dmrecord 439969

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hargrove, Sonaleena Patnaik

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