University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EVIDENCE-BASED RESOURCE ALLOCATION MODEL TO IMPROVE STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF THREE HIGH SCHOOLS

by

Steven Christopher McLaughlin

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 Steven Christopher McLaughlin

ii

DEDICATION
“Change the World by Inspiring Others”
This dissertation is dedicated to all of those who inspired me along the way. Only
through an intricate pattern of life experiences and relationships have I been able to
accomplish anything, and for that I am eternally grateful. To my parents, you have
inspired in me to chase my dreams and appreciate life’s unexpected turns. To my
grandparents, you have inspired me to be compassionate, charitable, and always remain
young at heart. To my wife, through your love, commitment, and passion you have
inspired me to stretch the unlimited potential of who a person can be. To my daughter,
you have inspired me to see miracles and magic in the subtly of moments. To my
brother, you have inspired me to inspire others.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to first acknowledge, Dr. Lawrence O. Picus for accepting me into this
cohort study a few weeks late, but without hesitation. Dr. Picus, your spirit and
confidence in us all to complete the task was unwavering and inspirational. I sincerely
appreciate your perspective on how things were, are, and should be in the world of public
school finance in order to best serve all children. Next, I would like to thank and
acknowledge the other members of my dissertation committee Dr. Nelson and Dr.
Hentschke for your time, feedback, and commitment to all of the members of the O.C.
Cohort. Your service summons us all to give back to future USC doctoral students.
Thank you to the three principals that participated in the study. In the complex world of
high school leadership, there are not three finer, more committed, and student centered
individuals. To my professional mentors for your words of wisdom along the way: Mary
Bess Holloway – “You don’t have to be in a classroom to be a great teacher”, Dr. Chuck
Hinman – too many to write down, so “It is what it is”, and Dr. Jeffrey Hubbard “Change
on a macro scale.” To my colleague and friend Dr. Gloria Duncan, thank you for
embarking on this dissertation journey with me, congratulations to you on seeing it
through. Finally, to the O.C. Cohort for starting this process, supporting each other, and
seeing it to the finish for all of the right reasons. I am humbled by who you are, what you
have shared, and all that you will accomplish.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
Chapter 1 – Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 5
Importance of the Study 6
Methodology 7
Limitations and Delimitations 8
Definitions 8
Chapter 2 – Literature Review 14
California School Funding 14
Adequecy 22
Successful School Reforms 28
Evidence Base Model 32
Summary 40
Chapter 3 – Methodology 41
Research Questions 41
Design and Sample and Population 42
Data Collection 46
Data Analysis 48
Summary 48
Chapter 4 – Results 49
Summary of Schools' Characteristics and Performance 49
Instructional Improvement Strategies 54
School Resource Indicators and Use 63
Changes in Response to Budget Crisis 73
Summary of Results 74

v

Chapter 5 – Discussion 75
Summary of Findings 76
Implications for Policy and Practice 84
Recommendations for Future Research 88
Conclusion 90
References 92
Appendices 96
Appendix A – IRB Approval 96
Appendix B – Quantative Data Collection Protocol 97
Appendix C – Data Collection Protocols 108
Appendix D – Qualatative Data Collection Protocol 114
Appendix E – Open Ended Collection Protocol 116
Appendix F – Data Collection Codebook 118
Appendix G – Case Studies 129
Dresden High School 129
South Crest High School 152
South Jasper High School 174

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.5: Recommended Adequate Resources for a Prototypical High School 34
Table 3.1: Southland School District 2007 – 2010 API Scores 44
Table 3.2: Sample Schools 2007 – 2010 API 45
Table 3.3: Sample Schools Dropped from Study 45
Table 4.1: Characteristic of Participating Schools 2009 – 2010 51
Table 4.2: CAHSEE First Attempt English Pass Rates (2010) 54
Table 4.3: CAHSEE First Attempt Math Pass Rates (2010) 54
Table 4.4: Average Case Study Evidence-Based Model Resource 63
Use Comparison
Table 4.5: Length of School Days, Instructional Time, and Instructional Days 66
Table 4.6: Sample Weekly Schedule 66

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: K-12 Proposition 98 Funding from 2007-2010 19
Figure 2.2: 2008-09 Revenues for K-12 Education 20
Figure 2.3: How Resources are Distributed in California’s 21
School Finance System
Figure 2.4: Evidence-Based Model 33
Figure 4.1: Percentage of Ethnic Breakdown 2009 – 2010 51
Figure 4.2: Southland Unified API Compared to CA 2006 – 2010 52
Figure 4.3: API Scores for Study High Schools 2006 – 2010 53

viii

ABSTRACT
Public schools within California continue to struggle with meeting state and
national accountability standards, despite recent reductions in funding and fewer
resources. This study used a purposeful sample of three large suburban high schools and
analyzed how each of them applied site level resources to meet the overall instructional
vision not only with reduced resource, but leadership change at the superintendent level,
and political turmoil within the school board. Each of the three schools was analyzed
based Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, and the
Evidence-Based resource allocation model (EBM) developed by Odden and Picus (2008).
The research was conducted through a multi-methods approach of principal interviews,
site level resource allocation data, and overall student achievement on state and national
tests. The findings indicate fewer site level resources than recommended by the EBM
which contributed to fewer applications of Odden’s (2009) strategies. However, the
findings also support the development of high performing teacher lead teams, using
common formative assessment data, to withstand political and budgetary changes in order
to improve student learning.

1

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
During the 2009 – 2010 fiscal year, the California legislature cut $6.1 billion from
K-12 and community college education funding. This action followed several billion
dollars in reduced funding from the previous year. School districts across the state dealt
with this financial crisis in a variety of ways including teacher lay-offs, increased class
sizes, and a reduction in extracurricular programs. For the 2010 – 2011 school year, it is
projected that K-12 education in California will again see educational funding decline;
and once again schools and colleges will be forced to make difficult decisions about
personnel and programs while continuing to maintain high academic rigor and meeting
state and federal accountability requirements. Even in times of under-funding, public
schools within California must continue to meet accountability standards as outlined by
the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation and state Academic Performance
Index (API). Many educational leaders believe they are again in the very difficult
position of doing “more with less.”
Through a complicated funding system, K-12 public schools in California draw
income primarily from local property taxes and state revenue (EdSource, 2009).
According to Edsource (2009) the breakdown in funding is approximately 10% from the
federal government, 60% from state income, sales, and special taxes, 23% from local
property taxes, less than 2% from the state lottery, and approximately 6% from
miscellaneous local revenue. During positive fiscal years, this formula allows for large
injections of revenue to local school districts, thus providing additional resources such as

2

staff and instructional materials. However, as demonstrated by the most recent economic
crisis, this formula has proven to be volatile and unpredictable. Further complicating
matters, voters in the state limited local agencies from adding additional revenue with the
passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 (Timar, 2006). Within this funding system, even
diligent school districts with the foresight to maintain large cash reserves find it more and
more difficult to maintain the same levels of services to students and families. Many
areas of reductions are being made through the release of teachers and support providers,
increased class sizes, and the reduction of instructional supplies and programs.
Over the past 30 years, the creation of California’s funding model has been a
combination of political actions within the state legislature, court rulings, and public
voter initiatives. Until the early 1970’s much of the funding for schools came primarily
from local property taxes (Kirst, 2006), and it became apparent that there was a large
variance in the amount of money available to educate students. In an effort to provide
equity to public education, the California Supreme Court ruled in Serrano v. Priest
(1971) that funding was inequitable across districts and that over time school districts
must equalize financial support. However, before the legislature could fully implement
an equity funding model based on Serrano, voters in 1978 went to the polls and passed
Proposition 13, placing a limit on local property taxes and restricting funding to schools.
According to Timar (2006), these sweeping changes began a process of placing
more funding control into the hands of the state government while limiting it at the local
levels. As a response, California voters once again passed educational finance reform in

3

1998 with the approval of Proposition 98. At the most basic level, Prop 98 was intended
to enact a constitutional mandate to protect public education at the K – 12 and
community college levels by providing a minimum funding commitment of 40% of the
state budget while providing a predictable funding model to school districts (Timar,
2006). Instead, what California is now left with is an overcomplicated school finance
system that must legally ensure equitable resource allocations despite having limits on
access to revenue and a state mandate on minimum funding levels.
Even with an adequate funding model, the job of educating California’s students
is growing more difficult. Presenting an even greater challenge for educators in
California is how to continue to meet increasing federal and state accountability standards
despite monetary reductions and per pupil funding that trails the national average
(EdSource, 2007). In 2002, the federal government passed the reauthorization of the
Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in the form of No Child Left Behind
(NCLB). Based on four main principles of accountability for results, parental choice,
increased local control and flexibility, and the utilization of research-based decision
making; NCLB is attempting to ensure all students meet proficiency in math and English
by 2014. These federal requirements are in addition to California’s own accountability
system based on statewide content standards tested in the spring of each academic year.
Is California providing an adequate education to all of its students? This question,
rooted in the landmark Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education (1954),
highlights the debate around the overall funding model in the state and whether it is

4

functional enough to meet the needs of all students. Up until the 1990’s this simply
meant ensuring that all of the money was distributed equally among school districts,
regardless of the property tax base (Odden & Picus, 2008). Over the last thirty years in
the United States, adequacy lawsuits have increased (Hanushek, 2006), inviting new legal
rulings while increasing the need for states to change the way they support education.
The four main types of educational adequacy models include the successful
district approach, cost function approach, professional judgment approach, and evidence-
based approach (Odden, 2003). Within the successful district approach, per pupil
funding is matched to the level of identified school districts that meet high student
performance benchmarks and adjusted based on some district characteristics such as
students in poverty. The cost function approach offers funding estimates of appropriate
levels of revenue based on the characteristics of the school districts and the students
being served. The professional judgment approach utilizes a set of criteria established by
educators to determine funding levels for schools. Finally, the evidence-based model
identifies research-supported education strategies and determines the adequate financial
support necessary. All of these models call for increased funding support in order to
work. The difficulty for California is financial support for the public school system
continues to be reduced, while demands for accountability continue to rise.
How then can educators increase student achievement to meet state and federal
expectations while funds continue to be reduced? More often than not, the response to
school improvement questions such as this is to either seek out additional money or to

5

simply do “more with less.” Unfortunately because of diverse needs and changing
student populations, working harder and longer will not be enough to ensure high student
outcomes for all. Instead, another answer lies in identifying research-based, educational
best practices through an adequacy model of school funding, or rather, doing “better with
different.”
Statement of the Problem
According to the state constitution, California is required to have a completed
budget by the start of the first day of July. As of July 1, 2010, the state legislature placed
a legal “hold” on the legislative clock to June 30, 2010 at 11:59 p.m., stalling the
adoption of the budget. Once again for public education funding, the only thing
predictable about the 2010 – 2011 fiscal year is a continuance of uncertainty and
anticipated under-funding and inadequate resources. As demonstrated in a 2007 study
conducted by EdSource, California from 1994-2004 showed significantly less student
funding and in 2004 spent $7637 per student compared to the national average of $8310.
With an anticipated further reduction in education funding (EdSource, 2010) educational
leaders will be forced to stretch every dollar even further to boost student achievement.
Without proper knowledge of how each dollar directly can support student learning, the
misapplication of resources is a luxury no educational leader can afford.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to apply the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2008) to analyze resource allocations at the school level. Through the application of the

6

model, this research will build upon data collected by previous similar USC doctoral
cohorts to better understand the linkage between student learning and the allocation of
resources. The knowledge obtained from this study will be used to assist administrators
at both the site and school district levels to make more informed decisions when
allocating money and personnel as well as implementing program design.
Research Questions
This study will address the following research questions:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at
the school level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the
school’s instructional improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in
response to recent budget adjustments, including overall funding
reductions and changes in the use of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the schools aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based
or other Model?
Importance of the Study
In March of 2010, California State Superintendent Jack O’Connell announced
there was a 17% increase in school districts that may not be able to meet the state
required financial obligations (EDBrief, 2010). The intended purpose of O’Connell’s

7

remarks was to highlight the additional $17 billion in cuts made to the state’s education
budget over the past two years. As we approach a new school year, site leaders
throughout California are expected to continue to develop instructional programs that
meet the diverse needs of all their students. However, many are scrambling without an
effective road map to ensure that each dollar is maximized to improve student learning.
This study utilized a case study approach to analyze how three large suburban
high schools, despite significant budget cuts, political turmoil, and inconsistent leadership
at the district -level, were able to improve overall student achievement at their sites. The
Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) was utilized to determine how each
school in the study was aligned or misaligned to the model. The study, in collaboration
with the data collected by the other eleven members of the class of 2011 dissertation
cohort, will provide governing boards, educational leaders, and principals with a better
understanding of how a research-based approach to allocating resources to maximize
student learning might be implemented, even in times of fiscal constraint.
Methodology
This study utilized the Evidence-Based adequacy model created by Odden and
Picus (2008) to compare the various ways site principals allocated resources to help
understand if there was a link between financial commitments and student achievement
growth. Quantitative data were collected utilizing information obtained through pre-
interview documents provided to the site administrator and site information on the
California Department of Education website. Pre-interview questions included specific

8

questions on student population, staffing allocations, instructional minutes, funding
allocations, professional development, number of counselors, number of administrators,
and class size (See Appendix G). In addition, individual longitudinal school achievement
data were compiled from the California Department of Education website, including API
and CST scores. Additionally, each school was analyzed for alternative monetary
support through categorical funds, education foundations, and donations directly to the
school. Finally, the three individual case studies elucidated each principal’s instructional
vision for his/her site and whether the funds were used to support that vision.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are a number of limitations and delimitations to this study. One limitation
to the study is the number of schools analyzed. Limited funding and access allowed the
analysis of only three comprehensive high schools located in a single school district in
Southern California. Because of the size and regional location of the sample, the findings
may not be generalizable to other schools. Finally, there is an assumption within the
model of site-level control of district funds which may not be the case in some schools.
Because of the limited resources available to schools within California during the 2009-
2010 school year, many schools may not have had the opportunity to make many
financial decisions regarding site-level resource allocations.
Definitions
1. Academic Performance Index (API): A number designated by the California
Department of Education (2009b) that ranges from 200 to 1000 and is calculated

9

from student results on statewide assessments. California has set a target score of
800 for all schools to meet, and those that do not achieve a score of 800 are
required to meet annual growth targets set forth by the state.
2. Add-ons: A funding source that is typically considered as adding to the Local
Education Agency’s (LEA) general purpose revenue outside of local property
taxes and state aid (Timar, 2006).
3. Adequacy: Framed and interpreted within each individual state constitution,
adequate educational funding is defined as the level of funding that would allow
each LEA to provide a range of instructional strategies and educational programs
so that each student is afforded an equal opportunity to achieve to the state’s
education performance standards (Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus,
2008).
4. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A report required by the federal No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 and used to measure how well individual schools
and districts are doing in meeting the following requirements: (a) student
participation rates on statewide tests; (b) percentage of students scoring at the
proficient level or above in English-language arts and mathematics on statewide
tests; (c) in California only, API growth; and (d) graduation rate (California
Department of Education, 2009b).
5. Base Revenue Limits: The amount of general purpose funding per ADA that a
LEA receives in state aid and local property taxes to pay for the basic cost of

10

educating a student regardless of special classifications or categories (EdSource,
2009a). In California the base revenue limit equals the state aid to the LEA + local
property tax collected by the LEA (Timar, 2006).
6. Brown v. Board of Education (1954): A landmark legal decision by the United
States Supreme Court that declared state laws establishing separate schools based
on race unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
7. California Standards Tests (CSTs): A series of tests that measure student
achievement of California’s content standards in the areas of English-language
arts, mathematics, science, and history-social sciences (California Department of
Education, 2009a).
8. Categorical Funding: Funds that are targeted to support specific groups and/or
class of students, such as students with special needs, low-income, or English
learners. There are four types of categorically funded programs: entitlement,
incentive, discretionary grants, and mandated cost reimbursement (Timar, 2006).
9. English Language Learner (ELL): Indicates a person who has a first language
other than English and is in the process of acquiring English.
10. Equity: Within education, the term is used to measure (1) horizontal equity, or the
equal access of education from individual to individual; and (2) vertical equity, or
the appropriate treatment of each individual based on their his or her needs (Bhatt
& Wraight, 2009).

11

11. Evidence-Based Model: An educational funding approach based on identifying
individual, school-based programs and educational strategies that research has
shown to improve student learning (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
12. Excess Taxes: Considered an add-on in California, LEAs are allowed to keep any
excess taxes that they generate beyond their revenue limits. Excess taxes are
calculated by determining the difference between a LEA’s revenue limit and
property tax revenues (Timar, 2006).
13. Expenditures: For elementary and secondary schools, all charges incurred , both
paid and unpaid and debt, applied to the current fiscal year (National Center for
Edcuation Statistics, 2010a). Expenditures types include current expenditures,
instructional expenditures, and expenditures per student.
14. General Purpose Funding: (Timar, 2006). In California, general purpose funding
equals the base revenue limits + revenue limit add-ons + excess local property
taxes.
15. Local Education Agency (LEA): An educational agency at the local governmental
level that operates schools or contracts for educational services. LEAs can be as
small as single school districts and as large as county offices of education.
16. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): A national standardized
assessment sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education since 1969 in an
attempt to measure and compare student achievement across the nation or against
other states (National Center for Edcuation Statistics, 2010b).

12

17. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002: An earlier version referred to as the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), affects education from
kindergarten through high school by (a) requiring accountability for results in
schools, (b) providing more choices for parents, (c) giving greater local control
and flexibility, and (c) emphasizing adoption of evidence-based practices.
18. Program Improvement (PI): A formal designation required under NCLB (2002)
for Title I funded LEAs and schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive
years (California Department of Education, 2009c). While a LEA or school is
under PI status, they are obligated to implement certain federal and state
requirements.
19. Proposition 13: Enacted in 1978 by California voters, the proposition amended the
California Constitution and resulted in a 1% cap on property tax rates as well as
requiring a two-thirds majority vote in both legislative houses for any future tax
rates.
20. Proposition 98: Voted into law by California voters and also known as the
Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act, amended the
California constitution to mandate a minimum level of K-14 education spending
based on a three-pronged test.
21. Rodriguez v. San Antonio (1973): A pivotal case heard by the United States
Supreme Court that determined that Texas’ school-financing system based on
local property taxes did not violate the equal protection clause. The ruling further

13

clarified that education is not a fundamental right under the United States
Constitution but was a responsibility left to the states under the Tenth
Amendment.
22. Serrano v. Priest I, II, III (1971; 1976; 1977): A series of three cases brought
forth to the California Supreme Court that challenged the state’s public education
funding model based on the equal protection clause of the United States
Constitution.
23. Socio-economic Status (SES): A measure of an individual’s or family's relative
economic and social ranking (National Center for Edcuation Statistics, 2010a)
24. Title I: A federal program that provides financial assistance to LEAs and schools
with high numbers and percentages of poor children in order to help all children
meet state-adopted academic standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
Dissertation Organization
The following represents an organizational outline for this study. Chapter Two
provides a look at the research on the California funding model, educational adequacy,
successful school reforms, and the Evidence-Based funding model. Chapter Three
outlines the multiple-methods research methodology, including a description of the
samples used in the study. Chapter Four presents the findings from the three case studies
(See Appendix G) and quantitative data collected. Finally, Chapter Five details a
discussion of the findings and makes recommendations future research.

14

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
In 2010, President Barrack Obama announced the most recent version of the
federal government’s national education policy called Race to the Top. Within this new
legislation billions of dollars became available to state governments to induce them to
make dramatic changes in such areas as teacher accountability, the creation of student
data systems, and a potential move towards national content standards. During a time in
which many state governments are forced to reduce educational funding within their own
budgets, the government is attempting to effect major change in the educational systems
throughout the United States.
However, one wonders if the promise of more money, in addition to modified
systems, will be enough to improve student achievement? This chapter provides an
overview of the literature surrounding 1) California School Funding, 2) Adequacy, 3)
Successful School Strategies, and 4) the Evidence-Based Resource Allocation Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008).
California School Funding
Because of the complex evolutionary history of school funding within California,
the state has moved away from local revenue streams seen prior to 1968 when education
dollars were primarily drawn from local property taxes (60%), state revenues (35%),
and federal funds (5%) (Timar, 2004) to more reliance on state and federal funding. This
transition was directly related to the outcomes of the court case Serrano v. Priest (1971).
Also impacting the change was the passage of state Constitutional amendments

15

embedded in Propositions 13 and 98. Ultimately these decisions made by the courts and
voters of California have drawn financial control away from the local school agencies
and centralized it in the state legislature (Kirst, 2006).
Serrano v. Priest (1971)
Prior to 1968, school districts received most of their revenues from local property
taxes. There were, however, large discrepancies in the assessed property value per pupil
among districts across the state which lead to inequitable educational funding (Timar,
2004). The data showed that regardless of the number of students within a school
district, some had significantly more per pupil funding dollars than others (Timar, 2004).
This led to the California Supreme Court decision of Serrano v. Priest (1971) which
found the state funding system violated state and federal equal rights laws. The ruling in
the Serrano case declared that there were significant inequities in funding across the state
and that all schools must be equalized to within $100 of per pupil spending through the
general fund allocations (Timar, 2006).
Even with the court rulings of the original decision in Serrano I (1971) and the
subsequent Serrano II (1974) ruling, state dollars for school districts continued to be
provided through two separate revenue streams--the general fund and categorical funds.
The courts decided not to include categorical funding because of the specific purpose and
design of those funds was to help targeted populations of students. The courts did,
however, equalize districts within general funding allocations by 1983 (ED Source,
2009). Districts continue to be “Serrano-ized,” and in 2008-2009, the state legislature

16

changed to the equalization formula to within $450 per student to adjust for inflation (ED
Source, 2009).
Because of the equalization efforts resulting from the Serrano rulings and
legislative adjustments, by 1991-1992 California ranked 10
th
among the 50 states in
creating equitable student funding (Grubb, Goe, & Huerta, 2004). However, as described
by Grubb et. al. (2004), equity concerns are constantly changing, and there is no direct
connection between the equalization of resources and instructional improvements. In
addition, there is still significant variance of spending within public schools in California
despite the legal requirements of Serrano (Loeb, Bryk, & Hanushek, 2007).
Prop 13 (1978)
In 1978, the voters of California passed Proposition 13, creating a significant
change in how property tax revenues would be collected throughout the state (Lipson &
Lavin, 1980). The proposition amended the California Constitution to limit property
taxes to one percent of assessed value and limited assessments of current home owners to
1975-1976 levels with a maximum of a 2% annual increase, while new home purchases
would be taxed at 1% of the market value (Timar, 2006). The outcome of the vote was
overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition, with 65% of the voters favoring its passage
(Lipson & Lavin, 1980).
The immediate effect on the education system in California necessitated the
development of new state funding support to help districts make up for lost revenue from
local property values while still staying compliant with the equalization requirements

17

under Serrano, also known as the squeeze formula (Timar, 2006). The squeeze formula
was the state’s attempt to be compliant by offering additional funding to low wealth
district (Timar, 2006). To assist with the transition, the state allocated $2 billion of its
then budget surplus, softening the landing at least initially for schools (Lipson & Lavin,
1980). Local agencies were now more reliant on state control and financial support, and
there was less of a link between local property taxes and schools (ED Source, 2009).
School systems had to rely more than ever on state funding sources for general fund
revenue, making them susceptible to whatever year-to-year shifts occurred (ED Source,
2009).
Proposition 98
The passage of Proposition 98 by California voters in 1988 was supposed to give
the state a constitutionally protected and predictable funding formula for both K-12 and
community college education (Timar, 2006). At its most fundamental, this enabled
education funding to be guaranteed at the amount of the previous year, with potential
adjustments based on state revenues (ED Source, 2009). During each year’s state budget,
Timar (2006) describes the following three tests be applied:
1. K-14 education funded at least 39% of the general fund tax revenue.
2. At a minimum, state and local funding keep pace with ADA growth
and economic growth.
3. Created in 1990 by Prop 111, increases funding by growth in
attendance and per capita General Fund Revenues.

18

In addition, the state also created what is referred to as a maintenance factor for the years
in which Proposition 98 is not fully funded in the current year. The maintenance factor is
a formula designed to essentially repay education funds in future state budgets, with
interest, if the state is unable to fully fund using the previously stated tests (Timar, 2006).
In times of robust economic growth and increased revenue to the state,
Proposition 98 has proven to be successful in increasing revenue to public education.
This was evident in 1996-1997 when the formula produced for California a $1.5 billion
surplus. With his recommendation and subsequent approval by the state legislature, then-
governor Pete Wilson decided to allocate those dollars towards class size reduction
programs at the K – 3 grade levels (ED Source, 2000). However, when overall revenue
to the state does not increase, the formula may necessitate the state legislature suspend
Proposition 98 funding as was seen in the 2008-2009 budget. As a result of the
suspension, the legislature was able to help close the state’s overall budget deficit by
taking $3 billion from education funding for that year (ED Source, 2010). As is detailed
in Figure 2.1 (EdSource, 2009) from 2007-2010 the funding levels of Proposition 98 have
been inconsistent at best and do not appear to be leveling off anytime soon.

19

Figure 2.1: K-12 Proposition 98 Funding from 2007-2010

Source: EdSource (2009a)
Impact of Financial Challenges within California on Public Schools
Prior to 1968, much of school district funding came as a result of local revenue:
60% from local property taxes, 35% from state revenues, and 5% from federal funds
(Timar, 2004). However, as shown in Figure 2.2 (ED Source, 2009) almost 60% of
funding for public schools now comes directly from the state.

20

Figure 2.2: 2008-09 Revenues for K-12 Education

Source EdSource (2009a)
Highlighting the evolutionary path of California’s educational funding model, Timar
(2006) describes the current system as being pieced together over the past thirty years
through legislative action, court decisions, and voter mandates. In addition, researchers
argue the equalization created under Serrano has been virtually undone through state
categorical funding not always being aligned with instructional improvement (Kirst,
2006).
According to Kirst (2006), the rise of categorically funded programs comes out of
the 1960’s when state and federal officials began to lose confidence in local school

21

agencies. This led to the implementation of over 100 state and federal categorically
funded programs in California (Kirst, 2006).
Figure 2.3: How Resources are Distributed in California’s School Finance System

Source: EdSource (2009b)
California’s Changing Student Demographics
Complicating matters for California is deciding just how to best spend resources
to support learning for its rapidly growing and diverse student population. EdSource
(2008) reported that not only has California seen above average enrollment growth K-12,
but the student demographics are changing as well. In 2006, 47% of all students were
Latino/Hispanic, while 25% of all students lived with a parent who was not a high school
graduate, and only Texas (51%) had a higher number of students categorized as low-
income compared to California’s 49% (EdSource, 2008). All the while the same

22

EdSource (2008) study showed California’s per pupil funding was at only 87% the
national average, or $758 less per student.
Summary of California School Funding
School funding problems in the state of California do not appear to be getting any
better. In a March, 2010, report by EdBrief, the state superintendent of schools, Jack
O’Connell, announced that there was a 17% increase in school districts that may not be
able to meet their future financial obligations. This report also highlighted that this lack
of fiscal solvency comes on the heels of over $17 billion in cuts made to the education
budget over the previous two years. The next section of this literature review considers
various ways school systems throughout the United States are attempting to allocate
resources through newly developed adequacy models. These efforts signal a divergence
from the equity conversation, to a new conversation and recommendations regarding
adequacy models that are developed to meet the growing accountability demands, while
trying to connect every dollar to student learning.
Adequacy
As a result of state and federal court decisions such as Brown and Serrano, by the
early 1990s many of the states had met most of the court-mandated requirements for
equitable levels of education spending. Despite this achievement, students were still not
performing at acceptable levels (Hanushek, 2006). In addition, the popular 1991 book
Savage Inequalities, by Jonathan Kozol, brought forth a popularized notion that schools
in New York were not equitably meeting the needs of all students. The result was several

23

court cases (Stern, 2006). Despite the hype, courts within New York state dismissed the
equity claim, choosing to look at the “inadequacies” of schools rather than the equality of
funding (Stern, 2006). Several years of adequacy studies ensued, laying the foundation
for the adequacy movement in the United States as people began to look for a scientific
approach to connect monetary resources to student learning (Hanushek & Lindseth,
2009).
The adequacy movement is a relatively new phenomenon within public education,
having only arrived in the early 1990s. However, according to Rebell (2007), there were
25 states whose courts ruled on adequacy litigation with 75% of the plaintiffs prevailing
as the result of little objective information about the amount of resources necessary to
provide students with an adequate education. As with any new system, the adequacy
movement has its detractors as well. Some see the model as politically motivated and not
necessarily connected to student outcomes and believe it should not influence judicial or
legislative decisions (Hanushek, 2006). Regardless of the detractors, the outcome of the
adequacy movement has lead to four prominent models 1) Professional Judgment, 2)
Successful Schools, 3) Cost Function, and 4) Evidence-Based Model (Augenblick,
Meyers & Anderson, 1997)
Professional Judgment
The professional judgment approach as described by Hanushek & Lindseth (2009)
focuses on a panel of professionals brought together to define a “model school.” There
are various designs to these panels, and the outcomes define what the experts believe will

24

be sufficient to adequately educate all students (Rebell, 2007). Panels are asked to not
consider cost in any of the designs, but rather to collaborate about what they believe will
do the job of educating all students. Potential advantages of this approach may be that
the experts are located close to the schools studied and that the model utilizes assessment
outside of test scores (Rebell, 2007). One study conducted by Chambers, Levin, and
Delaney (2007) brought together two professional development panels in California to
design instructional programs to meet the demands of NCLB at the elementary, middle,
and high school levels. The outcomes produced one recommendation that required an
additional 53%, and the other panel recommended 71% more funding than what was
delivered during the 2004-2005 school year. The panels believed the funding levels
would have been sufficient to meet the instructional goals (Chambers, Levin, & Delaney,
2007).
According to Rebell (2007), the disadvantages to the Professional Judgment
model is that they are lacking methodologies with statistical foundations, inconsistent
experts that sit on panels, and there is a potential for political bias among the
representatives. Others also support these claims and are leery of the “dream big”
philosophy, inherent biases of panel members, and the lack of empirical evidence to
support panel decisions (Hanushek & Linsdseth, 2009).
Successful Schools
The Successful Schools approach identifies the most successful schools and
districts within a particular state at meeting designed educational outcomes (Hanushek &

25

Linsdseth, 2009). Originating in Ohio, the model has been applied in nine other states
including Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, South
Dakota, and New York (Rebell, 2007). At the center of the design is the designation of
“success” which is usually determined by the average schools in the district, or mean
scores, and therefore eliminates outliers such as large urban districts (Odden, 2003).
Rebell (2007), however, promotes advantages to the Successful Schools model as being
able to directly link performance to the resources provided, the low costs of the studies,
and the quick turnaround to complete evaluations.
Some argue major disadvantages of this application may lie in a difficult-to-
replicate design and cost based primarily on projections and not student performance
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). In addition, the data produced in Successful School
studies have been questioned regarding reliability since the school systems themselves
are the ones defining the measurements, potentially producing biased results (Rebell,
2007).
Cost Function
The Cost Function approach, also known as “Econometric,” attempts to connect
actual dollars spent to student achievement. The design offers a complex technical and
statistical model in order to provide a more scientific approach to determining
educational adequacy (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Advantages include not only
precise statistical analysis, but also the possibility of easier replication (Ribell, 2007).

26

According to Imazeki (2008), the cost function approach also helps to define the cost of
education through quantifiable data analysis.
Detractors of the Cost Function approach point to the complex formulas and, once
again, unreliability of the data (Ribell, 2007). When parallel studies were conducted
using this model in California, Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) found discrepancies from
one outcome of $1.7 billion dollars to $1.5 trillion dollars in another. They argue that
results such as these should immediately dismiss the use of such a resource allocation
model.
Evidence-Based Model
The Evidence-Based Model, or “State-of-the-Art,” approach determines a
statewide funding model based on a review of the available research on model school
design (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). The heart of the design is focused on expert
analysis and instructional design applied at the school site level (Rebell, 2007). For
example, Odden and Picus (2008) present a design constructed around the model
elementary, middle, and high school. From this foundation they apply instructional
designs such as ratios of teachers, class sizes, and aide support. In addition, the
Evidence-Based methodology creates a cost estimate for other items such as professional
development, counselors, and instructional supplies. The overall concept is an attempt to
deal with the complete range of educational needs at the site level (Rebell, 2007).
As with the other adequacy models, the Evidence-Based design has its decorators
as well. Rebell (2007) claims that one of the disadvantages is potential replication in a

27

variety of areas. Others believe the model is limited conceptually because of a design
made too general that will not translate from state to state. Finally, other opponents
argue that the research cited in the Evidence-Based model is not significant enough to
support its approval by state legislatures and the subsequent disbursement of funds
(Hunushek & Lindseth, 2009).
Summary of the Adequacy Debate
Although relatively new on the scene of educational debate, the Adequacy
conversation has both its supporters and detractors. Taylor, Baker, and Vedlitz (2005)
define adequacy studies as estimating costs of providing adequate education through
empirical methodologies. Baker, et al. (2008) characterize the designs as either “Bottom-
Up” or “Top-Down” analysis. Bottom-Up analysis, they assert, is the creating an amount
of money it would take to build a model school and then applying that amount. Top-
Down analysis, they claim, is determining cost based on observed relationships between
inputs and outputs. They also contend that there is currently no best strategy on how to
determine adequacy and neither model should be applied to provide billions of dollars
because of the limited amount of research done with each model (Baker et al., 2008).
The lack of clarity has led some to argue adequacy models are a waste of money
and simply ignore the notion that student improvement can be attained more cheaply
(Koret Task Force, 2006). Others are concerned that school districts do not know how to
spend the funds they currently have, much less knowing how to apply more money (Roza
& Hill, 2006).

28

Even without consensus among practitioners about any one design, Odden (2003)
believes there ought to be commitment that adequacy models should directly connect to
student achievement. The following section discusses the research about best practice
design and why the Evidence-Based adequacy model is most connected to improving
student achievement.
Successful School Reforms
As a reminder, the Evidence-Based Funding Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) serves
as a framework for this study. In addition, Odden and Archibald’s (2009) Doubling
Student Performance outlines additional support for the evidence-based model. The
authors outline ten steps to improve performance including “1) Understanding the
Performance Problem and Challenge, 2) Set Ambitious Goals, 3) Change the Curriculum
Program and Create a New Instructional Vision, 4) Formative Assessments and Data-
Based Decision Making, 5) Ongoing, Intensive Professional Development, 6) Using
Time Efficiently and Effectively, 7) Extended Learning Time for Struggling Learners, 8)
Collaborative, Professional Culture, 9) Widespread and Distributed Instructional
Leadership, and 10) Professional and Best Practices” (Odden & Archibald, 2009). These
ten strategies will be discussed in this section to serve as a foundation for how best
practice educational design supports the application of the Evidence-Based funding
model (Odden & Picus, 2008).

29

Understanding the Performance Problem and Challenge
Before schools can start to improve student learning outcomes, they must first
understand any student performance problems through a systematic analysis of student
data on state tests, curriculum mapping, and an overall look at programs (Odden &
Archibald, 2009). There must also be a shared expectation for student achievement not
just among the school staff, but with the students and parents with whom they
work.(Resnick, 1995).
Set Ambitious Goals
Goal setting should be shared among all stakeholders including teachers,
administrators, students, and parents (Odden & Archibald, 2009). These student learning
goals should be set very high as to promote equitable standards with the same
expectations for all students (Resnick, 1995). Fundamental to this process is the belief
that all students can learn, and even if the ambitious goals are not met, significant student
learning will still be attained (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
Schools experiencing significant turnarounds in student achievement typically
have instructional staffs that are inquiry minded and intentional in their practice of
improving teaching and learning (Feldman, Lucey, & Fazee, 2003). Teachers at these
schools often have what Bodily (1996) describes as an “unrelenting” focus on producing
results. To achieve such an instructional vision, research by Odden & Archibald (2009)
demonstrated that schools with significant student performance gains took on a complete

30

change in their curricular program. Although each school adopted different programs,
the power of the process united the schools around a central curricular focus and helped
them to share a sense of good instructional practice (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
Formative Assessments and Data-Based Decision Making
While some may argue students are tested too much, Odden & Archibald (2009)
have demonstrated in the schools they studied that more application of ongoing formative
or benchmark assessments helped teachers to modify their instructional programs to
make progress towards better student learning outcomes. Duke (2006) concurs and
promotes data-driven decision making not only to monitor student performance but also
to allocate resources.
Ongoing, Intensive Professional Development
According to Duke (2006), intensive staff development for teachers is
fundamental in schools making dramatic improvements in student performance. Odden
and Archibald (2009) recommend that these efforts be widespread, systematic, and
ongoing. Regardless of whether they are on student-free days, during the school day, or
provided by a hired consultant, all staff development should be focused on school-wide
goals and directly related to student learning outcomes (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
Time allotted within the school day is typically a fixed resource. Therefore,
schools improving student learning outcomes have found a way to increase instructional
time in areas such as reading and math (Duke, 2009). Odden and Archibald (2009)

31

recommend that schools reorganize the time given in the school day to design “protected”
blocks of time specific for core subject area instruction. This sacred time should be free
of any non-instructional disruptions and should utilize instructional programs that
maximize student learning outcomes.
Extended Learning Time for Struggling Learners
When students struggle to learn the core content material, a typical response is to
for schools to “pull-out” students to provide remediation of the material (Odden &
Archibald, 2009). However, as described by Resnick (1995), there is a direct relationship
between the amount of time a student spends on the content and results. Odden and
Archibald (2009) recommend offering double blocks of reading and math during the
school day, along with after-school tutoring and homework support. In addition, many
researchers support the idea of extended time during the summer, not just for
remediation, but for extended learning opportunities (Odden & Archibald, 2009; Resnick,
1995; & Raudenbush, 2009).
Collaborative, Professional Culture
This category also more commonly known as Professional Learning Communities
(PLCs) is important at the school level to empower teachers and administrators to
implement change around a focus on student results and core curricular elements (Bodily,
1996). A study by Newman and Wehlage (1995) supports the notion of a PLC in their
discussion about schools that built organizational capacity within the staff to work as a
unit supported instructional improvements and improved student outcomes. Ultimately

32

this process is driven by the previously outlined steps and is dependent on the entire staff
taking responsibility for the results through an aligned focus on high levels of learning for
all (Odden &Archibald, 2009).
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
Although the principal may most often be referred to as the “instructional leader,”
this step promotes the distributive leadership philosophy that all members of the site and
district should be focused on improved instructional design (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
Although the inquiry should be at the site level, administrators and teachers need to be
trained on how to create consensus around change efforts surrounding student data which
will empower teachers to make effective change (Feldman, Lucey, & Goodrich, 2003).
Professional and Best Practices.
The final step is for teachers, school sites, and districts, to be more receptive to
looking at best practice design outside of their immediate proximity. Educators, rather
than working in isolation, should be encouraged to actively seek out other organizations
achieving results to create a more professional design centered on best practices (Odden
& Archibald, 2009).
The Evidence-Based Funding Model
The Evidence-Based funding model takes into account all of the best practice
instructional designs and recommends resources and the associated dollar amounts
needed to supply the resources in each category (Odden & Picus, 2008). Throughout the
United States there are several examples of states utilizing this model including Arkansas

33

and Wyoming. The chart in figure 2.4 is a representation of the model and will be the
model referenced for the remainder of this section. Although the Evidence-Based model
provides recommendations for elementary, middle, and high schools, because of the
sample of this study, the research is focused on the high school recommendations.
Figure 2.4: Evidence-Based Model
Lawrence O. Picus
Instructional
Materials
Pupil Support:
Parent/Community
Outreach/
Involvement
Gifted
Tutors and pupil support:
1 per 100 at risk
Elem
20%
Middle
20%
High School 33%
The Evidence Based Model:
A Research Driven Approach to Linking Resources to Student Performance
K-3: 15 to 1
4-12: 25 to 1
State and CESAs
District Admin
Site-based Leadership
Teacher
Compensation
ELL
1 per
100
Technology

Source: Odden, Picus, Goetz, Mangan & Fermanich, (2006)
The Evidence-Based model draws much of its merit through scientifically applied
research using randomized assignment to the treatment, statistical analysis to determine
the impact of treatments, and the use of “best practice” design as determined by
comprehensive school and district research studies. From this, Odden and Picus (2008)
recommend through their adequacy model, resource allocations for high schools shown in

34

the following categories in Table 2.5. The model is then adjusted proportionately to the
school size depending on whether a school is larger or smaller than the model’s
recommendation (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Table 2.5: Recommended Adequate Resources for a Prototypical High School
School Element Evidence-Based Model
School Size 600
Class Size 25:1
Instructional Days
200 teacher work days including
10 days for intensive training.
Kindergarten N/A
Administrative Support
Principal 1
School Site Secretary 1.0
School Site Clerical 2.0
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24
Specialist Teachers 8.0 or 33% more
Instructional Facilitators/Mentors 3.0
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students 3.0 or One for every 100 poverty students
Teachers for EL students 1.0 for every 100 EL students
Extended Day 0.60
Summer School 2.5

35

Table 2.5: Recommended Adequate Resources for a Prototypical High School
(Cont.)
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled students 2.5
Severely disabled students 4.0 100% Reimbursement minus federal funds
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel resources and special education personnel
Pupil support staff 1.0 for every 100 poverty students
Non-Instructional Aides 3.0
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 Librarian and 0.0 Library Technician
Resources for gifted students $25/pupil
Technology $250/pupil
Instructional Materials $175/pupil
Student Activities $250/pupil
Professional Development
$100 per pupil for other PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc. not included above

The following is a more detailed description and rationale for each category as
described in the Evidence-Based model (Odden & Picus, 2008).
School Size
Much of the data regarding the most efficient and appropriate school size at the
secondary level is mixed, and there are few studies that show a direct link to the size of
secondary schools compared to the output of student learning (Odden & Picus, 2008).
However, based on professional judgment panels and other research, the recommendation

36

within this model is for high schools to have 600 students. Schools this size will also
draw from evidence of effective class sizes. Further categories will utilize the overall
school size to base staffing allocations.
Class Size
Although there are more conclusive studies about improved student achievement
results and class sizes at the K-3 levels, the Evidence-Based model draws much of its
recommendations from high school reform studies to set the average class sizes for core
subject areas. In the research analyzed, most of the evidence from the reform models
recommends a 25:1 student to teacher ratio to improve student learning outputs. Based
on that ratio and a model high school of 600, the school would have 24.0 FTE of core
academic teachers.
Instructional Days
Throughout the United States, various states have set the minimum number of
instructional days from 173 days to 186, with two states, Idaho and Michigan, setting no
limits (Prendergast, Spradlin, & Palozzi, 2007). When analyzing the relationship to the
loss of instructional days and lost days due to snow, Marcotte’s (2007) research showed a
positive relationship between the number of instructional days and student performance
on the Maryland state assessment. The Evidence-Based model recommends 190
instructional days for students with 10 additional days for professional development.
Administrative Support

37

All successful schools in the research studied by Odden & Picus (2008) contained
a principal. As a result, the model calls for one principal per 600 students. Additionally,
if the school is larger, the authors recommend an additional principal, or co-principals, to
operate in a school-within-a-school approach. The model also offers one assistant
principal per 600 students to handle responsibilities such as student discipline.
Additional resources are then allocated for instructional coaches to support classroom
teachers as well as student activities and athletics.
General Personnel Resources
The model recommends staffing for the overall instructional program during the
school day and extended day programs. The Evidence-Based model bases the staffing on
the research surrounding block schedules of ninety minutes of instructional time to
allocate resources. Since this model is based on a high school of 600 and class sizes of
25:1, core academic teachers (math, English, science, and social studies) would allow for
24 teachers. In addition, the model allows for an additional 33% more or 8.0 FTE of
specialist teachers. These instructors are used to offer specialized classes outside of the
core. These classes allow for additional student enrichment and also provides time for
core teacher collaboration. Finally, the Evidence-Based model recommends 1.0 FTE for
every 200 students or 3.0 instructional facilitators. As supported by the research, the role
of the instructional facilitators is to oversee the instructional program and offer ongoing
professional development in the form of modeling lessons, observing classrooms, and

38

offering teachers feedback. Although the allocation is made as whole FTE, the authors
allow for the units to be divided into partial units among teachers.
Extended Support
Extended support in the Evidence-Based model is provided to each school to offer
additional certificated teachers to assist those students not meeting the performance
standards. The model allocates these resoruces in the areas of tutors, teachers for English
learners (EL), extended-day support, summer school, and special education services.
Tutors are assigned on a one-on-one basis to stuggling learners to maximize the effects.
For high schools, tutors are credentialed teachers and are calculated using 1 per
every 100 struggling learners. For a prototypical school, this could be up to 6.0 FTE;
however, more than likely not all students will be qualified as struggling learners and
therefore the staffing number will be prorated accordingly. Tutors represent additional
instrutional support during the school day.
EL teachers are allocated based on 1 to every 100 English learners, and they are
trained in EL instruction and given specific EL curriculum that includes high levels of
rigor and proper assessments. EL students will also be supported with the other Extended
Support services.
Extended-day teachers are staffed based on a calculation of 50% of the number of
students qualified for the Free-Reduced meal and one teacher per 15 qualified students.
The purpose of extended-day programs is to offer support to struggling learners after the
school day ends. There could be up to an additional two hours of instruction per day.

39

In order to neutralize the effects of long summers with no instruction, the
Evidence-Based model recommends additional instructional time to meet state standards.
The authors call for an eight-week program, with classes size of 15 students to 1 teacher.
Summer school days would consist of six hours and focus on math, reading, or making
up failed courses for high school students. The model also calls for parent involvement
during the summer months. Staffing allocations for summer school is based on 50% of
the number of free and reduced meal students at any given school
Finally, the Evidence-Based model offers alternative solutions to special
education. Indicating that most of the current special education students would benefit
from the previously-stated teacher allocations and program design, there would a 2.5 FTE
dedicated to special education teachers in the areas of mild to moderate disability. The
authors recommend that the entire staff, both special education and general education
teachers, collaborate closely to identify learning deficits and correct them. For the
severly disabled students, the model allocates 4.0 FTE which would be fully reimbursed.
Other Staffing Resources
As an added support to the instructional program, the Evidence-Based model also
allocates additional funds in the areas of subsitute teachers, pupil support personnel,
librarians, adminstrative support personnel, non-instructional aides, technology, gifted
student services, instructional materials, vocational education, and professional
development.

40

Summary
As described in this chapter, school systems are struggling to meet national and
state accountability standards during a time when school funding is decreasing. To
complicate matters further, California has created a complex school funding model that
places it near the low end of the national average in per pupil funding. As an answer,
some states are moving towards adequacy-based funding formulas to make
determinations on multi-billion dollar allocations.
Of the models presented, the Evidence-Based resource allocation model (Odden
& Picus, 2008) draws on the most current research in the field to make specific funding
recommendations based on school size and student demographics. As will be described
in the Chapter 3, this study applies the model to three high schools to determine if there is
a link between resource allocations at the school level and improvements to student
learning.

41

CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLGY
The purpose of this study is to analyze the link between resource allocations at the
school site and improved student achievement using the Evidence-Based Adequacy
Model developed by Odden & Picus (2008). This chapter outlines the research study
questions, design, sample and populations, data collection, and data analysis.
Research Study Questions
In this study both qualitative and quantitative data were gathered to address the
following research questions:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies
at the school level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the
school’s instructional improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in
response to the recent budget adjustments, including overall funding
reductions and changes in the use of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned
with or different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-
Based or other Model?
The data collected were analyzed to provide researchers and practitioners a better
understanding of how schools are utilizing the resources they are provided to improve

42

student achievement. More specifically, the data offer evidence-based recommendations
for more strategic application of resources within large comprehensive high schools.
Design
This study used a multiple-methods approach, utilizing both quantitative and
qualitative data. The main objective of the study was to understand if there was a
connection between the Evidence-Based model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and
improvements in student learning through the analysis of individual case studies. This
study examined longitudinal student achievement data of each school to determine
historical patterns, and more importantly, whether each school was able to sustain growth
during the 2009 – 2010 school year. In addition, the study adds to the body of research
collected by past USC doctoral cohorts and the eleven concurrent studies being
conducted by the 2011 cohort. All of the interview questions and data collected are
aligned with the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and focus on
instructional practices such as curricula, assessments, and intervention programs. A
multiple-methods approach was selected to determine if the link between student
achievement and resource allocation was random or purposeful based on the instructional
vision designed by the site principal.
Sample and Population
Participating high schools were purposely selected using a non-random criterion
based primarily on recent success on state wide standardized test results, as well as a
history of complex issues within the school district in the forms of significant political

43

turmoil and dramatic budget cuts over the past three years. The Southland School
District is located in Southern California and is made up of over 52,000 students in sixty-
one elementary and secondary schools. The district also covers a vast regional area of
over 195 square miles and seven cities. The original design of the study called for the
participation of all six high schools within the Southland Unified School District.
However, as the study progressed, three of schools (Anderson, Crestview, and Trinidad)
dropped out because of time constraints experienced by the principals involved.
Therefore, the final sample for the study consisted of three high schools. All but one of
the three high schools in the study had student populations greater than 2,800, presenting
both complex funding and instructional issues. In addition, what makes the Southland
Unified School District and these schools unique is that during the time of student
achievement growth, there has also been serious political upheaval and significant
district-wide budget reductions.
Over the last three years the Southland School District experienced political
upheavals resulting in a turn-over of three superintendents. There were various reasons
for the changes including one resigning from the job after fewer than thirty days; another
that was terminated. In addition, during the past November, 2010 school board elections,
the community once again supported and was successful in recall attempts of multiple
board members. This was the second recall election of school board members of the
Southland School District in the past two years.

44

To make matter worse, the Southland School District struggled financially, like
all other districts in California, to balance its budget. For the 2009-2010 school year, the
district made over $24 million in cuts with an additional reduction of $34 million
approved for the 2010-2011 school year. To make up for the budgetary gap, the
Southland School District had to increase class sizes K-12, reduce instructional time
through employee furlough days, and reduce salaries at the certificated, classified, and
management levels. In the spring of 2010, during negotiations with the teachers’ union
over salary reductions, the teachers approved and carried out a three-day strike. Despite
it all, as shown in Table 3.1, the Southland School District has been able to raise its
overall API scores for the past four years.
Table 3.1: Southland School District 2007 – 2010 API Scores
Year API
# of Students
Tested
2009-2010 862 38,577
2008-2009 856 38,670
2007-2008 836 38,292
2006-2007 826 38,066

Even during significant distractions and reductions in funding, the high schools
selected for this sample were also able to sustain or improve overall API scores for the
past four years. Table 3.2 displays the standardized test data for the last three testing
years.

45

Table 3.2: Sample Schools 2007 – 2010 API

“Dresden” High School
API Growth
09-10 848 8
08-09 840 15
07-08 825 0
06-07 825 9

“South Crest” High School
API Growth
09-10 820 - 9
08-09 829 12
07-08 817 33
06-07 784 -18

“South Jasper” High School
*School opened in 2007-2008 with 9
th
grade class only.
API Growth
09-10 810 0
08-09 810 62
07-08 748 *
06-07 * *

Table 3.3: Sample Schools Dropped from Study

“Anderson” High School (Dropped Out of Study)
API Growth
09-10 850 - 1
08-09 851 26
07-08 825 5
06-07 820 23

46

Table 3.3: Sample Schools Dropped from Study (Cont.)

“Crestview” High School (Dropped Out of Study)
API Growth
09-10 825 3
08-09 821 9
07-08 812 17
06-07 795 17

“Trinidad” High School (Dropped Out of Study)
API Growth
09-10 878 23
08-09 855 19
07-08 836 21
06-07 815 2

Data Collection
In March of 2010, Dr. Lawrence Picus, led all twelve doctoral cohort members
through one day of training on the instrumentation and data collection methods. Each
cohort member was given a training session manual that included a code book and outline
of the data collection protocols. The training consisted of a comprehensive review of the
data collection protocols including contacting site or district personnel, pre-site visit
questionnaires, Institutional Review Board (IRB) procedures, data collection, interview
questions, and case study write-ups. On this day, Dr. Picus also trained the cohort in how
to input the collected data into an online database created by Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates. The purpose of the training was conducted to maintain consistency in the

47

research process and so all cohort member data may be inputted correctly for future
comparative research.
Quantitative data were collected utilizing information obtained through pre-
interview documents provided to the site level administrator and site information on the
California Department of Education website. Pre-interview questions included specific
questions on student population, staffing allocations, instructional minutes, funding
allocations, professional development, number of counselors, number of administrators,
and class size (See Appendix G). In addition, individual longitudinal school achievement
data were compiled from the California Department of Education website, including API
and CST scores. The information collected was then compared to the Evidence-Based
Model to help determine if there is any a relationship between the spending design and
student achievement.
Qualitative data were collected using open-ended data collection protocols
through individual interviews with each school principal. Interview documents were
provided during the March, 2010 training (See Appendix B). The purpose of the
interviews was to determine the principal’s educational philosophy and how that was
represented in the allocation of site resources. The interviews took approximately two
hours with each principal and were conducted at the various schools. Questions were
open-ended and allowed the principal the opportunity to describe his or her instructional
vision. Areas of focus during the interviews included curriculum and instruction, use of

48

resources, role of the district office, instructional leadership, accountability, and any need
for additional funding resources.
Data Analysis
All of the data collected were inputted into a secure online database created by
Lawrence Picus and Associates. In addition, a case study was written for each school and
included in Appendix G. Each school was analyzed to determine the level of alignment
with the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). Specific areas of analysis
included the background of the school, test scores, other state and federal data, key
elements of the improvement process, overall themes of the improvement process,
alignment or misalignment to the Evidence-Based Model, impact of recent budget
reductions, and impact on the school of increased flexibility in categorical funding.
Additionally, each school was analyzed for alternative monetary support through
categorical funds, education foundations, and donations directly to the school site.
Finally, the three individual case studies helped to identify each principal’s instructional
vision for his or her school and whether the funds were used to support that vision.
Summary
The methodology utilized in this study was created to help determine if a
relationship exists between resource allocations and student achievement at the site level.
Using the Evidence-Based model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a tool, information obtained
from the principals at the sample schools through site visits and case studies is presented
in the next chapter and addresses the four research questions.

49

CHAPTER 4 – RESULTS
The results of the study are presented in this chapter. First, an overview of the
demographics and student performance data is presented. Additionally, resources within
all of the schools are averaged and compared to the Evidence-Based Model. Finally, how
the schools adjusted and responded to the current state budget crisis is described. More
detailed information for each of the schools is provided in Appendix G. The following
research questions are used as a framework for the research and are addressed in this
chapter:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response
to the recent budget adjustments including overall funding reductions and
changes in the use of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resources use strategies used in Odden and Picus’ (2008)
Evidence-Based Model?
Summary of Study Schools’ Characteristics and Performance
Schools were purposely selected because of longitudinal improvement on
statewide standardized test scores despite recent political and financial turmoil at the state

50

and local levels. As high schools within the Southland Unified School District, all
participating schools have seen both financial and instructional support to the school site
decrease. This section provides both the demographic information for each site, as well
as a look at student performance on statewide standardized tests.
Study Schools’ Demographics
Overall student demographics for the Southland Unified School District for the
2009 – 2010 school year included 53,381 students in grades K – 12. The significant sub-
groups by ethnicity within the district included 61% White/Caucasian, 25%
Hispanic/Latino, and 5% Asian. Overall students within special programs included 11%
English Learners (EL), 20% low socio-economically disadvantaged (SED), and 9%
receiving special education services (SPED).
The three high schools in the study averaged 2,650 students per school for the
2009 – 2010 school year, as illustrated in Table 4.1. However, one school, South Jasper,
was only in its third year of existence and did not have a twelfth grade class. All school
maintained relatively similar averages of EL and SED students. Because of the student
demographics none of the schools received federal Title I funding.

51

Table 4.1 – Characteristic of Participating Schools 2009 – 2010
High School Grades Enrollment % SED % EL
Title I
Funding
Dresden 9 – 12 2,991 19% 7% No
South Crest 9 – 12 3,140 21% 7% No
South Jasper 9 – 11 1,513 31% 13% No

A demographic breakdown of the three high schools for the 2009 – 2010 school
year is provided in Figure 4.1. The average percentages of the schools were 29%
Hispanic/Latino, 59% White, and 12% Other. All of the schools have a majority of white
students, whereas South Jasper has the largest percentage of Hispanic students at 39%.
With the exception of South Jasper, due to its limited number of years opened, the other
two have seen increases in Hispanic students over the past ten years, but relatively stable
total enrollments.
Figure 4.1 – Percentage of Ethnic Breakdown 2009 – 2010
24 25
39
63
64
51
13
11 10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Dresden South Crest South Jasper
Other
White
Hispanic

52

Study Schools’ Performance Data
Over the past five years, the Southland Unified School District has experienced sustained
growth in its overall API score from 822 in 2006 to 862 in 2010. As indicated in Figure
4.2, the district maintained approximately 100 points better than the state of California
results for the same time period.

Figure 4.2 – Southland Unified API Compared to CA 2006 – 2010

822
721
826
728
836
741
856
754
862
767
650
700
750
800
850
900
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Southland
CA

As seen in Figure 4.3 the schools within the study also saw overall API growth
during the same five-, or in the case of South Jasper three-, year period. Dresden’s API
rose 32 points, South Crest’s 18 points, and South Jasper’s 62. While all significant
subgroups at each high school had overall API growth, the largest increases were seen
with the Hispanic/Latino students with an average of 81 points among the three schools.
EL students saw the least amount of improvement at all schools.

53

Figure 4.3 – API Scores for Study High Schools 2006 – 2010
816
802
825
784
825
817
748
840
829
810
848
820
810
650
700
750
800
850
900
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Dresden
South Coast
South Jasper

The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) became a graduation
requirement of all students with the graduating class of 2006. The exam sets minimum
grade level competencies and is given for the first time to all tenth grade students in
March. First attempt pass rates for Dresden, South Crest, and South Jasper for the 2010
school year are shown in both Tables 4.2 and 4.3. Overall pass rates for all schools hover
around 90% for both English and Math. Among significant subgroups, once again EL
students continue to lag behind. Additionally, SPED students at all of the sites do not see
the same success as other subgroups.

54

Table 4.2 – CAHSEE First Attempt English Pass Rates (2010)
First Attempt CAHSEE Math
Pass Rates by Sub Groups
2007 – 2010
Dresden

Total = 644
South Crest

Total = 735
South Jasper

Total = 470
All 10
th
Grade Students 92% 89% 91%
Hispanic/Latino 78% 77% 80%
White/Caucasian 97% 94% 97%
English Learners 33% 28% 46%
Low SES 77% 72% 76%
Special Education 52% 51% 44%

Table 4.3 – CAHSEE First Attempt Math Pass Rates (2010)
First Attempt CAHSEE Math
Pass Rates by Sub Groups
2007 – 2010
Dresden

Total = 644
South Crest

Total = 735
South Jasper

Total = 470
All 10
th
Grade Students 91% 89% 90%
Hispanic/Latino 80% 77% 80%
White/Caucasian 95% 94% 96%
English Learners 56% 28% 54%
Low SES 78% 72% 76%
Special Education 52% 51% 33%

Instructional Improvement Strategies
Unlike many schools within similar studies, the high schools represented in this
study draw from surrounding populations of generally well-educated middle- to upper-
middle class families. However, the overall student achievement gains have taken place
despite political upheaval, reduced financial resources, and continued demands of
increasing student achievement. Rather than major jumps in API and other standardized
test scores, each school displayed steady and consistent growth in almost all areas for
several years. Because of the high test scores at all of the high schools, there was and

55

continues to be no mandate for change or improvement. The following section will
address the Odden & Archibald (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Improvement
and the application of each strategy within the schools in the study.
Understanding the Performance Problem and Challenge
All of the high school principals presented an awareness of the performance
problems and challenges at the school sites. The Southland Unified School district
purchased an online data program Data Director several years ago that enables each site
to run student, class, and school reports on both statewide test data and onsite formative
assessment data. Additionally each high school monitors other data such as the number
of students with “D’s” and “F’s,” content-specific benchmark exams, and longitudinal
studies on AP tests. The principals discussed how this has served their sites well to keep
the focus on instructional improvements and student learning.
Because of the student demographics and overall API scores, none of the high
schools studied was at risk of entering PI status. In all three cases, however, EL students
lagged significantly behind other sub-group areas. While this may not jeopardize the
individual sites’ PI status, as a whole the Southland Unified School district did not meet
the necessary requirements in 2010, and the district now finds itself in the first year of
program improvement. Each principal discussed a heightened district awareness of the
EL problem and how there were new initiatives, training, and expectations for their sites
for the 2010 – 2011 school year.

56

Set Ambitious Goals
All teachers in the Southland Unified School District are required per the
collective bargaining agreement to set annual goals. According to the principals,
previous years’ goals tended to focus on items such as improving AP or CST results,
reducing the numbers of students with “D’s” and “F’s,” or working collaboratively in
teacher teams to develop common core assessments. There was little evidence of student
goal setting outside of the ninth grade year. At Dresden, ninth grade students worked
with academic advisors while at South Crest peer mentors helped to develop four-year
academic plans. After the ninth grade year, however, the principals indicated there were
not any mandatory, programmatic follow-ups. Rather, individual students could choose
independently to meet with an academic advisor. Additionally, each school offered
various larger group academic planning opportunities in the evenings, at lunch time, and
by appointment. At South Jasper, the only area of student goal setting shared was with
the CST’s. Teachers offered grade incentives for individual students showing
improvement from a previous year’s score. As a result, students were able to increase a
grade in a particular class based on how well they performed on the CST.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
In all schools there were no major reported shifts in the overall curriculum
program outside of routine adoptions of new textbooks. Rather, each principal discussed
the commitments by the teachers at the site to adopt Professional Learning Communities.
South Crest High School was one of the first in the district to take teachers and

57

administrators over ten years ago to visit other schools utilizing PLC methodologies.
Dresden, seeing the success of South Crest, quickly followed by creating collaborative
time for teachers and common formative assessments. At South Jasper, a leadership team
made up of teachers, administrators, and classified staff was created six months prior to
the opening of the school. Most of South Jasper teachers came from schools with well-
established PLCs and therefore, South Jasper immediately implemented many similar
design structures. All of the principals reported that PLCs on their campuses allowed for
better alignment of instruction, a focus on formative student data, and an evolved
collaborative culture.
Formative Assessments and Data-Based Decision Making
The use of data in each of the schools appears to be prevalent and expected by
each principal and is supported with district resources through the availability of Data
Director. While each school may target different data to meet its own specific need, each
principal presented various ways the teachers continually use data to make decisions.
At South Crest, the principal prepares a longitudinal data study delivered to all
stakeholders, including parents and community members. Within this packet are not only
statewide test results, but site data such as “D” and “F” rates, SAT results, and the
number of students taking the required courses for college. The principal at South Crest
reported this has resulted in increased offerings of AP classes, more students taking and
passing AP exams, improved instructional alignment to the CSTs, and a change in the
bell schedule to offer a tutorial period.

58

At Dresden, the principal tracks and distributes results of the site level benchmark
exams by subject and teacher. He then distributes the results through team leaders for
analysis and discussion. One example of a change made at Dresden related to the data
was the implementation of a new science course to meet college requirements that was
not an AP class. The staff believed that more students would continue with science, and
maintain college eligibility if there was an optional offering that was not an Advanced
Placement.
South Jasper has only three years of longitudinal data and focuses primarily on
CST results. As a result, the teachers have aligned the pacing of the curriculum to end
with the start of the CST testing period in May. Ongoing formative assessments are then
aligned to the CSTs and discussed and analyzed by the teachers.
Ongoing, Intensive Professional Development
Due to significant budget reductions within the Southland School District there
was little financial support for professional development. All non-student professional
development days were eliminated for the 2010 – 2011 school year because of budget
cuts and a new contract agreement with the teachers’ union. Therefore, any professional
development is left to the school sites to facilitate. Each site relied solely on its modified
collaboration days during the week. Dresden and South Crest both had one day per week
when teachers could meet before the school day began. South Jasper recently changed
from a late start once a week to an early out every other week. The teachers at all of the
sites used this time for discussions around data, instructional improvement, Data Director

59

training, or in the case of South Jasper, time to prepare for WASC. None of the sites
reported that money was available for conference, travel, or consultants. There were two
exceptions where the district supported training in order to maintain accreditation, and
that was for teachers to attend AP and AVID conferences.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
All three of the schools discussed various ways they attempt to be creative and
efficient with time. Each school has adopted a Tutorial period during the school day.
During a typical week, Dresden provides four days of Tutorial, South Crest has two days,
and South Jasper has four days. Tutorial days at the sites allow teachers the opportunity
to provide interventions and re-teach material to students. Students may also use this
time to ask teachers questions, complete assignments, and obtain enrichment experiences.
Another efficient use of time is through the creation of teacher collaboration
during the workday. As previously described, each site has adopted a bell schedule with
either a late start or early out day during the week. Teachers use this time to discuss
formative assessment data, share effective instructional strategies, and align pacing plans.
Because of the shortage of financial resources, there is no additional professional
development, and training in technology, for example, occurs within the workday.
Extending Learning Time for Struggling Students
There is limited extended learning time at any of the three high schools primarily
for financial reasons. With the exception of struggling readers, low-level ELD students,
and students who do not pass the CAHSEE on the first attempt, none of the schools offers

60

a double period of English or Math. Dresden and South Crest do provide voluntary after-
school tutoring several days per week. Each of the tutoring centers at both sites is staffed
by certificated teachers as well as student volunteers. Subject area support during this
time tends to focus on English and Math. Financial support for these tutoring programs
comes directly from each school’s education foundation and not its general fund. South
Jasper no longer offers after-school tutoring because of a lack of funding from its general
fund. South Jasper does not have an education foundation and therefore no
supplementary money to support after-school tutoring. One other example of extended
learning time was in South Crest’s Mandatory Tutorial Program (MTP). MTP mandates
students with an “F” on a grading period attend tutoring during the last twenty minutes of
lunch. Students not meeting the MTP requirements are assigned a discipline
consequence, generally Saturday School. The principal of South Crest reported due to
multiple interventions, including MTP, students were failing fewer classes. Finally, as
the result of severe budget cuts, summer school within the Southland Unified School
District is limited to remediation courses for high school graduation requirements.
Collaborative, Professional Culture
Most apparent of the ten strategies is the collaborative and professional cultures at
all of the high schools in the study. Each principal described a personal commitment to
cultivating a collaborative culture at his or her school. Dresden’s principal described no
compromise to working together and looking at data. At South Crest, the charge from the
principal is to discuss and make decisions in the best interest of students. At South

61

Jasper, the principal repeatedly described the collaborative culture as being “organic” and
grown from ongoing discussion and reflection among staff members. The results of
PLCs on each site were described as better instructional alignment, a focus on data driven
decision-making, and improved student learning. Additionally, each principal discussed
the importance of the site culture during a time of leadership turn-over at the district
level.
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
Because of the turnover of district leadership, the Southland School District has
moved from a centralized organization focused on PLCs to a more decentralized
organization with sites left on their own. However, each principal credits the past work
of district leaders for setting up structures to support open and ongoing collaboration
even during tumultuous times. The following are examples of effective PLC structures
on each site that have continued over the past few years. None of the principals indicated
any major resistance to PLCs even in the face of teacher strikes, school board recalls, or
leadership change at the district level.
At Dresden, instructional leadership is seen through the development of voluntary
content area instructional leaders. While each department may have a department chair,
those departments may have several different content areas. This practice has continued
despite no funding for additional monetary stipends. Several people within each
department manage collaboration time and may at times meets with other teachers
throughout the district.

62

South Crest sees instructional leadership in its implementation of a separate ninth
grade campus. Ten years ago, the staff realized most of the failing grades came from
ninth grade students. With the closing of an adjacent elementary school, and without
additional staffing, South Crest opened an “upper” ninth grade campus to help with the
high school transition issues. With both an “upper” and “lower” campus, South Crest
relies heavily on newly-designed leadership roles for teachers, administration, and
classified staff members.
South Jasper’s instructional leadership has grown as a direct result of having to
add a new class of students, and set of teachers, for the past four years. As a result, the
South Jasper staff has been required to design and reflect on its instructional program
annually. The principal works closely with teacher leaders to develop significant buy-in
and empowers the leadership team to make instructional decision within each department.
Professional and Best Practices
As is evident in many of the similarly-designed programs at each site, and equally
similar philosophies of each principal, all schools appear to be actively seeking out
professional and best practice designs. What may have started with the leadership team
of South Crest’s two visits to Adlai Stevenson High School in Illinois, now appears to
have manifested in shared discussions and practices district wide. Each school has
dedicated time for teacher collaboration, embedded tutorial periods, and significant use of
student performance data to inform practice. What may be limiting the continued pursuit

63

at each site is the elimination of money to support teacher release time and travel to visit
other schools.
School Resource Indicators and Use
This section applies the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) as a comparison to the
average school resource indicators within the study. Staffing ratios at each school are set
by the total numbers of students enrolled, with any increases or decreases in enrollment
affecting the total number of FTE to support each site. A prototypical grade 9-12 high
school within the EBM would have 600 students. Funding for schools using the EBM
with different student populations from the prototype would then be staffed with
increasing or decreasing FTE. The schools within the study averaged a total enrollment
of 2,650 students for grades 9-12. The average enrollment is used in this section for
comparisons to the EBM as shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4– Average Case Study Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
High School
Average Allocation Average Allocation
Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size 9-12: 600 Students 9-12: 2650 Students 4.4 x larger
Class Size 9-12: 25 9-12: 35:1 10 more than EBM
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days
for intensive PD
training
175, with 0 days for
intensive PD
15 fewer school
days
10 fewer PD days
Kindergarten n/a n/a n/a
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE – Principal
3.0 FTE – APs
4.4 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and
2.0 FTE Clerical
5.3 FTE – Secretary
6.1 FTE – Clerical
4.4 FTE – Secretary
8.8 FTE – Clerical

64

Table 4.4– Continued
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 66.9 FTE 105.6 FTE
Specialist Teachers 8.0 or 33% more 15.8 FTE 140.4 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
3.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 13.2 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students
0.0 FTE 5.13 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100
EL students
1.0 FTE

2.1 FTE
Non-Instructional Support
for EL Students
0.0 FTE 0.31 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 0.6 FTE 0.0 FTE 2.64 FTE
Summer School 2.5 FTE Resources Provided
at District Level
11.0 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 2.5
professional teacher
positions
8.3 FTE 10.8 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
1.33 FTE 100% state
reimbursement
minus federal funds
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$0 5% of personnel
resources and
special education
personnel
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100
poverty students
10.74 FTE 5.13 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 3.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 13.2 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 8.67 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 1.58 FTE 4.8 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $0 $66,250
Technology $250 per pupil $0 $662,500

65

Table 4.4– Continued
Instructional Materials $175 per pupil $24.75 per pupil
$65,587

$463,750
Student Activities $250 per pupil 1 Section ASB
1 FTE – Activities
Director

$662,500
Professional Development $100 per pupil for
other PD expenses -
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc. not
included above

$0

$265,000

Length of School Day and Instructional Time
One school resource indicator is the overall length of the school day as well as the
time within the day committed to instruction. As seen in Table 4.5 and Table 4.6, each of
the three schools utilizes at least two different bell schedules during the week in order to
provide for teacher collaboration, tutorial periods, and at times block or traditional
schedules. All three high schools offer tutorial periods at least twice per week. Dresden
and South Crest offer a modified late-start day each week to provide for teacher
collaboration. South Jasper offers a modified early-out day every other week for the
same purpose. All three provide what is termed as a “traditional” day of six class periods
and at least two “block” days which provide fewer but longer class periods. The average
total length of a school day for a traditional day is 414 minutes, with an average of 53
minutes per period, and an average of 321 minutes of instructional time. The average
total length of a school day for a block day is 414 minutes, with an average of 104
minutes per period, and an average of 341 minutes of instructional time. The average

66

total length of a school day for a modified late-start or early-out day is 365 minutes, with
an average of 46 minutes per periods, and an average of 273 minutes of instructional
time. Per the collective bargaining agreement with the union, high school teachers within
the Southland Unified School District are allowed no more than 1,400 contact minutes
with students per week. Teachers teach five periods and have one preparation period.
Table 4.5 – Length of School Days, Instructional Time, and Instructional Days
Traditional Day Block Day
Modified Day
“Late Start” or “Early Out”
School
Total
Minutes
Inst.
Minutes
Number
of Days
per
week
Total
Minutes
Inst.
Minutes
Number
of Days
per
week
Total
Minutes
Inst.
Minutes
Number
of Days
per
week
Dresden 408 327
5 per
year
408 346 4 360 279 1
South
Crest
430 325 2 430 343 2 405 300 1
South
Jasper
402 312
1 every
other
week
405 335 4 330 240
1 every
other
week

Table 4.6 – Sample Weekly Schedule
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Dresden
Late Start
Traditional
Periods 1-6
Block
1, Tutorial, 3, 5
Block
2, Tutorial, 4, 6
Block
1, Tutorial, 3, 5
Block
2, Tutorial, 4, 6
South
Crest
Late Start
Traditional
Periods 1-6
Traditional
Periods 1-6
Block
1, Tutorial, 3, 5
Block
2, Tutorial, 4, 6
Traditional
Periods 1-6
South
Jasper
Early Out and/or
Traditional
Periods 1-6
Block
1, Tutorial, 3, 5
Block
2, Tutorial, 4, 6
Block
1, Tutorial, 3, 5
Block
2, Tutorial, 4, 6

67

Core Academic, Specialists, and Elective Teachers
For the purpose of this study, core academic teachers included all licensed,
subject-specific teachers in English, Reading, History, Social Studies, Mathematics,
Science, and Foreign Language. The total number of core academic teachers for all three
sites totaled 200.8 FTE for an average of 66.9 FTE per site. These teachers served a total
student population of 7,950 students for an average of 2,650 students per site, bringing
the average student to teacher ratio in the core subject areas to 39.6:1. The EBM calls
for a student to teacher ratio of 25:1, which would bring the total core academic teachers
to 318 FTE, or a per site average of 106 FTE. Schools within the study had over 58%
more students per core academic class period, and 37% fewer FTE than what is called for
in the EBM.
Specialists and Elective teachers included teachers in non-core academic classes
including Art, Music, PE, Drama, Technology, Health, Career, and Athletics. These
teachers served the same total student population. The total number of specialists and
elective teachers for all three sites totaled 47.4 FTE for an average of 15.8 FTE per site.
The EBM calls for 33% additional specialists and elective FTE for every 600 students.
Adjusting to the increased amount of students for the study, the EBM would provide a
total of 267 Elective and Specialist teachers, or a per site average of 89 FTE. Actual
staffing for schools within the study was only 18% of the total staffing when compared
with the prototypical high school in the EBM.

68

The total amount of Core Academic, Elective, and Specialist teachers provided by
the EBM for the three schools with total student populations totaling 7,950 students is
467.8 FTE. The total FTE for the schools within the study was only 248.2 or a difference
of 219.6 fewer FTE. The data confirm that the schools are understaffed as compared to
the EBM, resulting in class sizes exceeding recommended levels as well.
Library Staff
The Library Staff recommendations by the EBM include certificated librarians,
library media specialists, and/or library aides which often are classified positions. The
EBM provides 1.0 FTE librarian for every 600 high school students. As a cost-saving
measure, none of the high schools within the Southland Unified School District was
staffed with certificated librarians. Rather all FTE are staffed out of classified, ten-month
library tech positions. The largest high schools in the study, South Crest and Dresden
provided 2.0 FTE for library techs, while South Jasper had 1.0 FTE. Calculated for
increases in student population, the EBM would recommend 5.3 FTE at South Crest, 4.7
FTE at Dresden, and 3.3 FTE at South Jasper for a total of 13.3 FTE and a per site
average of 4.4 FTE.
Extra Help and Other Instructional Staff
Extra Help staff members consist of teachers designed to assist students who may
be academically at-risk or qualified as special education. Staffing positions under this
category include certificated teacher tutors, non-certificated teacher tutors, instructional
aides in a variety of categories, special education teachers, special education aides,

69

extended-day teachers, extended-day aides, and necessary certificated and classified
summer school staff. Once again because of significant budget reductions in the
Southland Unified School District, there was little evidence of Extra Help staff members
outside of the Special Education categories. Whereas the EBM would call for an average
allocation for each site of 5.13 FTE to support struggling learners, none of the high
schools had such positions. While there was some evidence of extended-day programs at
South Crest and Dresden, this funding was supplemented through the school’s education
foundations and not part of general fund allocations.
The total number of English Learners (EL) at all of the school sites was 648, or a
per site average of 215 students. The EBM supports 1.0 FTE for every 100 EL students
at each site. Based on the EBM the ELL funding should total 6.48 FTE for all three site,
or a per site average of 2.15 FTE. However, the actual total for all three sites were 3.0
FTE or an average of 1.0 FTE per site. One principal described this as a reality based on
a decrease in staffing which has necessitated more EL students in core classes and
increased amounts of differentiated instruction.
Special Education positions are divided into FTE’s based on Learning and Mild
Disabled Students and Severely Disabled students. The EBM provides an additional 2.5
FTE for mild disabled students at the prototypical high school, and relies on 100%
federal reimbursement for severely disabled students. All three of high schools provided
a blended program of special education services. Teacher staffing averaged 8.3 FTE per
site. Based on the average size of the high schools in the study, the EBM recommends

70

11.0 FTE. Where there appeared to be an overage of staffing as compared to the EBM
was in the special education aide positions. These classified positions were mostly part-
time at each of the sites and totaled a combined site average of 8.67 FTE. Within the
EBM there are only limited non-instructional aide positions.
Finally, there were no additional staffing units or funding within the category of
Other Instructional Staff. This may have included professional development consultants,
building substitutes, other teachers, or other aides. While in the past the three school sites
may have had on-site resident substitutes and professional development budgets, district-
wide budget cuts have caused all of these positions to be eliminated
Professional Development
The EBM provides substantial resources to professional development (PD). The
total number of intensive PD days within the model is 10, while also providing $100 per
pupil, or $60,000 for the prototypical high school. As yet another sign of a reduced
budget, none of the schools within the study provided any money for professional
development. Additionally, all PD days were eliminated for the 2010 – 2011 school in an
agreement with the district’s teachers’ union. Had the schools been provided with the
resources allocated under the EBM the average per site PD budget would have been
$265,000, and there would have also have been 10 PD days. These funds could have
been used in a variety of ways for both certificated teachers and administrative PD in the
form of conferences, consultants, and materials or equipment.
Student Services

71

Student Services staff members include personnel whose job is to provide support
and guidance in the areas of academic planning, social and emotional counseling, health
and welfare, and student activities. Staffing positions under this category include
guidance, attendance, nurse, community liaison, psychologist, speech, and student
activities director. Student services is one of the few areas all three of the high schools
appear to be staffed according to the EBM. However, in order to accomplish this each
school relies on classified staff, rather than certificated staff, in the areas of guidance and
nurse positions. Additionally, while it appears there is adequate staffing, there was only
evidence of 1.0 FTE provided for a certificated counseling position, and 1.0 FTE for a
psychologist at each of the schools for the purpose of social/emotional counseling.
Academic advising was the responsibility of classified guidance technicians, totaling an
average of 5.0 FTE per site. The average of the total student services staffing allocations
was 10.74 FTE, which exceeded the recommended allocations by the EBM of 5.13 for a
school of 2,650 students.
Other staffing and resource allocations within the student services category
included student activities director and a student activities budget. At each of the three
high schools there was one period within the master schedule dedicated to a student
government or ASB period, a classified clerk position, and an administrative FTE or
activities director (for the purpose of this study, both the clerk and activities director FTE
are included in the administration and operations staffing allocations). There were no
monetary resources budgeted through general fund allocations for any of the schools.

72

Each site, however, did raise a considerable amount of money to support student
activities through the sale of ASB cards and other fundraisers. The EBM calculates an
activities budget of $250 per student, or $150,000 for a prototypical high school. Under
the EBM, each school within the study, with an average enrollment of 2,650 students,
would have been allocated an average of $662,500.
Administration and Operations
Administration staffing pertains to positions whose responsibilities relate to the
overall administration and operation of the school. Positions under the administration
category include principals, assistant principals, secretaries, clerical, technology
coordinator, security, and custodians. Once again, staffing under the administration
category is close to, or in some cases over, what is recommended by the EBM. Each
school was staffed with 1.0 FTE principal, 3.0 FTE assistant principals, and 1.0 FTE
activities director for a total of 5.0 FTE for administrators. The EBM allocates 1.0 FTE
for site administrators in the prototypical high school, or 4.0 FTE for the study average
student population of 2,650. Additionally, secretary and clerical support is staffed at 1.0
FTE secretary, and 2.0 FTE clerical for the prototypical high school, or 4.4 FTE
secretaries, and 8.8 FTE clerical for a total of 13.2 FTE. While not exactly to the level of
the EBM, the total average staffing for both secretary and clerical at the schools within
the study was close at 11.4 FTE.
Finally, each school had a technology coordinator, campus security, and
custodians. The custodian positions were funded out of a district-wide staffing formula

73

and not made available to the school sites. Although there were custodians at each site,
FTE’s are not provided for this study. Each site had 1.0 FTE classified position for
technology coordinator to manage the technology needs on the school campus. The
schools had approximately the same amount of classified FTE positions for campus
security, with the average among the three sites totaling 4.75 FTE.
Changes in Response to the Budget Crisis
The budget crisis in the state of California has affected all of the schools in the
Southland Unified School district including Dresden, South Crest, and South Jasper.
More specifically, the schools within the study have seen student–to-teacher staffing
ratios rise to 35:1, which has had a direct impact on class sizes in the core academic
areas. Additionally, the overall numbers of teacher work days, professional development
days, and instructional days were reduced for the 2010 – 2011 school year. Through an
agreement with the district’s teachers’ union, all professional development and planning
days were eliminated and instructional days were reduced to 175, which brought the total
teacher work days for the year to 175 as well. All of these concessions came after a
three-day teacher strike during April of 2010. Not only have the principals seen a
financial impact at the school site, but each principal interviewed discussed the residual
emotional affects from the teacher strike at the schools. Finally, instructional supply
budgets have been reduced and technology budgets eliminated. Each principal indicated
concern over maintaining both instructional improvements and student learning gains
without the necessary technological tools to process the data for their PLCs.

74

Summary of Results
Over the past several years, each school in the study has seen overall student
achievement gains on statewide standardized test scores despite significant reductions in
site level funding in staffing allocations, professional development budgets, and
instructional supplies. There is evidence of many of Odden’s (2009) strategies being
implemented at various levels. Individual case studies are provided in Appendix G as
evidence of the individual school improvement strategies as well as the staffing and
resource comparisons to the EBM.
Overall results indicate staffing and resources as compared to the EBM are
significantly lower in most of the categories. In particular the largest discrepancies are
seen in the core academic teacher allocations, as well funding for professional
development and instructional supplies. The few areas that had staffing allocations at or
above the EBM was in the administrative and student services positions. As a result of
strong leadership, and a site level commitment to maintaining a collaborative culture, the
schools within the study appear to, at least for the time being, have been able to weather
the recent storm of political upheaval, dramatic reductions in funding, and inconsistent
instructional leadership at the district level to maintain an overall focus on student
learning.

75

CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to use as comparison models Odden’s (2009) Ten
Strategies and the Evidence Based Model (EBM) (Odden & Picus, 2008) to analyze each
school for alignment based on interviews with the site principals, staffing data, and
longitudinal achievement on standardized test scores. The original design of this study
called for a purposeful sample of all six comprehensive high schools in a single school
district in Southern California. Only three out of the six high schools remained in the
study, and they were chosen for their overall improvements on statewide tests in the face
of politically complex issues surrounding district leaders and dramatic budget reductions
over the past few years. Unlike many other similar studies, all of the schools had
relatively low student populations of what are considered “at-risk” demographics, such as
English-learners and socio-economically disadvantaged students. The schools also
benefited from parent communities with higher than average levels of education and
involvement in the schools. Despite those positive aspects, each school still had to
wrestle with how to improve student learning while funding was reduced, class sizes
were increased, and district leaders were embattled in recall elections and contentious
union debates.
This chapter provides a summary of the findings, implications for policy and
practice, and recommendations for future research. The following research questions
were used to evaluate the evidence gathered for the study and is addressed in the

76

summary of findings:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
2. How are resources at the school and district used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response
to the recent budget adjustments, including overall funding reductions and
changes in the use of categorical funds?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resources use strategies used in the Evidence-Based or other
Model?
Summary of Findings
Made up of over 52,000 students in 61 elementary and secondary schools, the
Southland Unified School District is located in suburban areas of coastal Orange County,
California. The community provided the three high schools in the study several
advantages which helped to improve overall academic success. Several challenges the
schools faced, however, included site-level budget reductions, class size increases, loss of
instructional days through employee furloughs, and unsettling district political issues that
impacted the school cultures. The findings of this study show that none of the schools
met the resource allocation levels recommended by the EBM and also lacked some of the
strategies found in Odden’s (2009) research. Despite not implementing all of the

77

recommended resources or strategies, each school is considered to be successful when
student achievement is measured on statewide tests.
The following sections will address the various findings as they relate to the
overall improvement processes from each school and to the four research questions from
the study.
Instructional Vision and Improvement Strategies at the Site Level
At all of the high schools in the study, the overall instructional vision and
improvement strategies did not come from major curriculum adoptions or school-wide
implementations of any particular instructional strategy. Rather, all of the administrators
referenced a commitment to PLC methodologies and the creation of site-level content
area teams that used common formative assessment data to improve student learning
results. Each of the three principals described the commitment to this collaborative
model through his or her unique perspective. The various ways the principals lead their
staffs could be described as developing and implementing their own personal PLC
mantra. The Dresden principal stated that there were no compromises to teacher
collaboration. South Crest’s principal focused on making decisions in the best interest of
students. The principal of South Jasper said that teacher collaboration was thought of as
“organically grown.” All schools’ principals pointed to ongoing teacher collaboration and
an emphasis on student data as the reasons for their success.
At each school substantial evidence existed of frequent and relevant data being
used to impact instruction and learning. Much of the data were not only from statewide

78

results such as CSTs and API scores, but from the establishment and use of ongoing
common formative assessments. Supported through the implementation of the web-
based data warehousing software, Data Director, site-level department teams were able to
create and analyze student outcomes on assessments in order to be better prepare for
statewide assessments. Staff awareness of student performance data such as this
appeared to drive the improvement conversation in content area teams, overall
instructional improvement efforts, and the development and implementation of
intervention programs.
Access to student performance data was described by all principals as critical in
supporting the development and success of content area curricular teams by providing a
common focus to the instructional improvement conversation. Additionally, each site
embedded time within the week for teacher teams to meet and discuss various ways to
support student learning. Per the collective bargaining agreement with the teacher’s
union, in order to create this time, each of the sites had to have the approval of the
majority of certificated staff members. The principals described this as a strong level of
commitment by staff members to this type of collaboration. As a result of ongoing
teacher reflection and instructional evaluation, all three schools have implemented or
modified many programs in order to improve effectiveness and maximize student
benefits. Additionally, teacher collaboration day has taken on a high level of importance
for the 2010 – 2011 school year, as the entire school district has eliminated all
professional development days. With no budget for outside professional development,

79

the teacher collaboration time serves as the only opportunity for professional
development.
With regard to additional time and support for students, each of the three high
schools in the study adopted Tutorial periods at least two days per week. After some
monitoring and adjusting to the program, students are now assigned to specific teachers
and subjects when they are struggling. Two schools (Dresden and South Crest) also offer
multiple days after school for students to receive tutoring. Both schools support this
through contributions from school education foundations. South Jasper, however, does
not have an educational foundation and, for the 2010 – 2011 school year, was forced to
close down the tutoring center because of budget constraints. Other than an additional
class for struggling readers and a CAHSEE preparation class, none of the schools offered
much in the way of additional time during the school day such as double block math.
This is a significant finding as it relates to the EL students on each campus. Overall API
scores have increased over the past several years; however, EL students have not
experienced much improvement. This has caused new concern district wide, as the entire
Southland District has now entered year one of program improvement because of lack of
improvement in all sub-groups.
While many of the Odden’s (2009) strategies were implemented to varying
degrees, a traditional professional development model of additional non-student days or
outside consultants were not. For the 2010 – 2011 school year, unfortunately, all
professional development and teacher preparation days were eliminated in order to

80

reduce the overall district budget. Additionally, the total numbers of instructional days
were reduced from 180 to 175. The principals also reported that all professional
development budgets were eliminated, which meant no money was available for
substitutes to release teacher teams, outside consultants, or conferences. Each principal
interviewed indicated this to be one of the main areas of concern as time goes on.
Professional development was evident was during weekly teacher collaboration times.
Teachers used this time to share instructional strategies, discuss student data, and plan
curriculum.
Overall, the three high schools benefited most from an established practice of
teacher collaboration and access to ongoing student data. Each of the principals
interviewed credited this type of staff culture for helping to maintain a focus on student
learning and instructional improvements despite budgetary limitations and district
political issues. While all principals acknowledged that some of their teams still needed
to improve in the areas of common formative assessments, curriculum alignment, and
shared instructional practices, they expressed hope for future improvement.
Resource Allocations to Support Instructional Improvement Plan
While there have been resources allocated by both the district and the site to
support the overall instructional improvement plan, most of the money was spent on
staffing. All three school principals discussed a concern over the reduction or elimination
of site-level discretionary lines such as instructional supplies and professional
development. There was some evidence, although minimal, of district resource support

81

such as the data warehousing program, Data Director, and indication of professional
development support for teachers to attend AVID and AP conferences. All principals
indicated that little professional development resources limited their ability to advance
the instructional program as far and as fast as they had wanted to.
If time can be categorized as a resource, than this is where most of the
conversation at the site level is being spent. Through the use of each site’s own PLC
configurations, there have been changes in bell schedules, teacher meeting time, and even
discussion about cross-district collaboration. New configurations of time have allowed
each site to implement intervention programs, maintain teacher collaboration, and offset
some of the lost professional development. It is as though staff at each of the sites
understands the limitations on financial and personnel resources but wants to work
creatively to meet the necessary student learning needs. Fortunately for the high schools
in the study, there were well-established collaborative norms that have served them well
during these financially restrictive times.
Impact of California’s Current Fiscal Crisis on School Resources
Over the past several years, public schools within California have been hit with
billions of dollars in reduced funding. Within the Southland Unified School District, this
has meant dramatic reductions in personnel, substantial cuts to salary and benefits, and a
direct impact to instructional programs at the schools. At the three sample high schools,
there has been a reduction of staff including teachers, classified staff, and assistant
principals. As with all schools in the district for the 2010 – 2011 school year, the number

82

of instructional days was reduced from 180 to 175, and all professional development and
teacher preparation days eliminated. Overall, while the three principals maintained an
optimistic outlook, they were all concerned about future progress at their schools should
resource funding be reduced from current levels. One additional impact of note, the
Southland Unified School District was the only school district within its county to
experience a teachers’ strike during the 2009 – 2010 school year. Two principals in the
study discussed the residual negative effects of the strike on staff morale, which focused
time away from instructional discussions, and necessitated them spend time and energy
on reestablishing relationships among colleagues. It will be interesting to observe what
all of these impacts will have on the upcoming statewide standardized test scores.
Resource Alignment with the Evidence-Based Model
The three high schools in the study were analyzed in comparison with the
Evidence-Based funding model by Odden & Picus (2008). The EBM applies the use of
“best practice” design as determined by comprehensive school and district research
studies and allocates specific staffing and dollar amounts to various categories. Not
surprisingly, none of the high schools met the recommended resource allocations
described by the model.
Almost all the resources for the schools were allocated for the purpose of staffing.
The schools were staffed at a student to teacher ratio of 35:1, while the EBM calls for
high school student to teacher ratios of 25:1. Where the EBM would have provided a
total of 467.8 FTE for core and specialist teachers, the three schools only had a total of

83

248.2 FTE or 219.6 FTE fewer. The large staffing discrepancies were also found in
almost every other category except administrative support. With limited staff as
compared to the EBM, the three schools were challenged to provide extended learning
opportunities for struggling learners.
Not only did each of the three high schools show deficits in staffing as compared
to the EBM, but in other budget areas such as instructional supplies, student activities,
and professional development as well. To highlight the discrepancy, the EBM
recommends $175 per student for instructional supplies, while the schools were allocated
only $24.75 per student. If allocated at the recommended EBM level, this would provide
an average supply budget of $662,500 rather than the true average of $65,587. All three
of the principals discussed this as a major area of concern, in particular as it related to
technology. They all shared that not only were student computers beginning to break
down, but teacher technology such as Data Director scanners were deteriorating as well.
With no technology budget, and the site commitment to formative assessments, the
principals expressed concern about being able to sustain the teacher collaboration without
the necessary technology to supply the student data.
Despite fewer staff members and site-level money than the EBM recommends,
each of the three schools demonstrated overall student achievement gains in API, CST,
CAHSEE, and AP exam results. There was a sense from the interviews that all
principals, although worried about a lack of resource support, believed that their sites
could come together as a staff to solve the problems together. Additionally, while there

84

are necessary areas of improvement with regards to student learning, particularly for
English Learners and Special Education students, the staff members at the three schools
have been extremely successful given the resource restrictions under which they are
working. It begs the question, given the resources as recommended by the EBM, and
with the established successful PLC practices, what type of student learning results might
have been achieved?
Implications for Policy and Practice
While it should be noted once again that overall student academic scores for the
schools within this study may have benefited greatly from demographics such as higher
populations of educated families, greater numbers of white students, and lower groups of
Hispanic and English Learners, there are still many policy and practice implications for
educational leaders. As with many schools in California, the three high schools in the
study had to deal with reduced funding, less instructional time, and the need to meet state
and federal accountability standards. Additionally, these schools endured several
leadership changes at the superintendent level and two school board recall elections.
Culturally, each site also had to deal with a three-day teacher strike that had an impact at
all of the individual school communities. Putting all of these variables together, the
findings indicate various ways schools may be able to continue to meet student learning
needs even while, at least for the near future, financial resources are limited.
The remainder of this section will address specific policy and practice
implications including: the importance of stable instructional leadership at the principal

85

level; access at the school to formative student assessment data; and the development of
high performing teacher-led instructional teams.
The Principal as an Instructional Leader
Because of the large student populations ranging from 1,950 to 3,200 at the sites
in the study, each school also had a large staff and large parent community. This is
relevant as it relates to the impact of issues that may arise from such big and complex
high schools. Despite the additional administrative support from assistant principals,
secretaries, and office clerks, with only one principal leading the schools, matters not
related to student instruction such as plant management and athletics may tend to
consume much of the attention of the principal. Especially concerning is the possibility
of principal and administrative turnover at schools. As found in this study, each of the
principals was a well-established administrator at the school or within in the district
before taking his or her current positions Two of the principals had served five years at
their sites, while the South Jasper principal has served for three of the four years it has
been open. All of the principals also spent many years either at their current sites or
within the district in the role of assistant principal. The benefit of stability at the
principal level appeared to offer these individuals the ability to take care of the
operational needs of the site while maintaining a strong focus on student learning.
Experience at the same school site appeared to offer each principal the opportunity to
develop strong relationships with teacher leaders and to cultivate a guiding principle
centered on improved instructional practices. Finally, these principals appeared to be

86

successful in helping to manage the emotional and cultural impact on the staffs during a
teacher strike and changing job demands. Their success may once again be connected to
the strong relationships cultivated with the teachers through years of collective
commitments to the schools’ overall success.
Future implications for policy makers may include various ways to establish the
ongoing development of site leaders in order to provide consistent principal leadership
transitions from within the established school community. Additionally, policy makers
should consider the importance of professional development specific to principals to help
balance the operational and instructional needs of the school site. Principals would also
benefit greatly from creative support structures such as additional school administrators
or other staff in order to free up time to focus specifically on working with site-level
teacher teams to focus on instructional improvement.
Ongoing Formative Student Assessment
Driving the instructional conversation at each of the three high schools in the
study was the access and distribution of ongoing formative student assessment data.
Each of the principals discussed the importance of the Data Director technology to
instructional improvement on campus. While each school used different types of student
data, it was evident that staffs understood the relevance and importance of not simply
waiting for the summative assessment results such as final exams or CSTs. Most notably
from the conversations with the principals was the acceptance by teachers to be more
transparent with student data. Finally, in the face of so many external distractions such as

87

scandals at the district level and looming union issues, it was evident from the
conversations with the principals that data from the assessments helped to keep the
schools firmly focused on student learning.
While the principals credited much of the improvement to the use of student data,
they all expressed concern over additional budget reductions that may limit the amount of
money to support the necessary maintenance and upgrades to technology. Future
implication for policy makers may be the assessment of reallocating financial resources
to support data warehousing technology which supports the current practice of using
student data to drive instructional improvement. Additionally, educational technology
companies should consider the most cost effective and efficient hardware and software in
order to meet the growing teacher demand for student assessment data. Finally,
educational leaders should consider creating more scientific models of assessment to
provide educators with more consistent and systematic approaches to analyzing student
learning.
High Performing Teacher Led Instructional Teams
The development of Professional Learning Communities within the Southland
School District provided each school with distributive leadership, embedded
accountability, and interdependent and flexible organizational structures capable of
managing the instructional conversation even during unstable times. All of the principals
described their schools’ commitment to PLC methodologies as the most important
variable in improving student success. At the center of this discussion was the

88

development of high performing teacher-led instructional teams. As was evident in the
design of each site’s bell schedule, the teachers were committed to weekly meeting times
for content area teams. The size of the staff at the study high schools, as well as the large
number of content areas, required many teachers to be involved in order to facilitate all
the various teams. The principals described their individual schools’ PLC journey as an
ongoing development of culture, access to student achievement data, and maintaining a
strong commitment at the principal level to teacher collaboration. Throughout the past
few years, these teacher-led teams came together to problem solve ways to adjust
practices in light of reduced financial resources, to share best practice instructional
strategies, and to supplement the large gap created by the elimination of professional
development funding.
The creation and continued development of PLC cultures on the high schools in
the study should offer policy makers insight into how individual schools have been able
to achieve high student learning results despite reduced funding, increased class sizes,
and political turmoil. Additionally, educational leaders should consider some of the
barriers impacting school sites that prohibit the development of these types of cultures
such as restrictive union contracts, limited instructional minutes, and other variables that
allow for teacher isolation.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study was limited to three schools, purposely chosen from one school district
in Southern California. Because of the small sample size, there are limitations to the

89

research including generalization. Additionally, the demographics of the sample schools
were such that many of the typical “at-risk” factors such as high numbers of English
Learners, or socio-economically disadvantaged students did not exist. The schools did,
however, suffer from budget reductions, political strife at the district level, and other
challenges. A larger sample of all of the schools within the school district, not just the
three high schools, would help to determine if the results found were consistent
throughout the school district.
This study adds to the body of research completed through similar studies
comparing schools to Odden and Picus’ Evidence-Based Model (2008). It will provide
policymakers and site leaders insight into the effects of resource allocation on student
learning. Additionally, this study will help inform decision makers on the research
behind resource allocations and provide case study examples of the effects on
instructional programs when resources are limited.
Further research into the Southland Unified School District could help to show a
longitudinal effect on the reduction of resources at the school site level. When
interviewed, all of the principals maintained a certain level of optimism despite the recent
fiscal and political challenges. Additional research on future standardized test score
results, perhaps expanded interviews with teachers and other site personnel, and even a
study of student perspectives, could help to broaden the scope of the study and help
practitioners to better understand the link between school resources and student learning.

90

Conclusion
While California’s economy continues to recover from a national and global
financial crisis, funding for public education in the state will remain at low levels. This
will present many difficulties for policy makers in the statehouse as well as teachers in
the classroom. It also comes at a time when national and statewide accountability
standards continue to rise with the looming 2014 mark of 100% proficiency in both math
and English under NCLB. The squeeze of resources during a time of unprecedented
accountability has challenged everyone to make every educational dollar count.
Many are turning to researched methodologies such as Odden’s (2009) Ten
Strategies to help make financial determinations. Unfortunately, however, even with the
knowledge of what to do, school leaders may have to modify some of the recommended
strategies because of limited funding. Whereas it may be clear that reduced class sizes,
additional certificated teachers, and intensive professional development has direct links to
improved student learning, many school districts cannot afford such programs at the
recommended EBM levels. Instead, school systems must make the tough choices to
possibly increase class sizes, lay off teachers, reduce the length of the school year, and
eliminate professional development budgets.
There are schools in the field, however, which refuse to simply accept student
failure. School leaders, as exemplified by the schools in this study, work collaboratively
and creatively with site personnel to embed researched best practice design differently.
The most current acronym for this is PLC; however, this is not something new. Schools

91

accepting the challenges put to them during this financial crisis are targeting specific
student needs from intervention to enrichment through ongoing formative assessment
data, flexible time constructs, and a sense of shared responsibility. Through it all they are
seeing improved student learning result. They are choosing not to simply do more with
less, but rather to do better with different.

92

REFERENCES
Augenblick, J. G., Myers, J. L., & Anderson, A. B. (1997). Equity and adequacy in
school funding. The Future of Children, 7(3), 63-78.

Baker, B. D., Taylor, L. L., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Adequacy estimates and the
implications of common standards for the cost of instruction. Washington, DC:
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.

Bodilly, S. J., & Berends, M. (1999). Necessary district support for comprehensive
school reform. In G. Orfield & E. H. Debray (Eds.), Hard work for good schools:
Facts, not fads, in Title I reform. (pp. 111-119). Cambridge, MA: The Civil
Rights Project, Harvard University.

Darling-Hammond, L., Alexander, M., & Price, D. (2002). Redesigning high schools:
What matters and what works. 10 features of good small schools. Stanford, CA:
School Redesign Network, Stanford University.

Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don't know about improving low-performing
schools. The Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 728-734.

Chambers, J., Levin, J., & Delancey, D. (2007). Efficiency and adequacy in California
school finance: A professional judgement approach. Stanford, CA:

DuFour, R. (2003). Building a professional learning community. School Administrator,
60(5), 13-18. Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.

EdBrief. (2010). Budget crisis leads to dramatic rise in school districts on fiscal early
warning list. Retrieved from EdSource. (2000). Understanding School Finance:
California’s Complex K-12 System. Mountain View, CA: Author.

EdSource. (2007). Trends and comparisons in California school finance. Mountain View,
CA: Author.

EdSource. (2008). How California compares: Demographics, resources, and student
achievement. Mountain View, CA: Author.

EdSource (2009). The basics of California’s school finance system. Mountain View, CA:
Author.

EdSource. (2009). Resource cards on California schools. Mountain View, CA: Author.

93

EdSource. (2010). School finance 2009-10: Budget cataclysm and its aftermath.
Mountain View, CA: Author.

Feldman, J., Lucey, G., Goodrich, S., & Frazee, D. (2003). Developing an inquiry-
minded district. Educational Leadership, 60(5). Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx

Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.

Hanushek, E (2006). Courting Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges’
Good Intentions and Harm our Children. Stanford, CA: Hoover Press. Available
at http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/4284872.html

Grubb, W., Goe, L., & Huerta, L. (2004). The unending search for equity: California
policy, the " Improved School Finance," and the Williams Case. The Teachers
College Record, 106(11), 2057-2245.

Imazeki, J. (2008). Assessing the costs of adequacy in California public schools: A cost
function approach. Education Finance and Policy, 3(1), 90-108.

Kirst, M. W. (2006). Evolution of California state school finance with implications from
other states. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Institute for Research on
Education Policy and Practice.

Koret Task Force. (2006). Funding for performance. In E. Hanushek (Ed.), Courting
failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges' good intentions and harm our
children (pp. 329-356). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Leal, F. (2009, October 7). County Sees Rise in Poor Students. Orange County Register,
pp. 1, 18

Loeb, S., Bryk, A., & Hanushek, E. (2007). Getting down to facts: A research project
examining California’s school governance and finance systems. Stanford, CA:
Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University

Lipson, A. J., & Lavin, M. (1980). Political and legal responses to Proposition 13 in
California. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Marcotte, D. E. (2007). Schooling and test scores: A mother-natural experiment.
Economics of Education Review, 26(5), 629-640.

94

Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Madison, WI:
Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.

Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. J. (2000). Investing in learning: How schools can
reallocate resources to support student achievement. School Spending. Retrieved
from http://www.asbj.com/

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

Odden, A. R., Archibald, S. J., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education Finance,
28(3), 323-356.

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

Odden, A. R. (2009). 10 strategies for doubling student performance. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.

Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O., Archibald, S., Goetz, M., Mangan, M. T., & Aportela, A.
(2007). Moving from good to great in Wisconsin: Funding schools adequately and
doubling student performance. Madison, WI: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Prendergast, K. A., Spradlin, T. E., & Palozzi, V. J. (2007). Is it time to change Indiana’s
school-year calendar. Education Policy Briefs, 5(1), 1-8.

Raudenbush, S. W. (2009). The Brown legacy and the O'Connor challenge: Transforming
schools in the images of children's potential. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 169-
180.

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

Resnick, L. B. (1995). From aptitude to effort: A new foundation for our schools. Journal
of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 124(4), 55-62.

95

Roza, M., & Hill, P. T. (2006). How can anyone say what's adequate if nobody knows
how money is spent now? In E. Hanushek (Ed.), Courting failure: How school
finance lawsuits exploit judges' good intentions and harm our children (pp. 235-
256). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Stern, S. (2006). Campaign for fiscal equity v. New York: The march of folly. In E.
Hanushek (Ed.), Courting failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges'
good intentions and harm our children (pp. 1-32). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Taylor, L. L., Baker, B. D., & Vedlitz, A. (2005). Measuring educational adequacy in
public schools. College Station, Texas: George Bush School of Government and
Public Service, Texas A&M University.

Timar, T. B. (2006). How California funds K-12 education. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University, Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice.

Timar, T. B. (2004). Categorical school finance: Who gains, who loses. Berkeley, CA:
Policy Analysis for California Education, University of California Berkeley.

96

APPENDIX A – IRB APPROVAL

97

APPENDIX B – QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
This Codebook is intended to be used solely for EDUC 790 and 792 (Picus) – School
Resource Use and Instructional Improvement Strategies. It identifies data collection items
and their definitions. This document is organized according to the corresponding Data
Collection Protocol and the web portal for data entry (www.lopassociates.com).

I. School Profile
Each data item has a place for notes. This section is meant to be used for any
notations that you would like to record as a personal reminder. Notes fields will
not be used in data analysis.

A. School Name: In your training binder, there will be a group of schools for
which you are responsible. The school name and contact information are
located under the Schools tab.
B. School State ID: This is the identification number that the state has assigned
the school. You do not need to enter this; it has been entered for you.
C. Address Line 1: Street address of the school
D. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the school
E. City: City of the school
F. State: “CA” is automatically entered for you.
G. Zip: Postal zip code of the school
H. Phone: Main office phone number for the school
I. Fax: Main office fax number for the school
J. Website: School’s official website

II. School Contacts
This section is for recording the contact people at the school. This will include the
principal, and most likely the secretary. Anyone else you interview should also be
recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about this person (E.g. phonetic
spelling of their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what the data
source is.

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead
of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member

98

H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “WY” is automatically being entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

III. District Profile

A. District Name: This is the name of the district where the school is located.
B. District State ID: This is the identification number that the state has assigned
to the district within which the school resides.

IV. District Contacts
This section is for recording the contact people at the district office. This will
include the superintendent, and possibly an assistant superintendent and/or
director of curriculum and instruction. Anyone else you interview should also be
recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about these individuals (e.g.
phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what
the data source is.

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead
of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “WY” is automatically being entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

99

V. School Resource Indicators
School resource indicators should be collected for the 2009-2010 school year.
Enter personal notations pertaining to the data in the yellow notes fields.

A. Current Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled at the school on
the day of the site visit minus any pre-kindergarten students.
B. Pre-kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled in any
pre-kindergarten programs at the school on the day of the site visit. These
students should not be included in the previous category, Current Student
Enrollment. Make sure to also ask this question at secondary schools.
C. Grade Span: Range of grades that the school provides instruction in. (E.g. K-
5)
D. Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of the site visit, the number
of students eligible for services as an English language learner (ELL) as
defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
E. Number of Students Eligible for Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL):
Number of enrolled students who are eligible for the federal free- and
reduced-price lunch program.
F. Total number of Special Education Students (IEPs): As of the day of the site
visit, number of students in the school with an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) indicating their eligibility for special education services. (This
will most likely be a larger number than the number of students who are in a
self-contained special education classroom.) Does not include gifted and
talented students.
G. Number of Special Education Students (self-contained): Number of students
in the school with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) indicating their
eligibility for special education services.
H. Total Length of School Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
required to be present at school. If multiple grade spans are present for
different amounts of time, report the average length. (e.g. If the school day
begins at 8:30am and ends at 3:15pm, then the total length of the school day is
405 minutes.)
I. Length of Instructional Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
present for instruction. This information should be available from the school
bell schedule or a school staff member. Subtract recess, lunch, and passing
periods time from the total minutes in the school day. This calculation is
different from how the state measures the “instructional day.” (E.g. If the
length of the school day is 405 minutes, and the students have 20 minutes for
lunch and 25 minutes for recess, then the length of the instructional day is 360
minutes.)

100

J. Length of Mathematics Class: Number of minutes of mathematics class
periods per day. These include periods when students are specially grouped
for extended mathematics instruction. Report an average per day length.
K. Length of Reading/English/LA Class: Number of minutes of reading, English,
and language arts (LA) class periods. These include periods when students are
specially grouped for extended literacy instruction. (E.g. reading, writing,
comprehension) Report an average per day length.
L. Length of Science Class: Number of minutes of science class periods per day.
These include periods when students are specially grouped for extended
science instruction. Report an average per day length.
M. Length of Social Studies Class: Number of minutes of social studies and
history class periods per day. These include periods when students are
specially grouped for extended history or social studies instruction. Report an
average per day length.
N. AYP: This is a measure as to whether the school made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) during the previous school year (2007-08). Enter “Y” or “N”
or “NA.”
O. API

VI. Core Academic Teachers
The classroom teachers primarily responsible for teaching a school’s core
academic subjects of reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science,
history/social studies, and foreign language. In elementary schools, core academic
teachers consist of the teachers in the self-contained regular education classrooms.
Some elementary schools may also departmentalize certain core subjects such as
math or science, especially in the upper grades. These teachers are also to be
included as core teachers. In middle schools, high schools, or any other
departmentalized school, core teachers consist of those teachers who are members
of the English/language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and foreign
language departments along with special education or ESL/bilingual teachers who
provide classes in these subjects. The teachers should be entered as full-time
equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. (E.g. a half-time teacher would
be entered as 0.5) If teachers are assigned to multiage classrooms, divide up the
FTEs weighted by students per each grade. Enter each teacher’s name that
corresponds to the FTEs entered in the corresponding notes fields. Indicate in
parentheses if the teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.
Example:
Grade 1: Matthew Perry (0.5), Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston;
Grade 2: David Schwimmer (0.25), Courtney Cox (0.33), Matt LeBlanc

101

A. Grades K-12: Number of FTE licensed grade-level teachers who teach the
core subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the individual subject
categories.
B. English/Reading/LA, History/Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, and
Foreign Language: Number of FTE licensed subject-specific teachers who
teach the core subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the grade
categories.

VII. Specialist and Elective Teachers
This expenditure element consists of teachers who teach non-core academic
classes, and usually provide planning and preparation time for core academic
teachers. The teachers should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which
may include decimals. In the notes sections, enter each teacher’s name that
corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the
teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Art/Music/PE: Number of FTE specialist teachers, such as art, music, and
physical education (PE) teachers, who usually provide regular classroom
teachers with planning and preparation time.
B. Drama/Technology/Health: Number of FTE teachers who provide instruction
in a subject area that represents a special academic focus.
C. Career & Technical Education: Number of FTE vocational education teachers
D. Driver Education: Number of FTE drivers education teachers.
E. Study Hall: Number of FTE teachers who monitor study hall.
F. Athletics: Number of FTE teachers who coach an athletic team during the
school day. This does not include time spent as an athletic director, which
would be captured under the Administration section.
G. Other: Number of FTE specialist teachers who are not specifically listed
above.
H. Other Description: Indicate the subject area that the “Other” specialist
teacher(s) instruct.

VIII. Library Staff
Library staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs
entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a
1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Librarian/ Library Media Specialist: Number of FTE licensed librarians or
media specialists who instruct students
B. Library Aide: Number of FTE library aides who help instruct students

102

IX. Extra Help Staff
This category mainly consists of licensed teachers from a wide variety of
strategies designed to assist struggling students, or students with special needs, to
learn a school’s regular curriculum. The educational strategies that these teachers
deploy are generally supplemental to the instruction of the regular classroom.
Extra help staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. Do not include volunteers in the FTE counts. Enter each staff
member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields.
Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Certified Teacher Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
B. Non-Certified Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are not licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
C. ISS Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who monitor/teach In-
School Suspension (ISS) students.
D. ISS Aides: Number of FTE Title I funded aides who monitor/teach In-
School Suspension (ISS) students.
E. Title I Teachers: Number of FTE non-special education teachers who
provide small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I
program.
F. Title I Aides: Number of FTE non-special education aides who provide
small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
G. ELL Class Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers of English as a
second language (ESL) who work with non-English speaking students to
teach them English.
H. Aides for ELL: Number of FTE aides of English as second language (ESL)
classes who work with non-English speaking students to teach them English.
I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct students in
the gifted program.
J. Gifted Program Aides: Number of FTE aides who instruct students in the
gifted program.
K. Gifted Program Funds: Dollar amount budgeted for the gifted program for
the 2008-09 school year
L. Other Extra Help Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provide
supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school’s
curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
M. Other Extra Help Teachers Description: Indicate what the “Other” extra help
staff do.

103

N. Other Extra Help Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff that
provides supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the
school’s curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
O. Other Extra Help Classified Staff Description: Indicate what the “Other”
extra help classified staff does.
P. Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for students with severe disabilities):
Number of FTE licensed teachers who teach in self-contained special
education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled students for most
or all of the school day. These teachers may teach a modified version of a
school’s curriculum or other learning goals required by their students’
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who assist
regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical
or mental disabilities, or a learning problem. These students generally have
“less severe” disabling conditions.
R. Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers: Number of FTE licensed special
education teachers who provide small groups of students in special
education with extra help in specific areas.
S. Special Ed. Self-contained Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist in self-
contained special education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled
students for most or all of the school day.
T. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or mental
disabilities, or some learning problem. These students generally have “less
severe” disabling conditions.
U. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE special education aides
who provide small groups of students in special education with extra help in
specific areas.
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate in
the extended day program.
W. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of minutes per week
that the extended day program is offered.
X. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work minutes per week in
the teacher contract.
Y. Extended Day Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum after school.
Z. Extended Day Classified Staff: Number of FTE staff who provides students
with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum after school.

104

AA. Description of Extended Day Classified Staff: Description of classified
staff’s role in the extended day program.
BB. Minutes Per Week of Summer School: Number of minutes per day
multiplied by the number of days per week that students attend summer
school.
CC. Length of Session: Number of weeks that summer school is in session.
DD. School’s Students Enrolled in the Summer School Program: Number of
students from the individual school who are enrolled in the summer school
program (a subset of the following item).
EE. All Students in Summer School: Total number of students enrolled in the
summer school program.
FF. Summer School Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provided students
with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum during summer 2008.
GG. Summer School Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff that
provided students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in
the regular curriculum during summer 2008.

X. Other Instructional Staff
Included here are instructional staff members that support a school’s instructional
program, but do not fit in the previous categories. Other instructional staff should
be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter
each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related
fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that
category.

A. Consultants (other than PD contracted services): Dollar amount for all other
consultants other than professional development contracted services.
B. Building Substitutes: Number of FTE permanent substitutes.
C. Other Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct, but were not included
in previous categories.
D. Other Instructional Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist instruction, but
were not included in previous categories.
E. Funds for Daily Subs: Daily rate for daily certified teacher substitutes who
replace sick teachers. (This is not for substitutes who replace teachers who are
participating in professional development.)

XI. Professional Development Staff & Costs
This expenditure element includes spending on the professional development of a
school’s staff and the staffing resources necessary to support it. Professional
development staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), and cost

105

figures should be entered as a dollar amount, both of which may include decimals.
Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the
related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that
category.

A. Number of Professional Development Days in the Teacher Contract: Number
of days the teacher contract specifies for professional development.
B. Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount budgeted for
substitutes and stipends that cover teacher time for professional development.
For time outside the regular contract day when students are not present before
or after school or on scheduled in-service days, half days or early release days,
the dollar amount is calculated by multiplying the teachers’ hourly salary
times the number of student-free hours used for professional development. For
planning time within the regular contract, the dollar amount is calculated as
the cost of the portion of the salary of the person used to cover the teachers’
class during planning time used for professional development. For other time
during the regular school day, including release time provided by substitutes,
cost is calculated with substitute wages. For time outside the regular school
day, including time after school, on weekends, or for summer institutes, the
dollar amount is calculated from the stipends or additional pay based on the
hourly rate that the teachers receive to compensate them for their time.
C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE instructional facilitators
and coaches. This may include on-site facilitators and district coaches (though
only the FTE for the specific school should be recorded). Outside consultants
who provide coaching should be captured in an estimated FTE amount
depending on how much time they spend at the school.
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services. If trainers are from the
district, convert to a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-level administrators of
professional development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the specific
school should be recorded).
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials,
equipment needed for professional development activities, and rental or other
costs for facilities used for professional development.

106

H. Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or
reimbursement for college-based professional development, and fees for
conferences related to professional development.
I. Other Professional Development: Either FTEs or Dollar amount for other
professional development staff or costs. (Use this category sparingly.)
J. Other Description: Specify what the “Other” professional developments are,
and indicate whether it is a FTE or dollar amount.

XII. Student Services Staff
This expenditure element consists of school-based student support staff, as well as
school expenditures for extra-curricular activities and athletics. Student services
staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include
decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in
the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in
that category.

A. Guidance: Number of FTE licensed guidance counselors.
B. Attendance/dropout: Number of FTE staff members who manage attendance
and report dropouts.
C. Social Workers: Number of FTE licensed school social workers.
D. Nurse: Number of FTE registered nurses or nurse practitioners
E. Parent advocate/community liaison: Number of FTE staff members who serve
as the parent advocate and/or community liaison, often working with parents
to get their children to attend school.
F. Psychologist: Number of FTE licensed school psychologists or educational
diagnosticians.
G. Speech/OT/PT: Number of FTE licensed speech, occupational (OT), and
physical therapists (PT) who provide services to the school’s students
H. Health Asst.: Number of FTE health assistants
I. Non-teaching aides: Number of FTE non-teaching aides. (E.g. Lunchroom
aides, Aides who help students board buses; DO NOT include cooks – the
defining difference is whether the staff member is supervising students or
not.)
J. Other Student Services: Number of FTE other student services staff. (Use this
category sparingly.)
K. Other Description: Indicate what the “other” student services staff member
does.

XIII. Administration
This expenditure element consists of all staffing resources pertaining to the
administration of a school. Administrators should be entered as full-time

107

equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name
that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses
if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Principal: Number of FTE licensed principals.
B. Assistant Principal: Number of FTE assistant principals.
C. Other Administrators: Number of FTE other administrators. (Use this category
sparingly.)
D. Other Description: Indicate what the “Other” administrators’ duties are.
E. Secretary: Number of FTE Secretaries.
F. Clerical Staff: Number of FTE clerical staff members.
G. Technology Coordinator: Number of FTE technology coordinators and IT
staff.
H. Security: Number of FTE security staff.
I. Custodians: Number of FTE staff who provide custodial services

XIV. Elementary Class Sizes (We are NOT collecting this data for middle and high
schools.)
Sometimes it is easiest to get this information when you get the staff list, but other
times the secretary can just copy the sheet that tells them how many students are
in each classroom (we don’t want student names). You want a (preferably
electronic) copy of the master class schedule to enter this data. When entering the
data online, make sure to enter the class size for every class that is taught at the
school. Click on the Class Size option from the main menu and a new menu will
be displayed on the left. This menu will have options for grades Pre-8 plus
Special Education. When you click on a grade, the page with that grade's sections
will be displayed where you can enter the individual class sizes.

108

APPENDIX C – DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
School Profile
School Name School’s State ID Number
Address
City State Zip
Phone Fax
Website
NOTES:
School Contact (1)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
School Contact (2)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
School Contact (3)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

District Profile
District Name
District State ID
District Contact (1)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
District Contact (2)

109

Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
District Contact (3)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

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

Core academic teachers (General Education Self Contained) FTEs
Kindergarten (Indicate if Full day program)
Grade 1
Grade 2

110

Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
English/Reading/L.A.
History/Soc. Studies
Math
Science
Foreign Language
NOTES
Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning and Prep FTEs
Art
Music
PE/Health
Drama
Technology
Career & Technical Education
Drivers Education
Study Hall
Athletics
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers Description:
NOTES:

Library Staff FTEs
Librarian
Library Media Specialist
Library Aide
NOTES:

Extra Help I
FTEs or
Dollars ($)
Certified Teacher Tutors
Non-Certified Tutors
ISS Teachers
ISS Aides
Title I Teachers
Title I Aides

111

ELL Class Teachers
Aides for ELL
Gifted Program Teachers
Gifted Program Aides
Gifted Program Funds
Other Extra Help Teachers
Other Extra Help Teachers Funded with Federal Dollars:
Other Extra Help Classified Staff
Other Extra Help Classified Staff Funded with Federal Dollars:
NOTES:

Extra Help II FTEs
Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for severely disabled students)
Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers
Special Ed. Resource Room Teacher
Special Ed. Self-contained Aides
Special Ed. Inclusion Aides
Special Ed. Resource Room Aides
NOTES:

Extra Help III
Number of Extended Day Students
Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program minutes
Teacher Contract Minutes per Week minutes
Extended day Teachers
Extended Day Classified Staff
Description of Extended Day Classified Staff
Minutes per Week of Summer School minutes
Length of Session (# of Weeks) weeks
School’s Students Enrolled in Summer School
All Students in Summer School
Summer School Teachers
Summer School Classified Staff
NOTES:

Other Instructional Staff
FTEs and
Dollars ($)
Consultants (other than paid contracted services) $

112

Building substitutes and other substitutes
Other Teachers
Other Instructional Aides
Funds for Daily Subs $
NOTES:

Professional Development
FTEs and
Dollars ($)
Number of Prof. Dev. Days in Teacher Contract
Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time) $
Instructional Facilitators/Coaches
Trainers/Consultants $
Administration
Travel $
Materials, Equipment and Facilities $
Tuition & Conference Fees $
Other Professional Development $
Other Professional Development Staff Funded with Federal Dollars:
NOTES:

Student Services FTEs
Guidance
Attendance/Dropout
Social Workers
Nurse
Parent advocate/community liaison
Psychologist
Speech/O.T./P.T.
Health Asst.
Non-teaching aides
Other Student Services
Description Of Other Student Services Staff:
NOTES:

Administration FTEs
Principal
Assistant principal
Other Administrator

113

Description of Other Administrator:
Secretary
Clerical staff
Technology Coordinator/ I.T.
Security
Custodians
NOTES:

114

APPENDIX D – QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
Pre-Visit Document Request List
All of these documents should be for the current 2010-11 school year.

1. Staff List (School)
This list will likely include any person who works in the physical space of the school. It
is necessary to understand the full-time equivalent (FTE) status of each employee, as well
as what their job entails (for a principal or classroom teacher, this may be obvious, for
special education staff or student support staff, this is not readily clear).
• Some staff is paid to work less than 1.0 FTE with the school, yet is housed at the
school full-time. Only the portion of the day that the staff person provides
services to the individual school should be recorded.
• Special education and ELL staff, especially, may be dedicated to more than one
project (e.g. 0.5 FTE reading coach, 0.5 FTE resource room).
• Distinguish how special education and ELL staff provides support (e.g. do they
work with an individual child or a classroom, etc.).
• Individuals who serve the school may not be listed and instead are based out of
the district or regional education agency (e.g. speech therapy, visiting coaches) so
you will need to ask them about these people—see below.

2. Staff List (District)
A list of all district employees who do not appear on school staff roster, but who provide
direct services to schools (guidance counselors, psychologists, special education
diagnosticians, etc) and which schools they provide services to, expressed in FTE units.
For instance, a special education diagnostician who works with 3 schools might be listed
three times on this sheet (0.5 FTE, 0.3 FTE, 0.2 FTE) depending upon the number of
days she is allocated to the various schools. Note: You will only be recording the
proportion of FTEs that she spends providing services to the individual school you are
studying.

3. School Schedule (School)
It is helpful to have a copy of the bell schedule to talk through the amount of instructional
time for reading, math, etc.

4. Consultants (School, District, and State)
Budgeted dollar amount for all other consultants other than professional development
contracted services.

115

5. Class Sizes
You want a copy of the master class schedule to enter this data. Make sure to enter the
class size for every class that is taught at the school.

6. Funds for Daily Substitutes
Daily rate for substitute teachers who replace sick teachers. (This is not for substitutes
who replace teachers who are participating in professional development.)

7. Professional Development Budget
• • • • Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount for substitutes and
stipends that cover teacher time for professional development.
• • • • Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide training
or other professional development services.
• • • • Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional development
activities, and costs of transportation within the district for professional
development.
• • • • Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials, equipment
needed for professional development activities, and rental or other costs for
facilities used for professional development.
• • • • Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or reimbursement
for college-based professional development, and fees for conferences related to
professional development.
• • • • Other Professional Development: Dollar amount for other professional
development staff or costs.

116

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

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

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

1. What has the content focus of your improvement process been?
(E.g. Reading, Math, Reading First, Math Helping Corps, etc.)
2. What curricula have you used during your instructional improvement
effort? (E.g. Open Court reading, Everyday Math, etc.)
• Is it aligned with state standards?
• How do you know it is aligned? (E.g. District recent review for
alignment)
3. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement effort?
• • • • Does your staff have an agreed upon definition of effective
teaching?
4. What is the instructional vision for your improvement effort?
(E.g. Connecticut standards or the Danielson Framework)
5. Have assessments been an integral part of your instructional
improvement process?
• • • • If so, what types of assessments have been key? (E.g. formative,
diagnostic, summative)
• How often are those assessments utilized?
• What actions were taken with the results?
6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a part of
your reform efforts? (E.g. Individualized instruction, differentiated
instruction, 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction)
• • • • Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy?
• • • • How did you know that the instructional strategies were being
implemented?

117

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

1. Early Childhood program: Is it half or full day? Number kids? Staffing
ratios? Eligibility?
2. Full Day Kindergarten
• If yes, how long have they had full day kindergarten?
3. Class Size Reduction
• Reduction Strategy (E.g. 15 all day long K-3 or reading only with
15)
4. Professional Development:
• When is the professional development days scheduled for? (E.g.
Summer Institutes, In-service Days)
• What is the focus of the professional development?
• Do you have instructional coaches in schools? Were there enough
coaches? (Did they need more but couldn’t afford it?)
5. “Interventions” or Extra Help Strategies for Struggling Students:
• Tutoring: Specify 1:1, in small groups (2-4), or in medium groups
(3-5)
• Extended day: How frequently (Number minutes & Number of
times per week), Academic focus, Who instructs (certified teachers
or aides), Who participates
• Summer school: How Frequently (Number hours a day, Number
weeks), Who instructs (certified teachers or aides), Who participates
• ELL
• Scheduling: (E.g. double periods in secondary schools)
6. Parent outreach or community involvement
7. Technology

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

D. What type of instructional leadership was present?

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

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

118

APPENDIX F – DATA COLLECTION CODE BOOK
This Codebook is intended to be used solely for EDUC 790 and 792 (Picus) – School
Resource Use and Instructional Improvement Strategies. It identifies data collection
items and their definitions. This document is organized according to the corresponding
Data Collection Protocol and the web portal for data entry (www.lopassociates.com).

XV. School Profile
Each data item has a place for notes. This section is meant to be used for any
notations that you would like to record as a personal reminder. Notes fields will
not be used in data analysis.

A. School Name: In your training binder, there will be a group of schools for
which you are responsible. The school name and contact information are
located under the Schools tab.
B. School State ID: This is the identification number that the state has assigned
the school. You do not need to enter this; it has been entered for you.
C. Address Line 1: Street address of the school
D. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the school
E. City: City of the school
F. State: “CA” is automatically entered for you.
G. Zip: Postal zip code of the school
H. Phone: Main office phone number for the school
I. Fax: Main office fax number for the school
J. Website: School’s official website

XVI. School Contacts
This section is for recording the contact people at the school. This will include
the principal, and most likely the secretary. Anyone else you interview should
also be recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about this person (E.g.
phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what
the data source is.

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead
of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member

119

H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “WY” is automatically being entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

XVII. District Profile

A. District Name: This is the name of the district where the school is located.
B. District State ID: This is the identification number that the state has assigned
to the district within which the school resides.

XVIII. District Contacts
This section is for recording the contact people at the district office. This will
include the superintendent, and possibly an assistant superintendent and/or
director of curriculum and instruction. Anyone else you interview should also be
recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about these individuals (e.g.
phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what
the data source is.

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead
of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “WY” is automatically being entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

120

XIX. School Resource Indicators
School resource indicators should be collected for the 2009-2010 school year.
Enter personal notations pertaining to the data in the yellow notes fields.

A. Current Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled at the school on
the day of the site visit minus any pre-kindergarten students.
B. Pre-kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled in any
pre-kindergarten programs at the school on the day of the site visit. These
students should not be included in the previous category, Current Student
Enrollment. Make sure to also ask this question at secondary schools.
C. Grade Span: Range of grades that the school provides instruction in. (E.g. K-
5)
D. Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of the site visit, the number
of students eligible for services as an English language learner (ELL) as
defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
E. Number of Students Eligible for Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL):
Number of enrolled students who are eligible for the federal free- and
reduced-price lunch program.
F. Total number of Special Education Students (IEPs): As of the day of the site
visit, number of students in the school with an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) indicating their eligibility for special education services. (This
will most likely be a larger number than the number of students who are in a
self-contained special education classroom.) Does not include gifted and
talented students.
G. Number of Special Education Students (self-contained): Number of students
in the school with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) indicating their
eligibility for special education services.
H. Total Length of School Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
required to be present at school. If multiple grade spans are present for
different amounts of time, report the average length. (e.g. If the school day
begins at 8:30am and ends at 3:15pm, then the total length of the school day is
405 minutes.)
I. Length of Instructional Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
present for instruction. This information should be available from the school
bell schedule or a school staff member. Subtract recess, lunch, and passing
periods time from the total minutes in the school day. This calculation is
different from how the state measures the “instructional day.” (E.g. If the
length of the school day is 405 minutes, and the students have 20 minutes for
lunch and 25 minutes for recess, then the length of the instructional day is 360
minutes.)

121

J. Length of Mathematics Class: Number of minutes of mathematics class
periods per day. These include periods when students are specially grouped
for extended mathematics instruction. Report an average per day length.
K. Length of Reading/English/LA Class: Number of minutes of reading, English,
and language arts (LA) class periods. These include periods when students
are specially grouped for extended literacy instruction. (E.g. reading, writing,
comprehension) Report an average per day length.
L. Length of Science Class: Number of minutes of science class periods per day.
These include periods when students are specially grouped for extended
science instruction. Report an average per day length.
M. Length of Social Studies Class: Number of minutes of social studies and
history class periods per day. These include periods when students are
specially grouped for extended history or social studies instruction. Report an
average per day length.
N. AYP: This is a measure as to whether the school made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) during the previous school year (2007-08). Enter “Y” or “N”
or “NA.”
O. API

XX. Core Academic Teachers
The classroom teachers primarily responsible for teaching a school’s core
academic subjects of reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science,
history/social studies, and foreign language. In elementary schools, core
academic teachers consist of the teachers in the self-contained regular education
classrooms. Some elementary schools may also departmentalize certain core
subjects such as math or science, especially in the upper grades. These teachers
are also to be included as core teachers. In middle schools, high schools, or any
other departmentalized school, core teachers consist of those teachers who are
members of the English/language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and
foreign language departments along with special education or ESL/bilingual
teachers who provide classes in these subjects. The teachers should be entered as
full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. (E.g. a half-time
teacher would be entered as 0.5) If teachers are assigned to multiage classrooms,
divide up the FTEs weighted by students per each grade. Enter each teacher’s
name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the corresponding notes fields.
Indicate in parentheses if the teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.
Example:
Grade 1: Matthew Perry (0.5), Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston;
Grade 2: David Schwimmer (0.25), Courtney Cox (0.33), Matt LeBlanc

122

A. Grades K-12: Number of FTE licensed grade-level teachers who teach the
core subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the individual subject
categories.
B. English/Reading/LA, History/Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, and
Foreign Language: Number of FTE licensed subject-specific teachers who
teach the core subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the grade
categories.

XXI. Specialist and Elective Teachers
This expenditure element consists of teachers who teach non-core academic
classes, and usually provide planning and preparation time for core academic
teachers. The teachers should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which
may include decimals. In the notes sections, enter each teacher’s name that
corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the
teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Art/Music/PE: Number of FTE specialist teachers, such as art, music, and
physical education (PE) teachers, who usually provide regular classroom
teachers with planning and preparation time.
B. Drama/Technology/Health: Number of FTE teachers who provide instruction
in a subject area that represents a special academic focus.
C. Career & Technical Education: Number of FTE vocational education teachers
D. Driver Education: Number of FTE drivers education teachers.
E. Study Hall: Number of FTE teachers who monitor study hall.
F. Athletics: Number of FTE teachers who coach an athletic team during the
school day. This does not include time spent as an athletic director, which
would be captured under the Administration section.
G. Other: Number of FTE specialist teachers who are not specifically listed
above.
H. Other Description: Indicate the subject area that the “Other” specialist
teacher(s) instruct.

XXII. Library Staff
Library staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs
entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a
1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Librarian/ Library Media Specialist: Number of FTE licensed librarians or
media specialists who instruct students
B. Library Aide: Number of FTE library aides who help instruct students

123

XXIII. Extra Help Staff
This category mainly consists of licensed teachers from a wide variety of
strategies designed to assist struggling students, or students with special needs, to
learn a school’s regular curriculum. The educational strategies that these teachers
deploy are generally supplemental to the instruction of the regular classroom.
Extra help staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. Do not include volunteers in the FTE counts. Enter each staff
member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields.
Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Certified Teacher Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
B. Non-Certified Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are not licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
C. ISS Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who monitor/teach In-
School Suspension (ISS) students.
D. ISS Aides: Number of FTE Title I funded aides who monitor/teach In-
School Suspension (ISS) students.
E. Title I Teachers: Number of FTE non-special education teachers who
provide small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I
program.
F. Title I Aides: Number of FTE non-special education aides who provide
small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
G. ELL Class Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers of English as a
second language (ESL) who work with non-English speaking students to
teach them English.
H. Aides for ELL: Number of FTE aides of English as second language (ESL)
classes who work with non-English speaking students to teach them English.
I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct students in
the gifted program.
J. Gifted Program Aides: Number of FTE aides who instruct students in the
gifted program.
K. Gifted Program Funds: Dollar amount budgeted for the gifted program for
the 2008-09 school year
L. Other Extra Help Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provide
supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school’s
curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
M. Other Extra Help Teachers Description: Indicate what the “Other” extra help
staff do.

124

N. Other Extra Help Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff that
provides supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the
school’s curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
O. Other Extra Help Classified Staff Description: Indicate what the “Other”
extra help classified staff does.
P. Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for students with severe disabilities):
Number of FTE licensed teachers who teach in self-contained special
education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled students for most
or all of the school day. These teachers may teach a modified version of a
school’s curriculum or other learning goals required by their students’
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who assist
regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical
or mental disabilities, or a learning problem. These students generally have
“less severe” disabling conditions.
R. Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers: Number of FTE licensed special
education teachers who provide small groups of students in special
education with extra help in specific areas.
S. Special Ed. Self-contained Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist in self-
contained special education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled
students for most or all of the school day.
T. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or mental
disabilities, or some learning problem. These students generally have “less
severe” disabling conditions.
U. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE special education aides
who provide small groups of students in special education with extra help in
specific areas.
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate in
the extended day program.
W. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of minutes per week
that the extended day program is offered.
X. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work minutes per week in
the teacher contract.
Y. Extended Day Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum after school.
Z. Extended Day Classified Staff: Number of FTE staff who provides students
with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum after school.

125

AA. Description of Extended Day Classified Staff: Description of classified
staff’s role in the extended day program.
BB. Minutes Per Week of Summer School: Number of minutes per day
multiplied by the number of days per week that students attend summer
school.
CC. Length of Session: Number of weeks that summer school is in session.
DD. School’s Students Enrolled in the Summer School Program: Number of
students from the individual school who are enrolled in the summer school
program (a subset of the following item).
EE. All Students in Summer School: Total number of students enrolled in the
summer school program.
FF. Summer School Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provided students
with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum during summer 2008.
GG. Summer School Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff that
provided students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in
the regular curriculum during summer 2008.

XXIV. Other Instructional Staff
Included here are instructional staff members that support a school’s instructional
program, but do not fit in the previous categories. Other instructional staff should
be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter
each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related
fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that
category.

A. Consultants (other than PD contracted services): Dollar amount for all other
consultants other than professional development contracted services.
B. Building Substitutes: Number of FTE permanent substitutes.
C. Other Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct, but were not included
in previous categories.
D. Other Instructional Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist instruction, but
were not included in previous categories.
E. Funds for Daily Subs: Daily rate for daily certified teacher substitutes who
replace sick teachers. (This is not for substitutes who replace teachers who
are participating in professional development.)

XXV. Professional Development Staff & Costs
This expenditure element includes spending on the professional development of a
school’s staff and the staffing resources necessary to support it. Professional
development staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), and cost

126

figures should be entered as a dollar amount, both of which may include decimals.
Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the
related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that
category.

A. Number of Professional Development Days in the Teacher Contract: Number
of days the teacher contract specifies for professional development.
B. Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount budgeted for
substitutes and stipends that cover teacher time for professional development.
For time outside the regular contract day when students are not present before
or after school or on scheduled in-service days, half days or early release days,
the dollar amount is calculated by multiplying the teachers’ hourly salary
times the number of student-free hours used for professional development.
For planning time within the regular contract, the dollar amount is calculated
as the cost of the portion of the salary of the person used to cover the teachers’
class during planning time used for professional development. For other time
during the regular school day, including release time provided by substitutes,
cost is calculated with substitute wages. For time outside the regular school
day, including time after school, on weekends, or for summer institutes, the
dollar amount is calculated from the stipends or additional pay based on the
hourly rate that the teachers receive to compensate them for their time.
C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE instructional facilitators
and coaches. This may include on-site facilitators and district coaches
(though only the FTE for the specific school should be recorded). Outside
consultants who provide coaching should be captured in an estimated FTE
amount depending on how much time they spend at the school.
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services. If trainers are from the
district, convert to a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-level administrators of
professional development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the specific
school should be recorded).
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials,
equipment needed for professional development activities, and rental or other
costs for facilities used for professional development.

127

H. Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or
reimbursement for college-based professional development, and fees for
conferences related to professional development.
I. Other Professional Development: Either FTEs or Dollar amount for other
professional development staff or costs. (Use this category sparingly.)
J. Other Description: Specify what the “Other” professional developments are,
and indicate whether it is a FTE or dollar amount.

XXVI. Student Services Staff
This expenditure element consists of school-based student support staff, as well as
school expenditures for extra-curricular activities and athletics. Student services
staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include
decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in
the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in
that category.

A. Guidance: Number of FTE licensed guidance counselors.
B. Attendance/dropout: Number of FTE staff members who manage attendance
and report dropouts.
C. Social Workers: Number of FTE licensed school social workers.
D. Nurse: Number of FTE registered nurses or nurse practitioners
E. Parent advocate/community liaison: Number of FTE staff members who serve
as the parent advocate and/or community liaison, often working with parents
to get their children to attend school.
F. Psychologist: Number of FTE licensed school psychologists or educational
diagnosticians.
G. Speech/OT/PT: Number of FTE licensed speech, occupational (OT), and
physical therapists (PT) who provide services to the school’s students
H. Health Asst.: Number of FTE health assistants
I. Non-teaching aides: Number of FTE non-teaching aides. (E.g. Lunchroom
aides, Aides who help students board buses; DO NOT include cooks – the
defining difference is whether the staff member is supervising students or
not.)
J. Other Student Services: Number of FTE other student services staff. (Use this
category sparingly.)
K. Other Description: Indicate what the “other” student services staff member
does.

XXVII. Administration
This expenditure element consists of all staffing resources pertaining to the
administration of a school. Administrators should be entered as full-time

128

equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name
that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses
if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Principal: Number of FTE licensed principals.
B. Assistant Principal: Number of FTE assistant principals.
C. Other Administrators: Number of FTE other administrators. (Use this category
sparingly.)
D. Other Description: Indicate what the “Other” administrators’ duties are.
E. Secretary: Number of FTE Secretaries.
F. Clerical Staff: Number of FTE clerical staff members.
G. Technology Coordinator: Number of FTE technology coordinators and IT
staff.
H. Security: Number of FTE security staff.
I. Custodians: Number of FTE staff who provide custodial services

XXVIII. Elementary Class Sizes (We are NOT collecting this data for middle
and high schools.)
Sometimes it is easiest to get this information when you get the staff list, but other
times the secretary can just copy the sheet that tells them how many students are
in each classroom (we don’t want student names). You want a (preferably
electronic) copy of the master class schedule to enter this data. When entering
the data online, make sure to enter the class size for every class that is taught at
the school. Click on the Class Size option from the main menu and a new menu
will be displayed on the left. This menu will have options for grades Pre-8 plus
Special Education. When you click on a grade, the page with that grade's sections
will be displayed where you can enter the individual class sizes.

129

APPENDIX G – CASE STUDIES
Dresden High School
Dresden High School is located in a beach community in Orange County,
California. Dresden High School was built in 1973 and currently has an enrollment of
approximately 2,960 students. Many of the students attending the school come from
families with either a four- or two-year college degree. The school offers a multitude of
extra-curricular activities including boys’ and girls’ athletic teams, clubs, and a
recognized performing arts program. With ocean views from the campus, the grade 9 –
12 school is one of six comprehensive high schools within the Southland Unified School
District that has over 50,000 K-12 students. As one of the largest school districts in the
area, Southland has also experienced political turmoil for the past five years including
criminal indictments of a former superintendent, the firing of another, and two school
board recall elections. Despite all of this, schools such as Dresden continued to see
increases in standardized student test scores such as the CSTs and API.
As with most California schools, Dresden has seen a shift in student
demographics over the past ten years. Whereas during the 2000-2001 school year
Hispanic/Latino students made up 14% of the student population, today they total over
24%. Dresden has seen relatively little change in overall student population, maintaining
about 3,000 students each year. Figure G.1 shows the ethnic breakdown for the 2009-
2010 school year where 24% of the student population was Hispanic, 63% were White,
3% were Asian, and approximately 10% were classified as Other.

130

Figure G.1 – Ethnic Breakdown of Dresden High School (2009-2010)
Hispanic
White
Asian
Other

Dresden’s other student demographics have also maintained relatively consistent
patterns as well. During the 2000 – 2001 school year, 11.4% of the student population
received free/reduced meals, compared to 19% in 2009 – 2010. The numbers of English
Learners (EL) have remained below 10% for the past ten years. The primary language
for EL students is Spanish. Another subgroup on the Dresden campus is Special
Education (SPED). This group totaled only 223 students or 7.5% in 2009-2010. As a
result of the overall student demographics, Dresden High School does not qualify for
federal Title I funding.
Dresden has experienced overall student achievement growth on standardized
tests including their API, CSTs, and California High School Exit Exams (CAHSEE). The
Academic Performance Index is a cumulative score of student performance on statewide
tests. The goal for all schools and subgroups within schools is 800 or above. Overall,
Dresden improved 32 points from 2006 through 2010 to its current API score of 848.

131

Figure G.2 shows the overall API growth for five years including the 2006 through 2010
testing cycles.
Figure G.2 – Dresden High Schools API (2006 – 2010)
816
825 825
840
848
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Despite overall gains in API growth, Dresden continues to have an achievement
gap among significant sub groups. Figure G.3 demonstrates a 219 point gap between
White and Hispanic students in 2010. In addition, there has been little improvement
among English Learners over the five-year period. In 2006, the API score for EL
students was 652, while in 2010 it was 658. The largest API growth has been among
Hispanic students, which have seen their overall scores rise by 70 points in five years.

132

Figure G.3 – Dresden High School API by Subgroups (2006 – 2010)
839
850 850
864
877
683
692
706
719
753
652
657
663
645
658
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
White
Hispanic
English
Learners

Another measurement of Dresden’s student achievement is through the federal
accountability tool of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). AYP is a year-to-year
measurement of reading and mathematics with increasing targets goals each year.
Schools receiving federal Title I money must meet all subgroup goals each year or risk
falling into Program Improvement (PI) status. Since Dresden does not receive federal
Title I money, and they have an overall API score of over 800, they are currently not at
risk of penalty. However, as demonstrated by Figures G.4 and G.5, while the school
continues to make improvements among the percentage of proficient White students, the
EL and SPED subgroups do not. This is significant not only as another area for targeted
improvement, but the entire Southland Unified School District missed AYP goals for
2009 - 2010 and is now in PI status.

133

Figure G.4 – Dresden High School Language Arts AYP % Proficient (2006 – 2010)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED

Figure G.5 – Dresden High School Math AYP % Proficient (2006 – 2010)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED

The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) became a graduation
requirement of all students with the graduating class of 2006. The exam sets minimum
grade level competencies and is given for the first time to all tenth grade students in
March. First attempt pass rates for Dresden High School are shown in both Tables G.1
and G.2. Overall pass rates hover near 90% for both English and math. Among

134

significant subgroups, once again EL students continue to lag behind. However, there are
some significant jumps in math from 2009 to 2010 with Hispanic, EL, Low SES, and
SPED students improving by at least 10% in all areas. In comparing results from 2007 to
2010, all subgroups have made improvements in the percentage of students passing both
English and math on the first attempt.

Table G.1 – CAHSEE First Attempt English Pass Rates (2007 – 2010)

Dresden High School
First Attempt CAHSEE English
Pass Rates by Sub Groups
2007 – 2010
2007

Total = 720
2008

Total = 776
2009

Total = 695
2010

Total = 644
All 10
th
Grade Students 91% 90% 89% 92%
Hispanic/Latino 70% 69% 65% 78%
White/Caucasian 96% 97% 94% 97%
English Learners 24% 33% 32% 33%
Low SES 72% 67% 63% 77%
Special Education 54% 47% 44% 52%

Table G.2 – CAHSEE First Attempt Math Pass Rates (2007 – 2010)

Dresden High School
First Attempt CAHSEE Math
Pass Rates by Sub Groups
2007 – 2010
2007

Total = 719
2008

Total = 767
2009

Total = 698
2010

Total = 644
All 10
th
Grade Students 90% 90% 89% 91%
Hispanic/Latino 70% 71% 70% 80%
White/Caucasian 94% 95% 93% 95%
English Learners 43% 49% 46% 56%
Low SES 75% 69% 68% 78%
Special Education 48% 40% 38% 52%

Another way to assess a high school’s overall academic program is through the
number of Advanced Placement (AP) classes in the master schedule. AP courses offer
rigorous, college-level expectations in a high school setting. Students completing AP

135

courses in high school typically take an AP exam in May and successful scores of 3 or
better (5 is the highest) will count toward college credit at accepting universities.
Dresden High School has seen the number of students taking AP exams increase from
480 in 2005 to 673 in 2009. As shown in Figure G.6, there has also been a significant
increase in the number of tests taken as well. Whereas in 2005 there were 981, in 2009
there were 1408.

Figure G.6 – Total Number of AP Exams (2005 – 2009)
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Number of Exams

When providing more opportunities for students to take AP classes and tests, there is a
concern that the pass rate will decrease. As shown in Figure G.7, Dresden has
maintained a pass rate at or above 73% for the five years shown. This means, more
Dresden students are taking and passing more AP exams than ever before.

136

Figure G.7 – Percent of Students Passing the AP Exams (2005 – 2009)

30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Percent Passing

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Unlike many schools in similar studies, the high schools represented in this study,
including Dresden, draw from surrounding populations of generally well-educated
middle- to upper-middle class families. In spite of the generally high level of students at
Dresden, the improvement process has continued on an upward path of what the principal
calls “slow growth,” despite tremendous political upheaval and continued demands of
increasing student achievement. Rather than major jumps in API and other standardized
test scores, Dresden has seen steady consistent growth in almost all areas for many years.
One of the main reasons for this consistency may be related to the current leadership.
The principal has been at Dresden for the past ten years. The first five he spent as an
assistant principal and the past five as principal. Under his leadership, Dresden has had

137

stable leadership, a targeted focus on developing a collaborative culture, and ongoing
analysis of student achievement data.
Given Dresden’s student population and high test scores, there was and continues
to be no mandate for change or improvement. Where schools in PI status, or those
collecting federal funds such as Title I funds, may be forced into positions of lengthening
school days or changing instructional programs, Dresden joined the other schools of the
Southland School District over ten years ago to establish Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs). Similar to many schools at the time, Dresden maintained an
isolated state of independent teachers creating individual instructional paths for students.
There was limited amount of time for teachers to collaborate about instruction, and most
of the professional development was spent outside of school at conferences. Through
district leadership and direction, the staff of Dresden created a new bell schedule that
allowed for late-start Mondays and provided a Tutorial period during the school day. In
addition, they used the time to align instructional practices, creating common pacing and
instructional plans. As of 2010, the principal now believes he can walk into any
classroom on any given day and find similar lessons being taught at the same time. The
lessons, he claims, result from years of collaboration amongst teachers through a trial and
error process, but most importantly, they are commonly agreed upon by the content team.
The Dresden staff meets weekly in various instructional teams to review
formative student achievement data, make recommendations for improved instructional
plans, and provide on-site staff development opportunities. This process has been critical

138

for the sustainability of student achievement growth. Over the past three years, the
Southland School District has moved from a centralized focus on PLCs to very little
instructional leadership from the district. School sites such as Dresden are left to rely on
each other to develop their own paths. One example of this is a move from what the
principal described as moving away from a focus on high achievers to supporting all
students. Through its own formative assessments, as well as statewide summative
assessments, the school recently adopted a commitment from all academic content areas
to identify and teach content-specific academic literacy terms. Through a series of data
studies and a collective inquiry process, the staff agreed that the best way to support
struggling students was to focus on vocabulary that would expand understanding of the
content and provide clarity on the state tests.
Another example of staff collaboration was with the adaptation of the Tutorial
period. Up until a couple of years ago, the Tutorial period was left to student choice.
The staff, however, felt it more appropriate to use this time to meet targeted learning gaps
and therefore began assigning students to classes. One area in particular focused on the
CAHSEE pass rate. All ninth grade students were given an assessment at the end of their
ninth grade year. Those requiring additional support to pass the CAHSEE were assigned
a Tutorial period with small class sizes, additional instructors, and designed curriculum.
The principal credits this change to improving the CAHSEE pass rate the following year.
Overall, the improvement strategies implemented by the Dresden principal and
staff over the past several years have focused on developing a professional and reflective

139

culture open to examining data and willing to innovate when necessary. As a result, the
principal expressed a built-in level of accountability among teachers. He said he does not
use data for accountability purposes; however, he asserted there is no compromise to staff
members working collaboratively. As seen in the student achievement data, this has
served the staff of Dresden High School well, not only in supporting student achievement
growth, but in doing so for the right reasons, not because of a mandate.
10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
The following is an annotated look at Dresden High School and how it relates to
the Odden & Archibald (2009) model. In addition, Table F.3below provides a
comparison chart in order to assess the relationship between the school and the Odden &
Archibald (2009) strategies.
Understanding the Performance Problem and Challenge
There appears to be evidence of the principal’s and staff’s awareness of the
performance problem. Dresden utilizes data software, Data Director, to allow teachers
the ability to not only see individual students standardized test scores, but to assist the
content areas by storing site-driven formative assessments. In addition, the principal
accesses and shares performance data with the staff by subject area to help teachers
understand areas of strength and improvement. As expressed by the principal, there
appears to be a new focus on students at all levels since the district entered PI status.
Set Ambitious Goals

140

All Southland Unified School District teachers are required, per the collective
bargaining agreement, to set annual goals. According to the principal, previous years’
goals tended to focus on items such as improving AP or CST results. There has been a
shift for the 2010 – 2011 school year. As the result of a heavy emphasis on common core
assessments, all teachers focused their goals on improvements on formative assessments.
There was, however, little evidence of student goal setting outside of the ninth grade
year. During this year all students develop four-year high school graduation goals and
college/career goals. After the ninth grade year, there is little reported follow-up. There
was no mention of goal setting or sharing school goals with the community.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
Overall there were no major changes or shifts in curriculum. Other than routine
adoptions of new textbooks, the major shifts in the instructional vision began many years
prior with the district’s and school’s focus on PLCs. The principal reported prior to this
evolution, most teachers operated independently with their own pacing and structure.
Currently, however, teachers are aligned by content areas, thus creating more consistent
practice and opportunities for collective analysis. It was stated that the principal believed
he could walk through any given content area and find almost the exact same lesson
being taught. He felt this enabled the staff to take on school wide initiatives such as
reading and writing across the curriculum.
For the 2010 – 2011 school year the staff agreed on an additional instructional
focus of supporting academic literacy. All academic content areas agreed to create a list

141

of approximately thirty terms to teach to all students. They believe, based on the research
they collectively read, this will lead to increased student performance in the classroom
and on standardized tests.
Formative Assessments and Data-Based Decision Making
According to the principal, data drive everything for the Dresden staff.
Fundamental in the change to becoming a PLC several year ago are the access and
analysis of formative assessment data. The school district purchased technology
software, Data Director, which enables teachers to create common content area
assessments and scan them for analysis. The principal reported that as a result of this
change, teachers and departments frequently use the data to adapt not only the current
pacing of the class, but also to make school wide recommendations for the instructional
program.
There were several examples given of site decisions made based on data results
from formative assessments. One in particular was the creation of a new science course
resulting from low student performance in AP Chemistry. The school felt that many
students did not have the math skills necessary for the course. However, teachers wanted
students to continue to follow the college “a-g” pathway. Therefore, they adopted a new
Bio-Tech class that satisfied the requirement and maintained students’college eligibility.
Another example was a targeted approach to what the principal reported as a low
first-time pass rate on the CAHSEE. The school instituted a universal screening of all

142

ninth grade students in order to then place them in an intervention time in tenth grade.
The result was an overall improvement in first time pass rates.
Ongoing, Intensive Professional Development
Due to significant budget reductions within the Southland School District, there
was little financial support for professional development. There was evidence of a few
opportunities such as AP and AVID conferences; these were paid for out of the school’s
education foundation. Most staff development occurred during the designed Monday
late-start schedule. In order to support PLCs on site, the staff agreed to spend one hour
each week in collaboration time. The principal reported this is the only time when
professional development took place. All non-student professional development days
were eliminated for the 2010 – 2011 school year because of budget cuts and a new
contract agreement with the teachers’ union. Therefore, any professional development is
left to the school sites to facilitate. In previous years at Dresden High School,
professional development time was used to focus on differentiated teaching strategies and
Data Director training.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
Dresden High School’s principal and faculty continue to look at and redesign the
way they use instructional time, as evident with the Monday Late Start days for
professional collaboration and the creation of a Tutorial period during the school day.
The Tutorial period was designed to allow for students to choose subjects they needed
additional help with and to attend the desired class. As this did not prove to be as

143

effective as planned, the faculty changed the requirements of the Tutorial periods to be
more targeted, assigning students to subject areas they either needed more support in or
as an intervention for the CAHSEE. The principal claimed students have been achieving
better on both formative and summative assessments as the result of this Tutorial period.
Extending Learning Time for Struggling Students
There is limited extended learning time at Dresden High School because of
financial restraints. Dresden does offer three days of an after-school tutoring program
with one day dedicated to math, another to English, and a third for EL students. This is a
voluntary drop-in program, and the principal indicated staff is looking for interventions to
be more embedded into the instructional day. Funding for the after-school program
comes from the Dresden education foundation and through grants from the city. Dresden
does not offer any double periods of English or math, but it does offer a double period of
Reading for all struggling readers. Also, as the result of severe budget cuts, summer
school within the Southland Unified School District is limited to remediation courses so
students may meet high school graduation requirements.
Collaborative, Professional Culture
Most apparent of the ten strategies is the collaborative and professional culture at
Dresden. The principal stated that there was “no compromise for working together and
looking at data.” He is complimentary of the faculty in describing the instruction as
moving from being disjointed to aligned. The school even went so far as to move the
classrooms of similar content area teachers closer together in order to support a more

144

collaborative atmosphere. In addition, content area teams meet weekly for one hour to
discuss outcomes of formative assessments, make pacing plan adjustments, and create
new assessments. The Dresden principal believes there is now an internal accountability
structure in place through the use of openly-shared teacher data and a focus on improved
student learning outcomes.
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
The turnover of district leadership has moved the district from a centralized
organization focused on PLCs to a more decentralized organization with sites generally
left on their own. However, the principal credits the past work of district leaders for
setting up structures to support open and ongoing collaboration even during tumultuous
times.
An example is the voluntary course team leaders. As described by the principal, a
department may include a multitude of various content areas, and a department chair may
not have the expertise in all of them. Therefore, volunteer leaders have stepped forward
to continue a practice that at one time received either an additional stipend or a release
period. These leaders are in charge of managing the collaboration time, supporting
curriculum alignment, and sometimes meeting with other course team leaders throughout
the district. Cuts at the administrative and district levels have caused these site leaders to
become essential in maintaining a focus on improving instruction.
Professional and Best Practices

145

Once again there is strong evidence that shows Dresden is committed to
improving its overall practices. The faculty has moved away from being isolated to being
open to sharing data and instructional practices. In addition, there was mention of
looking at current research in designing the instructional focus on academic literacy.
Finally, although there was little money for outside professional development, site
leaders looked both within their school and the school district to bring in experts for no-
cost solutions to professional development issues such as learning about differentiation
strategies.

146

Table G.3 – Dresden High School and 10 Strategies
Implementation Odden & Archibald’s
Strategies
Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Understanding
performance problem
and challenge
X
Access to both formative and
summative assessments. Teachers meet
weekly to discuss assessments and
student data.
Set ambitious goals X
Little indication of goal setting outside
of teacher evaluations and 9
th
grade
college/career planning.
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision

X
The instructional vision comes out of
the culture of PLCs. The faculty is just
beginning to tackle the achievement gap
conversation.
Formative
assessments/data-based
decisions
X
Strong utilization of Data Director for
site based formative assessments.
Ongoing PD X
Due to a lack of resources and an
elimination of all PD days.
Using time efficiently &
effectively
X
Implementation of Tutorial period and
Monday Collaboration time. Ongoing
discussion about time within the bell
schedule.
Extended learning time
for struggling students
X
Utilization of Tutorial time, after school
tutoring, and double block for
struggling readers.
Collaborative,
professional culture
X
Teachers and administrators meet
regularly. Strong commitment to
PLCS.
Widespread and
distributed instructional
leadership
X
Voluntary course team leaders.
Principal has a strong commitment to
collaboration.
Professional and best
practices
X
Utilizes current research, student data,
and school wide discussions to make
decisions.

147

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
Dresden High School demonstrates many of the Odden’s (2009) strategies despite
limited financial and staffing resources. As compared with the EBM in Table F.4 there
are multiple areas in which Dresden is deficient. Below is a comparison of a prototypical
high school within the EBM and Dresden High School.
Table G.4 – Dresden and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
High School
Dresden
Current Resource
Status
Dresden Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size 9-12: 600 Students 9-12: 2800 Students 4.7 x larger
Class Size 9-12: 25 9-12: 35.1 10 more than EBM
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
175, with 0 days for
intensive PD
25 fewer school days
10 fewer PD days
Kindergarten n/a n/a n/a
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE – Principal
3.0 FTE – APs
4.7 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 2.0
FTE Clerical
5.0 FTE – Secretary
6.375 FTE – Clerical
14.1 FTE
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 73 FTE 112.8 FTE
Specialist Teachers 8.0 or 33% more 18.4 FTE 150.0 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
3.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 18 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
0.0 FTE 4.75 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
0.2 FTE 2.0 FTE
Non-Instructional Support for
EL Students
0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE

148

Table G.4 – Continued
Extended Day 0.6 FTE 0.0 FTE 2.82 FTE
Summer School 2.5 FTE Resources Provided
at District Level
11.75 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 2.5
professional teacher
positions
11.0 FTE 13.5 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
FTE Included in
Learning & Mild
100% state
reimbursement
minus federal funds
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$0 5% of personnel
resources and
special education
personnel
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
11.1875 FTE 4.75 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 3.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 14.1 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 11.725 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 1.75 FTE 4.7 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $0 $70,000
Technology $250 per pupil $0 $700,000
Instructional Materials $175 per pupil Resources Vary $490,000
Student Activities $250 per pupil 1 Section ASB
1 FTE – Activities
Director
$700,000
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$0 $280,000

149

Summary and Lessons Learned
Dresden High School has seen consistent overall student achievement growth
over the past five years. Fundamental in this improvement process has been the
commitment of the teachers and administration to the implementation of Professional
Learning Communities. Although started as a district initiative prior to many of the
financial and political issues, the PLC foundations were in place at Dresden and allowed
the staff to create innovative instructional programs, targeted student interventions, and
an overall focus on the needs of the students.
At the center of Dresden’s PLC culture is the prevalent use of ongoing formative
assessments and weekly collaboration meetings amongst teachers. Driven by the
principal’s commitment of “no compromise to collaboration,” Dresden teachers have
aligned their instructional practice and regularly modify the pace in order to provide
intervention or enrichment opportunities. Curriculum alignment has also benefited the
staff with the development of an internal accountability system. Rather than fear
comparison results on assessments, teachers use their data to engage in conversation to
assist each other and provide embedded staff development opportunities.
As with the other schools in the study, the community demographics also play a
role in Dresden’s academic success. With a relatively small percentage of English
Learners and students qualifying for free/reduced meals, it would be expected for
Dresden’s test scores to be relatively high. Additionally, the Dresden community is one

150

where many of the students come from families where most have at least a high school
education and many have some college experience.
Despite several educational advantages, all of the schools, including Dresden, had
to deal with a school district in strife. Along with the indictment of the former
superintendent, and two recall elections of school board members, has also come the
decrease in the instructional year by five days, little financial resources for professional
development, and the reduction of class sizes. Overall, when comparing to Odden’s 10
Strategies, Dresden is not completely aligned.
Where the school appears to overcome any misalignment to the model is through
strong instructional leadership at the site level. The principal, having served in an
administrative role as an AP and now principal for ten years, has built strong
relationships with the teachers on site and looks towards the school leadership team to
help facilitate conversations about research and best practice instructional design.
While many of the ten strategies may not be seen in obvious situations, through the use of
embedded staff collaboration time, teachers to be getting what they need.
Future Considerations
Future considerations for Dresden High School include providing additional
resources to support the reduction of class sizes and assist in the area of technology.
Technology resources in particular are a major concern for the principal as the teachers
move to more common formative assessments. Because of a teacher’s large student load,
online programs such as Data Director, along with the necessary computers and scanners,

151

will allow teachers’ the ability to efficiently inform their practice. Yet one other
consideration is a need for low cost, or no cost, solutions to professional development.
Finally, as with all schools in the Southland Unified School District, there appears to be
some stabilization at the district office and school board levels. As things begin to settle,
the role of the district office in reestablishing itself as an instructional support provider
will be critical.

152

APPENDIX G – CASE STUDIES
South Crest High School
South Crest High School is located in a beach community in Orange County,
California. South Crest High School currently has an enrollment of approximately 3,200
students. Many of the students attending the school come from families with either a
four- or two-year college degree. The school offers a multitude of extra-curricular
activities including boys’ and girls’ athletic teams and clubs. South Crest is recognized
for its state and national champion dance and surf teams. South Crest, like Dresden, has
ocean views from its campus and is one of six comprehensive grade 9 – 12 high schools
in the Southland Unified School District, a district of over 50,000 students. As one of the
largest school districts in the area, Southland has experienced political turmoil for the
past five years including criminal indictments of a former superintendent, the firing of
another, and two school board recall elections. Despite all of this, schools such as South
Crest continued to see increases in standardized student test scores such as the CSTs and
API.
As with most California schools, South Crest has seen a shift in student
demographics over the past ten years. Whereas during the 2000-2001 school year
Hispanic/Latino students made up 14% of the student population, today they total over
25%. South Crest has seen its overall student population rise during this same period of
time from 2,669 in 2000-2001 to 3,140 in 2009-2010. Figure G.8 shows the ethnic

153

breakdown for the 2009-2010 school year: 25% of the student population was Hispanic,
64% was White, 2% was Asian, and approximately 9% were classified as Other.
Figure G.8 – Ethnic Breakdown of South Crest High School (2009-2010)
Hispanic
White
Asian
Other

South Crest’s other student demographics have also maintained relatively
consistent patterns as well. During the 2000 – 2001 school year, 14% of the student
population received free/reduced meals, compared to 21% in 2009 – 2010. The numbers
of English Learners (EL) have also remained below 9% of the total student population for
the past ten years. The primary language for EL students is Spanish. As a result of the
overall student demographics, South Crest High School does not qualify for federal Title
I funding.
South Crest has experienced overall student achievement growth on standardized
tests including their API, CSTs, and California High School Exit Exams (CAHSEE). The
Academic Performance Index is a cumulative score of student performance on statewide
tests. The goal for all schools and subgroups within schools is 800 or above. Overall,
South Crest improved 18 points from 2006 through 2010 to its current API score of 820.

154

Figure G.9 shows the overall API growth for five years including the 2006 through 2010
testing cycles.
Figure G.9 – South Crest High School API (2006 – 2010)
802
784
817
829
820
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Despite overall gains in API growth, South Crest continues to maintain an
achievement gap among significant sub groups. Figure G.10 demonstrates a 98 point gap
between White and Hispanic students in 2010. In addition, there has been little
improvement among English Learners over the five-year period. In 2006, the API score
for EL students was 619, while in 2010 it was 629. The largest API growth has been
among Hispanic students; their overall score has risen by 66 points in five years.

155

Figure G.10 – South Crest School API by Subgroups (2006 – 2010)
826
812
839
851
842
678
659
712
722
744
619
653
643
629
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
White
Hispanic
English
Learners

Another measurement of South Crest student achievement is through the federal
accountability tool of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). AYP is a year-to-year
measurement of reading and mathematics with increasing target goals each year. Schools
receiving federal Title I money must meet all subgroup goals each year or risk falling into
Program Improvement (PI) status. Since South Crest does not receive federal Title I
money, and they have an overall API score of over 800, they are currently not at risk of
penalty. However, Figures G.11 and G.12 represent the percentage of students scoring
proficient from 2006 – 2010, and there does not appear to be consistent improvement
among any of the significant subgroups. This is important not only as another area for
targeted improvement, but the entire Southland Unified School District missed AYP
goals for 2009 - 2010 and is now in PI status.

156

Figure G.11 – South Crest High School Language Arts AYP % Proficient (2006 –
2010)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED

Figure G.12 – South Crest High School Math AYP % Proficient (2006 – 2010)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED

The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) became a graduation
requirement for all students with the graduating class of 2006. The exam sets minimum
grade level competencies and is given for the first time to all tenth grade students in
March of their sophomore year. First attempt pass rates for South Crest High School are
shown in both Tables G.5 and G.6. Overall pass rates stay at about 90% for both English
and math. Among significant subgroups, once again EL students continue to lag behind.
Additionally, there is not consistent growth as seen in other schools within the district.
Rather annual increases are followed in the subsequent year by a decrease. In comparing

157

results from 2007 to 2010 though, all subgroups have made improvements in the
percentage of students passing both English and math on the first attempt.
Table G.5 – CAHSEE First Attempt English Pass Rates (2007 – 2010)

South Crest High School
First Attempt CAHSEE English
Pass Rates by Sub Groups
2007 – 2010
2007

Total = 798
2008

Total = 762
2009

Total = 798
2010

Total = 735
All 10
th
Grade Students 88% 89% 91% 89%
Hispanic/Latino 62% 75% 71% 77%
White/Caucasian 94% 97% 95% 94%
English Learners 21% 47% 36% 28%
Low SES 61% 73% 74% 72%
Special Education 31% 51% 52% 51%

Table G.6 – CAHSEE First Attempt Math Pass Rates (2007 – 2010)

South Crest High School
First Attempt CAHSEE Math
Pass Rates by Sub Groups
2007 – 2010
2007

Total = 776
2008

Total = 756
2009

Total = 801
2010

Total = 738
All 10
th
Grade Students 90% 93% 90% 90%
Hispanic/Latino 73% 76% 73% 80%
White/Caucasian 94% 97% 93% 93%
English Learners 48% 55% 52% 50%
Low SES 71% 74% 78% 78%
Special Education 45% 64% 39% 47%

Another way to assess a high school’s overall academic program is through the
number of Advanced Placement (AP) classes in the master schedule. AP courses offer
rigorous college level expectations in a high school setting. Students completing AP
courses in high school typically take an AP exam in May and successful scores of 3 or
better (5 is the highest) generally count toward college credit at accepting universities.
South Crest High School has seen the number of students taking AP exams increase from

158

538 in 2005 to 864 in 2010. As shown in Figure G.13, there has also been a significant
increase in the number of tests taken as well. Whereas in 2005 there were 981, in 2010
there were 1145 tests taken.
Figure G.13 – Total Number of AP Exams (2005 – 2010)
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Number of Exams

When providing more opportunities for students to take AP classes and tests, there is a
concern that the pass rate will decrease. As shown in Figure G.14, South Crest has
maintained a pass rate at or above 65% for the six years shown. This means, more South
Crest students are taking and passing AP exams than ever before.

159

Figure G.14 – Percent of Students Passing the AP Exams (2005 – 2010)

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Percent Passing

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Unlike many schools within similar studies, the high schools represented in this
study, including South Crest, draw from surrounding populations of generally well-
educated middle-to upper-middle class families. However, the improvement process for
South Crest has continued on an upward path despite tremendous political upheaval and
continued demands of increasing student achievement. Rather than major jumps in API
and other standardized test scores, South Crest has seen steady consistent growth in
almost all areas for many years. One of the main reasons for this consistency may be
related to the current leadership. The principal has been at South Crest for the past
fourteen years. The first nine he spent as an assistant principal and the past five as

160

principal. South Crest has benefited from his stable leadership, a targeted focus on
developing a collaborative culture, and ongoing analysis of student achievement data.
Because of South Crest’s student population and high test scores, there was and
continues to be no mandate for change or improvement. Whereas schools in PI status, or
those collecting federal funds such as Title I funds, may be forced into positions of
lengthening school days or changing instructional programs, South Crest joined the other
schools of the Southland School District over ten years ago to establish Professional
Learning Communities (PLCs). To the credit of the administration and teachers, South
Crest is considered to be one of the first within the Southland School District to adopt
PLCs. Prior to this adoption, and similar to many schools at the time, South Crest
maintained an isolated state of independent teachers creating individual instructional
paths for students. There was limited time to collaborate about instruction, and most of
the professional development was spent outside of school at conferences. Understanding
the importance of staff collaboration time, the staff of South Crest created a new bell
schedule that allowed for late-start Mondays and eventually provided a Tutorial period
during two days of the week. In addition, the teachers took the time to align instructional
practices, creating common pacing and instructional plans. The principal does recognize,
however, that some departments such as science are more aligned than others. He
attributes this to the leadership within the science department, and he recognizes the need
to continue to work with other content area leaders to align instructional practices.

161

The South Crest staff meets weekly in various instructional teams to review
formative student achievement data, make recommendations for improved instructional
plans, and provide on-site staff development opportunities. The principal credits this
practice with playing a significant role in the school’s longitudinal student achievement
growth. Over the past three years, the Southland School District has moved from a
centralized focus on PLCs to very little instructional leadership from the district. Schools
such as South Crest are left to rely on each other to develop their own paths. At South
Crest, the principal reported the diminished district leadership had little effect on the
school. Since PLCs were well established, teachers continued to perform as before. One
area of impact was in the reduction money for technology hardware at the school. With
much of the data necessary to drive the instructional conversation scanned into on-site
computers, South Crest experienced some problems with the machines. Without district
financial support to replace these tools, the school has had to absorb these cost through
other funds. This has made it difficult at times to produce the most current data from the
content area formative assessments.
One of the unique aspects of South Crest High School is that it is made up of two
campuses. Leading up to the 2002 – 2003 school year, the Leadership team of teachers
and administrators analyzed the school’s failing students and found the class with the
most students with one or more “Fs” was the nine grade. After analyzing the research on
freshmen transition issues, and with the closing of an adjacent elementary school, South
Crest created a ninth grade campus focused on easing the transition from middle school

162

to high school. Additionally, the school developed a Freshmen Mentoring Program
(FMP) pairing junior year students with groups of freshmen to provide multiple
interactions among peers. Through this new campus and program, ninth grade students
take the majority of their classes on the freshmen campus and receive guidance lessons
for success from older students.
Finally, the South Crest staff has taken a close look at different intervention
models and implements Mandatory Tutorial Period (MTP) for all students receiving an
“F” on a grading period and a Tutorial period during two school days per week. MTP is
conducted every day during lunch under the principal’s philosophy of “harass until they
pass.” Students are required to attend MTP during lunch until their grades rise. The
Tutorial period was brought in following the success of other high schools within the
district. Students use this time to meet with teachers for remediation or enrichment
lessons.
Because South Crest was the first school within the Southland School District to
research and implement Professional Learning Communities, their programs have
become embedded into the practices of its staff. Through this collaborative model, South
Crest has implemented many programs in order to meet the needs of students through
ongoing reflective practice and the adoption of innovative programs. The principal
believes, as displayed on his bulletin board, that the staff operates under the mentality of
making the decision in the best interest of students.

163

10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
The following is an annotated look at South Crest High School and how it relates
to the Odden & Archibald (2009) model. In addition Table F.7 provides a comparison
chart in order to assess the relationship between the school and the Odden & Archibald
(2009) strategies.
Understanding the Performance Problem and Challenge
There appears to be evidence of the principal’s and staff’s awareness of the
performance problem. South Crest utilizes data software, Data Director, to allow
teachers the ability to not only see individual students’ standardized test scores, but to
assist the content areas by storing site-driven formative assessments. In addition the
principal accesses and shares performance data with the staff by subject area to help
teachers understand areas of strength and improvement. The school has an ongoing
history of compiling and publishing a longitudinal data packet that is shared with the staff
and the community. As with the other schools in the district, there appears to be a new
focus on student at all level because of the district’s entry into PI status.
Set Ambitious Goals
All Southland Unified School District teachers are required by the collective
bargaining agreement to set annual goals. The South Crest staff has created common
goals for the past several years. Some of these goals have included on-demand writing in
all core subject areas, reducing “Ds” and “Fs,” and building common formative
assessments. There was little evidence of student goal setting outside of the ninth grade

164

year. Utilizing the curriculum in Freshmen Mentoring Program (FMP), and an additional
academic advisor for the ninth grade campus, all students develop four-year high school
graduation goals and college/career goals. However, after the ninth grade year there is
little reported follow-up.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
There have been no major changes or shifts in curriculum. Other than routine
adoptions of new textbooks, the major shifts in the instructional vision began many years
prior with the district’s and school’s focus on PLCs. The principal reported prior to this
evolution, most teachers operated independently with their own pacing and structure.
Currently, however, teachers are better aligned by content areas, creating more consistent
practice and opportunities for collective analysis. For the 2010 – 2011 school year,
however, the school district is leading an effort to train teacher leaders and administrators
on Academic Development Delivery. The principal described this as using good teaching
strategies and emphasizing academic literacy. Finally, there was a perception the school
district has stalled efforts for common core assessments due to the potential of adopting
national content standards.
Formative Assessments and Data-Based Decision Making
Data appear to be prevalent and readily available to all staff members at South
Crest. With the adoption of PLCs several years ago also came the creation of site-based
formative assessments. The school district purchased technology software, Data
Director, that enables teachers to create common content area assessments and scan them

165

for analysis. The principal reported some departments, such as science, are more
frequent users of this practice and technology. One of the reasons for some of the
inconsistent use of the scanning technology may come as the result of faulty hardware
and little financial support for replacements.
Ongoing, Intensive Professional Development
Significant budget reductions within the Southland School District led to little
financial support for professional development. There was evidence of a few
opportunities such as the AP and AVID conferences; these were paid for out of the
school’s education foundation. Most staff development occurred during the designed
Monday late-start schedule. In order to support PLCs on site, the staff agreed to one hour
per week for collaboration time. The principal reported that this is the only time when
professional development took place. All non-student professional development days
were eliminated for the 2010 – 2011 school year because of budget cuts and a new
contract agreement with the teachers’ union. Therefore, any professional development is
left to the school sites to facilitate.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
South Crest High School’s principal and faculty continue to look at and redesign
the way they use instructional time. This is evidenced by the Monday Late-Start days for
professional collaboration and the creation of a Tutorial period during the Wednesday
and Thursday block days. The design of the Tutorial period was to allow for students to
choose subjects where they needed additional help. In addition to the Tutorial period, the

166

Leadership Team collectively agreed to work with the departments on ensuring there
were no disruptions during the first ten and last ten minutes of each class period. The
principal stated this was based on research the group analyzed that showed students are
most focused during those times.
Extending Learning Time for Struggling Students
There is limited extended learning time at South Crest High School because of
financial restraints. South Crest does offer two days of an after-school tutoring program
for three hours each day. The Tutorials are staffed by content area teachers as well as AP
and IB student tutors. Funding for the after school program comes from the South Crest
education foundation and through grants from the city. South Crest offers double blocks
for EL students, reading for all struggling readers, and a CAHSEE Prep class for students
not passing the CAHSEE in the first sitting. The lone other example of extended learning
is the school’s Mandatory Tutorial Program (MTP). MTP mandates that students with an
“F” on a grading period attend tutoring during the last twenty minutes of lunch. Students
not meeting the MTP requirements are assigned a discipline consequence, generally
Saturday School. Also as the result of severe budget cuts, summer school offerings in the
Southland Unified School District are limited to remediation courses so that students can
meet high school graduation requirements.
Collaborative, Professional Culture
South Crest High School has a strong history of collaborative and professional
cultural as is evident by its early adoptions of PLCs. The school’s Leadership Team took

167

two trips to Illinois to visit Adlai Stevenson High School, considered a model PLC
school. From these experiences the staff discussed and implemented many initiatives to
help improve student learning including weekly collaboration, MTP, FMP, and a tutorial
period. The principal reported some staff morale concerns as a result of the teacher strike
during the spring of 2010 that may be impacting some departments’ ability to collaborate
as effectively as others. The principal does maintain a charge of making decisions that
are in the best interest of students and believes this philosophy still does resonate
throughout the staff. For the 2010 – 2011 school year, there are several curriculum and
instructional improvement efforts under way that will require buy-in from all
departments. Despite recent set backs, the South Crest principal believes there remains
an internal accountability structure in place through the use of openly shared teacher data
and a focus on improved student learning outcomes.
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
Because of the turnover of district leadership, the Southland School District has
moved from a centralized organization focused on PLCs to a more decentralized
organization with sites left on their own. The South Crest principal believed that this
change in district leadership has stalled progress at the site. However, the principal also
stated that the school maintains a strong teacher leadership team and a process for making
decisions that provides for staff buy-in. As a result, the South Crest teachers continue to
make changes to instruction based on research, data analysis, and reflective practice.

168

One example of staff commitment is evident in the decision to maintain a ninth
grade campus despite no additional staffing by the district office. By splitting the
campuses into an “upper” ninth grade and a “lower” campus, South Crest also must
divide administrative, counseling, and guidance departments. In doing so, there are fewer
resources for grades ten through twelve on the main campus. However, as shown in a
dramatic reduction in the number of ninth grade students receiving “Fs” on their report
cards, the South Crest staff and community continue to support the initiative.
Professional and Best Practices
Once again there is strong evidence that shows South Crest is committed to not
only improving its overall practices, but to sharing with other interested schools. Many
of the reforms at South Crest have come from the ideas generated from visiting
Stevenson High School. Also, the principal discussed how the Leadership Team
frequently used research when discussing program changes. More recently, the school
implemented a tutorial period during the instructional day after seeing the success at
other high schools within the school district. Finally, South Crest has hosted many high
schools over the past ten years for site visits to share its experiences as a PLC. The
principal said this helped South Crest staff to continue to reflect on its programs and
validate the many reforms that have taken place.

169

Table F.7 – South Crest and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Implementation Odden & Archibald’s
Strategies
Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Understanding
performance problem
and challenge
X
Access to both formative and
summative assessments. Teachers meet
weekly to discuss assessments and
student data.
Set ambitious goals X
Little indication of goal setting outside
of teacher evaluations and 9th grade
college/career planning.
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision

X
The instructional vision comes out of
the culture of PLCs.
Formative
assessments/data-based
decisions
X
Strong utilization of Data Director for
site based formative assessments.
Ongoing PD X
Due to a lack of resources and an
elimination of all PD days.
Using time efficiently &
effectively
X
Implementation of Tutorial period and
Monday Collaboration time. Ongoing
discussion about time within the bell
schedule.
Extended learning time
for struggling students
X
Utilization of Tutorial time, after school
tutoring, and double block for EL,
struggling readers, and CAHSEE.
Collaborative,
professional culture
X
Teachers and administrators meet
regularly. Strong commitment to
PLCS.
Widespread and
distributed instructional
leadership
X
Strong site based decision making
process has allowed for the
implementation of many programs.
Professional and best
practices
X
Utilizes current research, student data,
and research to make decisions. Site
visitations from other schools.

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
South Crest High School demonstrates many of Odden’s (2009) strategies despite
limited financial and staffing resources. As compared with the EBM in Table F.5 there

170

are multiple areas in which South Crest is deficient. Below is a comparison of a
prototypical high school within the EBM and South Crest High School.
Table F.8 – South Crest and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
High School
South Crest
Current Resource
Status
South Crest Based
on Prototypical
Model
School Size 9-12: 600 Students 9-12: 3200 Students 5.3 x larger
Class Size 9-12: 25 9-12: 35:1 10 more than EBM
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
175, with 0 days for
intensive PD
15 fewer school days
10 fewer PD days
Kindergarten n/a n/a n/a
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE – Principal
3.0 FTE – APs
1.0 FTE – Activities
5.3 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 2.0
FTE Clerical
7.0 FTE – Secretary
5.86 FTE – Clerical
5.3 FTE – Secretary
10.6 FTE – Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 74.8 FTE 127.2 FTE
Specialist Teachers 8.0 or 33% more 16.2 FTE 169.2 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
3.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 15.9 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
0.0 FTE 4.85 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
1.6 FTE 2.0 FTE
Non-Instructional Support for
EL Students
0.0 FTE 0.92 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 0.6 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.18 FTE
Summer School 2.5 FTE Resources Provided
at District Level
13.25 FTE

171

Table F.8 – South Crest and EBM (Cont.)
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 2.5
professional teacher
positions
3.0 FTE 5.50 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
4.0 100% state
reimbursement
minus federal funds
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$0 5% of personnel
resources and
special education
personnel
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
12.1 FTE 4.85 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 3.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 15.9 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 8.05 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 2.0 FTE 5.3 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $0 $80,000
Technology $250 per pupil $0 $800,000
Instructional Materials $175 per pupil $24.75 per pupil
$79,200

$560,000
Student Activities $250 per pupil 1 Section ASB
1 FTE – Activities
Director
$800,000
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$0 $320,000

Summary and Lessons Learned
South Crest High School has seen consistent overall student achievement growth
for the past ten years. As one of the leaders in the PLC movement in the Southland
Unified School District, the staff at South Crest has created an innovative instructional
program focused on professional collaboration, student interventions, and ongoing data

172

analysis. This commitment to the foundations of a PLC has served South Crest well in
the past few years, as there has been political turmoil at the superintendent and school
board levels, which led to a teacher’s strike during the spring of 2010. In spite of this, the
students at South Crest continued to see overall test scores rise on state tests.
At the center of South Crest’s PLC culture is the prevalent use of ongoing
formative assessments and weekly collaboration meetings among teachers. Driven by the
principal’s commitment of “doing what is in the best interest of students,” South Crest
implemented a tutorial period, began a mandatory lunchtime tutoring program, and
opened an independent ninth grade campus in order to improve overall academic success
for its students.
As with the other schools in the study, the community demographics also play a
role in South Crest’s academic success. With a relatively small percentage of English
Learners and student qualifying for free/reduced meals, it would be expected for South
Crest’s test scores to be relatively high. Additionally, the South Crest community is one
where many of the students come from families where most have at least a high school
education and many have some college experience.
Despite several educational advantages, all of the schools, including South Crest,
have had to deal with a school district in strife. Along with the indictment of the former
superintendent, and two recall elections of school board members, has also come the
decrease in the instructional year by five days, few financial resources for professional

173

development, and the reduction of class sizes. Overall, when compared to Odden’s 10
Strategies, South Crest is not completely aligned.
Where the school appears to overcome any misalignment to the research is
through strong instructional leadership at the site level. The principal, having served in
an administrative role as an AP and now principal for fourteen years, has built strong
relationships with the teachers and looks towards the school leadership team to help
facilitate conversations about research and best practice instructional design.
While many of the ten strategies may not be seen in obvious situations, through the use of
embedded staff collaboration time, students appear to be getting what they need.
Future Considerations
Future consideration for South Crest High School would include providing
additional resources to support the reduction of class sizes and the technology needs.
Technology resources in particular are a major concern for the site principal, as the
teachers move to more common formative assessments. Because of the size of a
teacher’s student load, online programs such as Data Director, along with the computers
and scanners, will allow teacher the ability in the most efficient ways to inform their
practices. Yet one other consideration is a need for low cost, or no cost, solutions to
professional development. Finally, as with all schools in the Southland Unified School
District, there appears to be some stabilization at the district office and school board
levels. As things begin to settle, the role of the district office in reestablishing itself as an
instructional support provider will be critical.

174

APPENDIX G – CASE STUDIES
South Jasper High School
South Jasper High School is located in the hills overlooking the beach
communities of South Orange County, CA. Only recently opened in 2007, South Jasper
is set to graduate its first class with the close of the 2011 school year. Because of the
limited numbers of years in existence, the state testing data is limited. With a total
enrollment of approximately 1,950 students, the school offers a multitude of extra-
curricular activities including boys’ and girls’ athletic teams and clubs and is recognized
for its performing arts program. South Jasper is one of six comprehensive grade 9 – 12
high schools in the over 50,000-student Southland Unified School District. As one of the
largest school districts in the area, Southland has experienced political turmoil for the
past five years including criminal indictments of a former superintendent, the firing of
another, and two school board recall elections. Despite all of this, schools such as South
Jasper continued to see increases in standardized student test scores such as the CSTs and
API.
As South Jasper is a newly-opened school, its overall student population has
grown with each incoming class of students. Beginning with a single class of 650 ninth
grade students in 2007–2008, the school has seen an overall consistent pattern of student
demographics with the addition of a new class of students each year. Whereas during the
2007-2008 school year, Hispanic/Latino students made up 38% of the student population,
the percentage ha remained stable at around 39%%. South Jasper has seen its overall

175

student population rise during this same period of time from the initial 650 students in
2007-2008 to 1,513 in 2009-2010. Figure G.15 shows the ethnic breakdown for the
2009-2010 school year where 39%% of the student population was Hispanic, 51% was
White, and approximately 10% were classified as Other.
Figure G.15 – Ethnic Breakdown of South Jasper High School (2009-2010)
Hispanic
White
Other

South Jasper’s other student demographics have also maintained relatively
consistent patterns as well. During the 2007 – 2008 school year, 26% of the student
population received free/reduced meals, compared to 31% in 2009 – 2010. Despite a
larger percentage of Hispanic students when compared to the other high schools within
the district, there were only 13% English Learners (EL) in 2009 – 2010. The primary
language for EL students is Spanish. As a result of the overall student demographics,
South Jasper High School does not qualify for federal Title I funding.
South Jasper has experienced overall student achievement growth on standardized
tests including their API, CSTs, and California High School Exit Exams (CAHSEE). The
Academic Performance Index is a cumulative score of student performance on statewide

176

tests. The goal for all schools and subgroups within schools is 800 or above. Overall,
South Jasper improved 62 points from 2008 through 2010 to its current API score of 810.
Figure G.16 shows the overall API growth for three years including the 2008 through
2010 testing cycles.
Figure G.16 – South Jasper High School API (2008 – 2010)
748
810 810
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2008 2009 2010

Despite overall gains in API growth, South Jasper continues to maintain an
achievement gap among significant sub groups. Figure G.17 demonstrates a 136 point
gap between White and Hispanic students in 2010. There is some overall improvement
with EL students over the three year period. In 2008 the API score for EL students was
554, while in 2010 it was 641. The largest API growth has been among Hispanic
students, which have seen their overall score rise by 106 points in three years.

177

Figure G.17 – South Jasper School API by Subgroups (2008 – 2010)
818
866
859
617
704
723
554
637
641
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2008 2009 2010
White
Hispanic
English
Learners

Another measurement of South Jasper student achievement is through the federal
accountability tool of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). AYP is a year-to-year
measurement of reading and mathematics with increasing targets goals each year.
Schools receiving federal Title I money must meet all subgroup goals each year or risk
falling into Program Improvement (PI) status. Since South Jasper does not receive
federal Title I money, and they have an overall API score of over 800, they are currently
not at risk of penalty. Figures G.18 and G.19 shows the percentage of students scoring
proficient from 2006 – 2010 on the AYP. Over this time there is improvement in
significant subgroups except EL students. This is important not only as another area for
targeted improvement, but the entire School District missed AYP goals for 2009 - 2010
and is now in PI status.

178

Figure G.18 – South Jasper High School Language Arts AYP % Proficient (2008 –
2010)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2008 2009 2010
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED

Figure G.19 – South Jasper High School Math AYP % Proficient (2008 – 2010)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2008 2009 2010
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED

The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) became a graduation
requirement of all students with the graduating class of 2006. The exam sets minimum
grade level competencies, and is given for the first time to all tenth grade students in
March. First attempt pass rates for South Jasper High School are shown in both Tables
G.9 and G.10. Overall pass rates hover in around 90% for both English and math.
Among significant subgroups, once again EL students continue to lag behind. Despite
only two years of data, each subgroup showed increases in the percentages of students
passing, with some of the largest increases seen amongst EL students. The only

179

exception to the subgroup increases were seen in Special Education students on the math
portion.
Figure G.9 – CAHSEE First Attempt English Pass Rates (2009 – 2010)

South Jasper High School
First Attempt CAHSEE English
Pass Rates by Sub Groups
2007 – 2010
2009

Total = 548
2010

Total = 470
All 10
th
Grade Students 88% 91%
Hispanic/Latino 74% 80%
White/Caucasian 96% 97%
English Learners 40% 46%
Low SES 73% 76%
Special Education 43% 44%

Figure G.10 – CAHSEE First Attempt Math Pass Rates (2009 – 2010)

South Jasper High School
First Attempt CAHSEE Math
Pass Rates by Sub Groups
2007 – 2010
2009

Total = 552
2010

Total = 470
All 10
th
Grade Students 84% 90%
Hispanic/Latino 70% 80%
White/Caucasian 91% 96%
English Learners 44% 54%
Low SES 70% 76%
Special Education 38% 33%

As with the other schools in the study, another way to assess a high school’s
overall academic program is through the number of Advanced Placement (AP) classes in
the master schedule. AP courses offer rigorous college level expectations in a high
school setting. Students completing AP courses in high school typically take an AP exam
in May and successful scores of 3 or better (5 is the highest) will count toward college
credit at accepting universities. South Jasper High School only shows one year of results

180

on AP exams and is more limited in the number of AP courses offered because of its
smaller student population. The data provided are for consistency with the other case
studies and will be referenced in recommendations for future consideration.
Figure G.20 – Total Number of AP Exams (2009)
0
100
200
300
400
500
2009
Number of Exams

Figure G.21 shows the percentage of students passing the AP exams at South Jasper.
Once again the pass rate is included for consistency with the other case studies and will
be referenced in the future consideration section of the study.

181

Figure G.21 – Percent of Students Passing the AP Exams (2009)
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
2009
Percent Passing

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Unlike many schools within similar studies, the high schools represented in this
study, including South Jasper, draw from surrounding populations of generally well-
educated middle- to upper-middle class families. What makes South Jasper unique is that
it has only been in existence for four years and is set to graduate its first class of seniors
at the end of the 2011 school year. Similar to the other schools in this study the
improvement process for South Jasper has continued on an upward path despite
tremendous political upheaval and continued demands of increasing student achievement.
The school has seen consistent growth in API and other standardized test scores. One of
the main reasons for this consistency may be related to the current leadership. Although
only in his third year at South Jasper, the current principal came over from another high

182

school in the district after South Jasper experienced a tumultuous first year which saw the
principal resign in the middle of the opening year. The current principal has been an
administrator in the district for over ten years and was reunited with some of his former
teachers. Under his leadership, the staff and school have benefited from his vision and
commitment to be collaborative, empower teachers to develop and design the
instructional plan, and a focus on a student centered approach.
Because of South Jasper’s student population and high test scores, there was and
continues to be no mandate for change or improvement. Where schools in PI status, or
those collecting federal funds such as Title I funds may be forced into positions of
lengthening school days or changing instructional programs, South Jasper emerged from
a conglomerate of teachers from other schools in the district to establish Professional
Learning Communities (PLCs). Unlike other schools in the district, there was not a
movement towards PLCs, but rather using them was an accepted practice from the staff’s
collective experiences at other sites. Six months prior to the opening of the school in the
fall of 2007, a leadership team of administrators, teachers, and classified staff members
met to construct an overall vision of the school, create an instructional schedule, and hire
staff members aligned with PLC philosophies. In addition, the overall construction of the
school itself was built with a design to create collaborative zones for teachers and
students.
What were created during the six-month planning phase were several structures
designed to improve staff collaboration and increase student learning. The original bell

183

schedule at South Jasper had embedded weekly morning time for department and content
areas to collaborate. Students on these days would arrive to school at a later time. This
was modified for the 2010 – 2011 school year to eliminate the late-start days and include
early-out days every other week. The principal described the change as an improvement
because the morning times were more limited and deemed to be less productive. The
principal credits the design of the school and time to collaborate for much of the
instructional alignment on campus. As previously indicated South Jasper started with
only one class of ninth grade students and added additional classes of students in
subsequent years. Each year the staff at South Jasper has grown as well from
approximately thirty teachers in its first year to over ninety in its current year. Teacher
teams, therefore, were responsible each year for collaborating on pacing, assessments,
and instructional practices. With many of the teachers coming from schools with PLCs,
and many others new to the teaching profession, the principal describes the instructional
vision as being “organically grown” from the teacher teams. As a result, he believes
much of the curriculum in each class has been agreed to and is aligned by teachers in the
various content areas.
With limited longitudinal student data, much of the focus at the school has been
on the CSTs taken in late May. Through ongoing collaboration, the South Jasper staff
agreed to backwards plan from the CST, essentially completing the state content
requirements with the delivery of the CST testing window. After the CSTs, the
instructors then use the remainder of the year for extension and enrichment activities.

184

With the CSTs as the primary focus, and the content areas’ creation of aligned pacing and
assessments, formative assessments are left to individual content areas. If students are
not meeting with success during the year, they are then assigned for additional review
and retesting during the school’s daily Tutorial periods. Implemented immediately with
the first class of students, the Tutorial period is designed not only to assist struggling
students, but also to offer enrichment time. Two days a week students are assigned to
one of their teachers, and the other two days a week they may select the teacher and
subject area in which they wish to work. During this time teachers do not introduce any
new content.
For the current 2010 – 2011 school year, the South Jasper staff does have bi-
monthly time on Wednesdays to support collaboration and staff development. However,
as the school is in its WASC accreditation year, and had its professional development
days eliminated due to budget cuts, the site relies on this time to complete the necessary
WASC items. The principal is hopeful that in the 2011 – 2012 school year, he and the
staff will use the Wednesday time for professional development.
Overall, the improvement strategies implemented by the South Jasper principal
and staff over the past four years have focused on developing a professional and
reflective culture open to data and willing to innovate when necessary. The principal
credits much of this development to the district’s past focus on PLCs and bringing
together committed teachers from other sites in the district with proven results from such
established practices. As with the other schools in the district, this has helped serve the

185

students of South Jasper and provides a collective instructional focus in the face of the
disruptive nature of the leadership disruptions at the district level.
10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
The following is an annotated look at South Jasper High School and how it relates
to the Odden & Archibald (2009) model. In addition Table G.11 provides a comparison
chart in order to assess the relationship between the school and the Odden & Archibald
(2009) strategies.
Understanding the Performance Problem and Challenge
The performance problems and challenges are just beginning to be defined at
South Jasper. Whereas other schools have many years of longitudinal state data, South
Jasper is completing only its fourth year. However, much of the challenge indicated by
the principal is in what he views as a large number of students with D’s and F’s on report
cards. Although the staff focuses on the CST scores, he is concerned with the upcoming
graduation of the first senior class and the potential for many of them to not be eligible.
He attributes this to the school’s not having experienced a senior class where students
have not been able to graduate. Similar to the other schools, with the school district as a
whole qualifying for PI status, there is also a new instructional focus being delivered by
the district office.
Set Ambitious Goals
Much of the goal-setting focus at South Jasper has centered on the CST outcomes.
As a result, the content area teachers pace the curriculum to end with the start of CSTs in

186

May. Additionally, many teachers offer grade incentives to students for improvement on
the CSTs. For example, if a student improves from basic to proficient, then the teacher
will give the student a percentage increase on the previous semester’s grade. When
necessary the teacher will also change the grade if the percentage moves a student to a
different letter grade. This type of focus has lead to CST goal setting at the individual
student level. The CST scores are discussed with students by the various subject area
teachers. Other school wide goals include a competitive focus on how the other high
schools in the district score.
Change the Curriculum Program and Create a New Instructional Vision
Each of the four years of South Jasper’s existence required a new group of
teachers to plan and create an instructional vision. Starting with the first class of ninth
grade students, it was necessary for teachers to pull together from their experiences on
other campuses not only to look at specific content areas, but to see the entire
instructional program. As a result, the principal believes there is close alignment of
assessments, pacing, and instructional delivery. As well, the annual addition of new
teachers from other schools in the district, plus the hiring of teachers recently graduated
from teaching programs who are immediately assimilated into the PLC model provides
for reflective and collaborative discussions. As is evident at the other schools in the
study as well, much of this is a site focus as the school district has stalled past efforts on
common core standards and assessments.
Formative Assessments and Data-Based Decision Making

187

Data appear to be prevalent and readily available to all staff members at South
Jasper High School. With the adoption of PLCs several years ago also came the creation
of site-based formative assessments. In addition, the school district purchased
technology software, Data Director, which enables teachers to create common content
area assessments and scan them for analysis. The principal reported, however, recent
frustration from staff members about the technology and is worried this will lead to a
decreased use of this type of tool. Additionally there is concern of the limitation of future
money in order to keep the necessary technology current and reliable.
Ongoing, Intensive Professional Development
Due to significant budget reductions within the Southland School District, there
was little financial support for professional development. There was evidence of a few
opportunities such as the AP and AVID conferences that were paid for by the district
office. Unlike the other two schools in the study, South Jasper does not have an
education foundation to support these efforts. Most staff development occurred during
the Tuesday late start in previous years and now on bi-monthly Wednesday early-out
days. The principal reported this is the only time when professional development took
place. All non-student professional development days were eliminated for the 2010 –
2011 school year because of budget cuts and a new contract agreement with the teachers’
union. Therefore, any professional development is left to the schools to facilitate. For
the South Jasper staff there is an additional limitation on this time because the WASC

188

accreditation process is taking place and no available time other than PLC time is
available to complete the required tasks.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
South Jasper High School’s principal and faculty continue to look at and redesign
the way they use instructional time. The Wednesday Early-Out days for professional
collaboration and the creation of a Tutorial period during the school day illustrate
attention to instructional time. The Tutorial period was created to allow for students to
choose subjects they needed additional help with and attend the desired class. South
Jasper allows its students two days to select the desired subject areas and then assigns
students the other two days based on academic needs. To support the maximization of
instructional time for Tutorials and all periods, South Jasper has instituted a very strict
no-tardy policy. The policy has been reported to help minimize instructional disruptions
as well as create a commitment by the staff to begin all instruction with the bell signaling
the start of classes.
Extending Learning Time for Struggling Students
There is limited extended learning time at South Jasper High School because of
financial restraints. All after-school tutoring has been canceled for the 2010 – 2011
school year due. Prior to the 2010 – 2011 school year, the school did offer an after-
school tutoring program two days a week. This was a voluntary drop-in program. Unlike
the other schools in the study, South Jasper does not have an educational foundation in
order to support this program. South Jasper does not offer any double periods of English

189

or math, but does offer a double period of reading for all struggling readers. The school
does offer a credit intervention program for students deficient in graduation credits. Also
as the result of severe budget cuts, summer school offerings in the Southland Unified
School District are limited to remediation courses for students to meet high school
graduation requirements.
Collaborative, Professional Culture
Most apparent of the ten strategies is the collaborative and professional culture at
South Jasper. This was well established through the recruitment of a school leadership
team the year prior to its opening. This team, consisting of teachers, administrators, and
classified staff members, came from all parts of the Southland Unified School District.
As many of them came from successful models of PLCs, they built a bell schedule and
programs to support teacher collaboration. To paraphrase the principal, the teachers at
South Jasper just expect that they will operate as a PLC. This foundation has been
essential as each year the school has added approximately twenty to thirty teachers to the
site. As a result of the teachers’ prior experience, the principal reports that there is
ongoing collaboration and reflection among teachers and that instructional practices and
delivery models are aligned.
Widespread and Distributed Instructional Leadership
The turnover of district leadership has caused the Southland School District to
move from a centralized organization focused on PLCs to a more decentralized
organization with sites left on their own. However, the principal credits the past work of

190

district level leaders for setting up structures to support open and ongoing collaboration
even during tumultuous times. Additionally, many of the staff members on site operated
as instructional leaders on their previous campuses. During the interview the principal
continued to refer to the instructional vision as collaborative and “organic.” He credits a
strong teacher leadership team as well as the cultural practice of ongoing collaboration.
The principal believes there is strong buy-in among the teachers on campus and ongoing
revisiting of the school’s vision.
Professional and Best Practices
Once again there is strong evidence that shows South Jasper is committed to
improving its overall practices. With the injection of new staff members each year has
also come the addition of new ideas and shared commitments. The staff values data and
collaboration and, as evident by the change in bell schedules, is willing to monitor and
adjust in order to improve. South Jasper also benefits from the purposeful design of the
physical plant of the campus to include teacher and student common areas. The principal
credits the structural facility for help to facilitate ongoing discussion among teachers
during non-required collaboration times. Finally, although there was no money for
outside professional development, site leaders looked both within their school site and to
the school district to bring in experts for no cost solutions to professional development
such as differentiation strategies.

191

Table G.11 – South Jasper and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Implementation Odden & Archibald’s
Strategies
Strong Average Weak N/A
Notes
Understanding
performance problem
and challenge
X
Much of the data is limited due to a
limited number of years.
Set ambitious goals X
Some indication of student goal setting
centered on CST improvement.
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision

X

With the addition of a new class of
students each year, the staff has been
required to implement a new
instructional program each year.
Formative
assessments/data-based
decisions
X
Limited due to technology issues. Most
of the data conversation centered
around summative CST data.
Ongoing PD X
Due to a lack of resources and an
elimination of all PD days.
Using time efficiently &
effectively
X
Implementation of Tutorial period and
Monday Collaboration time. Ongoing
discussion about time within the bell
schedule.
Extended learning time
for struggling students
X
After School Tutorial was canceled due
to a lack of money. Some indication of
double block for EL, struggling readers,
and CAHSEE.
Collaborative,
professional culture
X
Teachers and administrators meet
regularly. Strong commitment to
PLCS.
Widespread and
distributed instructional
leadership
X
Strong site-based decision making
process has allowed for the
implementation of many programs.
Professional and best
practices
X
Utilizes current research, student data,
and research to make decisions. Each
year has brought new staff members and
a new conversation around best practice
instructional practices.

192

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
South Jasper High School demonstrates many of Odden’s (2009) strategies
despite limited financial and staffing resources. Although the previous data were
analyzed with 2010 data from grades 9 – 11, Table G.12 represent staffing and resource
allocations for the 2010 – 2011 school year and grade levels 9 – 12. When compared
with the EBM there are multiple areas in which South Jasper is deficient. Below is a
comparison of a prototypical high school in the EBM and South Jasper High School.
Table G.12 – South Jasper and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
High School
South Jasper
Current Resource
Status
South Jasper Based
on Prototypical
Model
School Size 9-12: 600 Students 9-12: 1950 Students 3.3 x larger
Class Size 9-12: 25 9-12: 35:1 10 more than EBM
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
175, with 0 days for
intensive PD
15 fewer school days
10 fewer PD days
Kindergarten n/a n/a n/a
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE – Principal
3.0 FTE – APs
1.0 FTE – Activities
3.3 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 2.0
FTE Clerical
4.0 FTE – Secretary
6.0 FTE – Clerical
3.3 FTE – Secretary
6.6 FTE – Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 53 FTE 79.2 FTE
Specialist Teachers 8.0 or 33% more 12.8 FTE 105.3 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
3.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 9.9 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
0.0 FTE 5.8 FTE

193

Table G.12 – South Jasper and EBM (Cont.)
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
0.0 FTE 2.48 FTE
Non-Instructional Support for
EL Students
0.0 FTE 0.4375 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 0.6 FTE 0.0 FTE 1.98 FTE
Summer School 2.5 FTE Resources Provided
at District Level
8.25 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 2.5
professional teacher
positions
7.0 FTE 9.5 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
0.0 FTE 100% state
reimbursement
minus federal funds
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$0 per day 5% of personnel
resources and
special education
personnel
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
8.9375 FTE 5.8 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 3.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 9.9 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 6.248 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 3.3 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $0 $48,750
Technology $250 per pupil $0 $487,500
Instructional Materials $175 per pupil $24.27 per pupil
$48,262

$341,250
Student Activities $250 per pupil 1 Section ASB
1 FTE – Activities
Director
$487,500
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$0 $195,000

194

Summary and Lessons Learned
In only its fourth year of existence, South Jasper High School has seen increases
in student achievement scores on statewide tests. Most impressive has been the ability of
the school’s staff to focus on student learning despite turnover at the principal level in the
first year, the injection of new staff members each year, and the ongoing political turmoil
seen at the district level. What stands out most as the reason for the improvement on
student test scores was the staff’s commitment to tenets of a Professional Learning
Community.
During the months leading up to the opening of South Jasper, a leadership team of
teachers, administrators, and classified staff members established systematic ways to
embed collaborative practices such as creating a bell schedule with weekly meeting
times. Additionally the school itself was constructed to support ongoing teacher dialogue
with the creation of connected classrooms and workspaces. This culture has served South
Jasper well as it has seen its staff grow from thirty teachers in the first year to over ninety
in the current school year. The principal credits much of success on the state tests to this
early foundation, as well as an ongoing nurturing of the PLC process.
Not only does South Jasper benefit from a new facility and PLC culture but the
community demographics as well. With a relatively small percentage of English
Learners and students qualifying for free/reduced meals, it would be expected for South
Jasper’s test scores to be relatively high. Additionally, the community where many of the

195

students come from draws from families that have at least a high school education, and
many have some college experience.
Despite several educational advantages, all of the schools in this study, including
South Jasper, have had to deal with a school district in strife. Along with the indictment
of the former superintendent, and two recall elections of school board members, has also
come the decrease in the instructional year by five days, few financial resources for
professional development, and the increase of class sizes. Overall, when comparing to
Odden’s 10 Strategies, South Jasper is not completely aligned.
Where the school appears to overcome any misalignment to the research model is
through strong instructional leadership at the site level. As was continually referred to by
the principal as an “organically grown” culture, the teachers at South Jasper appear
committed to working collaboratively and creatively in order to improve instructional
practices and student learning. While many of the ten strategies may not be seen in
obvious situations, through the use of embedded staff collaboration time students appear
to be getting what they need.
Future Considerations
Future consideration for South Jasper High School would include a more
longitudinal look at student data. In particular, the school should focus on the areas of
Advanced Placements tests and pass rates and continual growth among EL students.
Another factor to consider is providing additional resources to support the reduction of
class sizes and the area of technology. Technology resources in particular are a major

196

concern for the site principal, as the teachers move to more common formative
assessments. Because of the size of a teacher’s student load, online programs such as
Data Director, along with the computers and scanners, will allow teacher the ability in the
most efficient ways to inform their practices. Yet one other consideration is a need for
low cost, or no cost, solutions to professional development. Finally, as with all schools in
the Southland Unified School District, there appears to be some stabilization at the
district office and school board levels. As things begin to settle, the role of the district
office in reestablishing itself as an instructional support provider will be critical.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Public schools within California continue to struggle with meeting state and national accountability standards, despite recent reductions in funding and fewer resources. This study used a purposeful sample of three large suburban high schools and analyzed how each of them applied site level resources to meet the overall instructional vision not only with reduced resource, but leadership change at the superintendent level, and political turmoil within the school board. Each of the three schools was analyzed based Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, and the Evidence-Based resource allocation model (EBM) developed by Odden and Picus (2008). The research was conducted through a multi-methods approach of principal interviews, site level resource allocation data, and overall student achievement on state and national tests. The findings indicate fewer site level resources than recommended by the EBM which contributed to fewer applications of Odden’s (2009) strategies. However, the findings also support the development of high performing teacher lead teams, using common formative assessment data, to withstand political and budgetary changes in order to improve student learning.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student 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

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

PDF

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

PDF

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Navigating troubled waters: case studies of three California high schools' resource allocation strategies in 2010-2011

PDF

Educational resources to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model

PDF

Resource allocation practices in relation to identified school reform strategies

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress: a gap analysis of five southern California elementary schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator McLaughlin, Steven Christopher (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/04/2011

Defense Date 03/28/2011

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

Tag Educational Leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,school finance,student improvement strategies

Place Name California (states), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email heymrmc@gmail.com,smclaughlin@nmusd.us

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3889

Unique identifier UC1189123

Identifier etd-McLaughlin-4575 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-475447 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3889 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-McLaughlin-4575.pdf

Dmrecord 475447

Document Type Dissertation

Rights McLaughlin, Steven Christopher

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