University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT
STRATEGIES IN RURAL SINGLE-SCHOOL ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS

by
Nathan Nelson

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 Nathan Nelson
ii

DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to my entire family who has always given me so much
love and support, especially over the last three years as I worked to complete my
education. Without all of you I know I would not have been able to press on through
sometimes difficult times and hope you realize how much you mean to me. I fear I will
never be able to repay all that you have done, though with this phase of my life finally
drawing to a close, I am looking forward to trying.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere thanks to my Dissertation Chair, Dr. Lawrence
O. Picus, for his never ending guidance and support throughout this process. From our
very first meeting, Dr. Picus made himself available for any and all questions, and I came
to appreciate his encouragement and cheer as much as I valued his extensive knowledge
and expertise in school finance. Similarly, I would also like to thank the other members
of my dissertation committee, Dr. Hentschke and Dr. Nelson, who provided additional
support and advice that will stay with me for the rest of my career.
I would be remiss if I failed to properly acknowledge the superintendents of the
Porterville Unified School District- Dr. Ken Gibbs, Dr. John Snavely, and Dr. Val Staley
were as flexible, encouraging, and supportive as I could have ever hoped and I am
honored to have the privilege of working under their leadership.
Finally, I would like to thank my fellow cohort members who provided much
needed boosts to my morale and were unfailing sources of help through this program. I
especially want to thank my friend and fellow student, Martha Stuemky who was my
partner through many miles of travel and hours of study.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xi
Abstract xiii
Chapter 1 1
Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 8
Purpose of the Study 8
Research Questions 10
Importance of the Study 10
Research Design 12
Limitations and delimitations 13
Assumptions 14
Definition of Terms 14
Chapter 2 18
Literature Review 18
School Finance in California 19
Educational Adequacy 27
The Evidence-Based Model 40
Successful School Instructional Strategies 54
Instructional Strategy Implementation and Resource Allocation
Challenges and Opportunities in Small Rural School Districts 67
Summary 77
Chapter 3 79
Methodology 79
Research Questions 79
Sample and Population 80
Instruments and Data Collection 83
Case Studies 88
Data Analysis 89
v

Chapter 4 91
Findings 91
School Profiles 92
Achievement Data 94
Instructional Vision and Successful School Instructional Strategies 109
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 141
Impact of Budget Reductions 150
Conclusion 151
Chapter 5 155
Discussion 155
Background 155
Discussion of Findings 158
Implications for Policy and Practice 162
Recommendations for Additional Research 165
References 166
Appendix A – IRB APPROVAL 174
Appendix B – Site Permission Letter 175
Appendix C – Informed Consent 176
Appendix D – Quantitative Data Collection Protocol 177
Appendix E – Qualitative Data Collection Protocol 186
Appendix F – Data Collection Code Book 190
Appendix G – School Visit Interview Dates 201
Appendix H – Case Study 1 202
Bach Elementary School 202
Background on the School and District 202
Test Results/Achievement Gap 203
Key Elements and Themes of the Instructional Improvement Process 206
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge 207
Setting Ambitious Goals 207
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program 208
Data-based Decision Making 208
Ongoing Professional Development 208
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively 209
vi

Providing Interventions for Struggling Students 209
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership 210
Inspiring a Professional Organization 210
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues 211
Evaluation of Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Double
Student Performance 211
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 212
Summary and Lessons Learned 216
Future Considerations 217
Appendix I – Case Study 2 219
Chopin Elementary School 219
Background on the School and District 219
Test Results/Achievement Gap 220
Key Elements and Themes of the Instructional Improvement Process 223
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge 224
Setting Ambitious Goals 225
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program 226
Data-based Decision Making 227
Ongoing Professional Development 228
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively 229
Providing Interventions for Struggling Students 229
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership 230
Inspiring a Professional Organization 231
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues 232
Evaluation of Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Double
Student Performance 233
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 235
Summary and Lessons Learned 239
Future Considerations 240
Appendix J – Case Study 3 241
Liszt Elementary School 241
Background on the School and District 241
Test Results/Achievement Gap 242
Key Elements and Themes of the Instructional Improvement Process 245
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge 246
Setting Ambitious Goals 247
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program 247
Data-based Decision Making 248
Ongoing Professional Development 249
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively 250
Providing Interventions for Struggling Students 250
vii

Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership 251
Inspiring a Professional Organization 252
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues 252
Evaluation of Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Double
Student Performance 253
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 255
Summary and Lessons Learned 261
Future Considerations 262
Appendix K – Case Study 4 263
Mozart Elementary School 263
Background on the School and District 263
Test Results/Achievement Gap 264
Key Elements and Themes of the Instructional Improvement Process 267
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge 268
Setting Ambitious Goals 269
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program 269
Data-based Decision Making 270
Ongoing Professional Development 271
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively 272
Providing Interventions for Struggling Students 273
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership 273
Inspiring a Professional Organization 274
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues 275
Evaluation of Implementation of the Ten Strategies to
Double Student Performance 275
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 277
Summary and Lessons Learned 281
Future Considerations 283
Appendix L – Case Study 5 284
Schubert Elementary School 284
Background on the School and District 284
Test Results/Achievement Gap 285
Key Elements and Themes of the Instructional Improvement Process 288
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge 289
Setting Ambitious Goals 290
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program 290
Data-based Decision Making 291
Ongoing Professional Development 293
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively 294
Providing Interventions for Struggling Students 294
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership 295
viii

Inspiring a Professional Organization 296
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues 297
Evaluation of Implementation of the Ten Strategies to
Double Student Performance 297
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 299
Summary and Lessons Learned 303
Future Considerations 304

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Total Revenues for K-12 Education (CDE), 12/09 25
Table 2.2: Adequate Prototypical Elementary & Middle School Resources 42
Table 3.1: School Sample Grade Range, Enrollment, and Demographics 81
Table 3.2: School Sample API and State Rankings 82
Table 4.1: Student Enrollment of Sample Schools 92
Table 4.2: Similar Schools and Statewide Ranking of the Sample Schools 97
Table 4.3: Implementation of Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance 140
Table 4.4: Comparison of Class Sizes in the EBM vs. Sample Schools 142
Table 4.4: Resource Allocation According to EBM vs. Actual Resource
Allocation at Sample Schools 143
Table H.1: Bach Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies to
Increase Student Performance 211
Table I.1: Chopin Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies to
Increase Student Performance 233
Table I.2: Chopin Elementary Resource Comparison to the
Evidence-Based Model 235
Table J.1: Liszt Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies to
Increase Student Performance 253
Table J.2: Liszt Elementary Resource Comparison to the
Evidence-Based Model 257
Table K.1: Mozart Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies to
Increase Student Performance 276
Table K.2: Mozart Elementary Resource Comparison to the
Evidence-Based Model 278
x

Table L.1: Schubert Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies to
Increase Student Performance 298
Table L.2: Schubert Elementary Resource Comparison to the
Evidence-Based Model 300
xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Per-Pupil Funded Limits for the Average Unified District 29
Figure 2.2: Local education agencies with qualified or negative certification 30
Figure 2.3: The Evidence-Based Model 41
Figure 4.1: Ethnic Distribution in Sample Schools 93
Figure 4.2: Percentage of SED and EL Students enrolled in Sample Schools 94
Figure 4.3: API Change in Sample Schools Over Five Year Period 95
Figure 4.4: Statewide Ranking of Sample Schools Over Five Years 97
Figure 4.5: Similar Schools Ranking of Sample Schools Over Five Years 98
Figure 4.6: English Arts AYP Schoolwide Change in Sample Schools 99
Figure 4.7: English Arts AYP Change for Hispanic Students 100
Figure 4.8: English Arts AYP Change for SED Students 101
Figure 4.9: English Arts AYP Change for EL Students 102
Figure 4.10: English Arts AYP Change for All Subgroups in Sample Schools 103
Figure 4.11: Math AYP Schoolwide Change in Sample Schools 104
Figure 4.12: Math AYP Change for Hispanic Students 105
Figure 4.13: Math AYP Change for SED Students 106
Figure 4.14: Math AYP Change for EL Students 107
Figure 4.15: Math AYP Change for All Subgroups in Sample Schools 108
Figure H.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Bach Elementary School 203
Figure H.2: Bach Elementary School API 204
Figure H.3: Bach Elementary School Language Arts AYP
(% of students proficient or advanced) 205
xii

Figure H.4: Bach Elementary School Math AYP
(% of students proficient or advanced) 206
Figure I.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Chopin Elementary School 220
Figure I.2: Chopin Elementary School API 221
Figure I.3: Chopin Elementary School Language Arts AYP
(% of students proficient or advanced) 222
Figure I.4: Chopin Elementary School Math AYP
(% of students proficient or advanced) 223
Figure J.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Liszt Elementary School 242
Figure J.2: Liszt Elementary School API 243
Figure J.3: Liszt Elementary School Language Arts AYP
(% of students proficient or advanced) 244
Figure J.4: Liszt Elementary School Math AYP
(% of students proficient or advanced) 245
Figure K.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Mozart Elementary School 264
Figure K.2: Mozart Elementary School API 265
Figure K.3: Mozart Elementary School Language Arts AYP
(% of students proficient or advanced) 266
Figure K.4: Mozart Elementary School Math AYP
(% of students proficient or advanced) 267
Figure L.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Schubert Elementary School 285
Figure L.2: Schubert Elementary School API 286
Figure L.3: Schubert Elementary School Language Arts AYP
(% of students proficient or advanced) 287
Figure L.4: Schubert Elementary School Math AYP
(% of students proficient or advanced) 288
xiii

ABSTRACT
Although much of the press and research surrounding K-12 education focuses on the
challenges surrounding large urban school districts, rural schools face many of the same
issues and often have an even more difficult time marshaling the resources and expertise
necessary to realize genuine instructional improvement (NSBA, 2007). With the current
economic crisis and the significant number of California school districts that are failing to
meet the goals outlined by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the efficient use of
resources to drive instruction is more important than ever to small districts who may find
themselves facing the threat of consolidation if their performance does not meet
expectations. In small rural districts, financial concerns such as declining enrollment and
outdated infrastructure combine with instructional issues such as professional
development and teacher recruitment and retention to challenge performance.
As a result, this study seeks to better understand the unique challenges facing small
school districts, specifically studying their resource allocation and how it links to their
instructional strategies and performance, by examining five rural single-school districts in
California‘s Central Valley. The study uses both the Evidence-Based Model (EBM)
detailed by Odden and Picus (2008) and Odden‘s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance as organizational frameworks in the analysis of each district‘s
resource use and implementation of instructional strategies. The results of the study
support the efficient allocation of resources and implementation of research-based
instructional strategies outlined in the EBM and Odden‘s work.
1

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
While many aspects of the accountability movement in public education have
evolved since beginning in earnest in the 1980s with the National Commission on
Excellence in Education‘s (1983) release of A Nation at Risk, a consistent piece of the
United States‘ approach since the time of the report‘s publication and for much of the
thirty years prior, has been to increase the resources allocated to public education.
During this time, much debate centered on the policies surrounding education, such as the
social implications of the elimination of segregated education through the 1954 decision
in Brown V. Board of Education or the competitive realities of public education‘s
performance (or lack thereof) in preparing the nation‘s students, following the Soviet
Union‘s launch of Sputnik in 1957 (Marzano, 2003). However, in its attempts to improve
student achievement and maintain the country‘s position in the world economy, the
United States has focused predominantly on the outputs of the educational system and in
the process, invested ever larger amounts of money.
There are signs that this mentality has reached its end with an increasing concern
expressed by both taxpayers and policymakers regarding the continued growth of
expenditures in the domain and the disappointing student performance that has resulted
from the investment (Picus & Wattenbarger, 1996). With the economic crisis affecting
the country at large and the budgets of state and local government in particular,
accountability has expanded to include a new focus on the return on investment in
education (Odden & Archibald, 2000). As part of this emphasis on both the inputs and
2

outputs in the educational system, public schools are charged with continuing to attempt
to meet the multitude of needs of their diverse student population, using less money in the
process. The efficient allocation of resources and deliberate use of instructional
strategies are key ingredients in this effort. As a result, this study will examine the
various incarnations of each with an emphasis on the associated challenges facing
California‘s rural single-school districts.
Background of the Problem
Until the 1970s, public schools in the United States were funded primarily
through local property taxes. While this structure often produced high performing
schools with strong bonds to their respective communities, it was also criticized as a
cause of inequitable funding where schools within wealthy communities received a much
greater amount of resources than schools located in poorer areas (EdSource, 2008).
California in particular played host to this debate with several court cases and legislation
addressing the issue. Three decisions by the California Supreme Court, beginning with
Serrano v. Priest (1971), questioned California‘s mechanism for funding public
education because of disparities between districts, where it was argued that poor
communities were required to pay a higher tax rate than more affluent districts to provide
the same educational opportunities for their students.
While this decision and the two subsequent Serrano v. Priest cases will be
explored in greater detail in chapter two, their collective effect prompted a transition from
local property taxes providing the bulk of school funding to schools receiving the
majority of their budgets from the state government. An amendment to the Constitution
3

of California followed the Serrano decisions in 1978 with the passage of Proposition 13
which attempted to address the tax imbalances cited in the Serrano cases by placing a cap
in the property tax rate of one percent (EdSource, 2010a). The resulting dramatic
reduction in revenue greatly impacted local government across the state and in the case of
public education, severed the dominant link between local property taxes and local
schools, significantly increasing the state‘s role in school funding. In turn, the shift from
the fairly stable and predictable base of property taxes to the often erratic funding
provided by the state due to varying economic conditions has challenged schools and
their students since Proposition 13‘s passage (Walter & Sweetland, 2003). Proposition 98
was passed in 1988 in an attempt to combat this and stabilize public education‘s revenue
streams, guaranteeing a funding source that is designed to grow each year with the
economy and the number of students (EdSource, 2010b).
In 2004, the funding levels established for California public schools in the wake
of Proposition 98 were carefully scrutinized following the lawsuit and settlement in
Williams v. California. The case was brought forth as a class action lawsuit in 2000 in
San Francisco County Superior Court by almost 100 students, who filed suit against the
State of California and state education agencies, including the California Department of
Education (CDE). The core assertions in the lawsuit alleged that state agencies failed to
provide public school students with equal access to instructional materials, safe and
decent school facilities, and qualified teachers. As a result, almost one billion dollars was
4

allocated in additional funding for standards-aligned instructional materials as well as the
critical repair of facilities (Grubb, Goe, & Huerta, 2004).
Though encompassing several arguments related to the equity in educational
opportunities available to California students, the lawsuit primarily focused on the state‘s
failure to provide adequate resources to schools for students to meet increased
performance expectations. The suit was one of several that symbolized a focus on
adequacy, or the link between the inputs of the educational system in the form of the
amount of resources allocated and the resulting outputs as indicated by student outcomes
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). In examining the significance of this link, it is important
to understand that the major difference between equity and adequacy based funding is
that equity does not explicitly address educational quality or student achievement (Odden
& Picus, 2008). Instead, equity focused funding models are primarily concerned with
ensuring that all students receive the same amount of resources to help support their
learning. Adequacy based models, on the other hand, allocate resources for students
based on their individual needs along with a clear focus on the amount of resources
required for them to achieve proficiency.
Although there are several different approaches to determine what constitutes an
adequate funding level, summarized below and explored in further detail in chapter two,
a common driver in all adequacy based funding methods is the standards-based education
reform that sets minimum standards for students. Specifically, the reauthorization of the
Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as the No Child Left Behind
5

(NCLB) Act of 2001 formalized a standards-based approach to education by tying federal
funding to students meeting a series of standards as determined by their performance on
various assessments designed to measure proficiency. While the determination of the
essential standards and the associated minimum competencies is established by each state
independently and will be discussed later as a major source of criticism of NCLB, the
legislation marked a turning point in its effect of compelling all states to at least address
the issue of standards-based reform and as a result has played a prominent role in the
transition from equity to adequacy based models (Gamoran & Long, 2006). However,
NCLB does not directly address the second core component in adequacy based models:
allocating the necessary resources to enable all students to meet the standards established.
This has left the task to states, districts and schools, many of which have begun to
evaluate various adequacy funding models on their own accord with others being
compelled to do so by the courts (Odden & Picus, 2008).
There are four primary models used by these entities in determining an adequate
funding level, all of which are discussed in greater detail in chapter two:
1. Expert/Professional Judgment Model- In this method, a panel of educational
experts determines the resources necessary for all students to meet performance
standards based on effective educational strategies (Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007).
One advantage of this approach is that legislators and other stakeholders are said
to be able to easily understand the recommendations generated by the model,
6

however, it is also criticized due to its reliance on professional opinions rather
than research-based practices (Hanushek, 2006).
2. Successful School/District Model- This method identifies successful schools and
districts that consistently meet performance standards and then uses their costs
per-pupil as a base funding level (Odden, 2003). While it is one of the most
widely used methods, Odden (2003) and Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) suggest
that the approach is limited in that it is difficult to apply to schools and districts
that are different from those selected as models. Hanushek (2006) extends the
criticism referring to the model as the ―Successful Students‖ model as it offers no
explanation of what leads students to do well.
3. Cost Function Model- This approach uses advanced statistical techniques and
econometric modeling in its attempts to determine the amount of resources a
district needs to allocate to ensure that students meet defined performance
standards relative to an average district in a sample set (Rebell, 2007). A
criticism of the approach is that it as model is limited to an application at a district
level rather than a school and that it does not detail which instructional strategies
were most effective in increasing student performance goals (Odden, 2003).
Additionally, the extensive amount of data and complex analyses required make it
difficult to explain to policymakers and the public.
4. Evidence-Based Model- This model employs best practices in current educational
research to determine what resources are needed for all students to reach
7

proficiency. Various comprehensive school reform efforts are analyzed with their
individual components broken out and assigned a cost, providing districts the
flexibility of being able to tailor their application to their student populations‘
unique needs with a full understanding of the total expenditures necessary
(Odden, 2003; Odden & Picus, 2008). While critics of the approach question its
effectiveness and state that its success is difficult to measure due to the fact it
must be adopted school or district wide (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009), the model
is particularly well aligned with the requirements of NCLB in implementing
scientific, research-based school reform efforts and determining their associated
resource allocation requirements.
Using data from a variety of studies examining high-quality and successful
instructional programs, Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003) classified
expenditures across both instructional and non-instructional expenditure categories to
form the base of the Evidence-Based Model. The effort was further refined with Odden
and Picus (2008) developing resource-based expenditure structures for model elementary,
middle, and high schools which can be adjusted to reflect the unique needs of a district or
school‘s students. Given the assortment of small single-school districts that will compose
the sample in this study, the flexibility provided by the Evidence-Based Model will be a
crucial part of the analysis.
8

Statement of the Problem
School finance is an increasingly complicated issue with districts receiving funds
from a wide variety of sources, each with their own agendas, expectations and
restrictions. Plotting a course through this confusing maze of financial requirements is an
arduous process in itself, yet when coupled with the inherent challenges of educating a
diverse student population with less and less resources, the task appears overwhelming
for many schools.
The shift from an emphasis on equity and access in education to a focus on
adequacy and the outcomes from education has prompted schools to attempt to improve
the achievement of all students (Odden, 2003). Further research to determine the most
effective resource allocation models to achieve adequacy is necessary. Additionally, with
many of the existing studies centered on large school districts, research focused on
resource allocation and instructional strategies implemented at the school is increasingly
needed, especially for practitioners facing challenges in California‘s rural single-school
districts.
Purpose of the Study
As California and other states around the country brace for additional budget cuts,
school leaders need all of the information and research they can obtain to determine the
optimum resource allocation and instructional strategies. Furthermore, while much of the
press and research surrounding K-12 education focuses on the challenges surrounding
large urban school districts, rural schools face many of the same issues and often have an
9

even more difficult time marshaling the resources and expertise necessary to realize
genuine instructional improvement. With the current economic crisis and the significant
number of California school districts that are failing to meet the goals outlined by the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the efficient use of resources to drive instruction is more
important than ever to small districts who may find themselves facing the threat of
consolidation or closure if their performance does not meet expectations. In small rural
districts, financial concerns such as declining enrollment and outdated infrastructure
combine with instructional issues such as professional development and teacher
recruitment and retention to challenge performance.
As a result, the purpose of this study is to better understand the unique challenges
facing small school districts, utilizing the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008)
as a framework to analyze the resource allocation patterns in five rural single-school
districts in California‘s Central Valley and the extent to which the Ten Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) are implemented and related to student
outcomes within each respective school. In focusing the analysis at the school level, it is
anticipated that this research will support the evidence-based approach to resource
allocation and instructional strategies, enabling educational leaders to successfully
navigate what appears to be an increasingly difficult financial environment.
10

Research Questions
This study will attempt to identify some of the common instructional strategies,
programs, and human resource allocations in a sample of five rural single-school districts
and the impact their implementation has on student achievement.
The study will be framed by the following four 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 Model
detailed by Odden and Picus (2008)?
Importance of the Study
It is expected that this research will confirm the set of common resource
allocation and instructional strategies that combine to increase student achievement
presented in the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the Ten Strategies
for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009). In the same vein, it is anticipated that
the schools that do not have a strategic vision instructionally and/or in their resource use,
11

will also provide useful information in the form of a set of practices and approaches to
avoid.
Specifically, this study will provide school leaders with a series of case studies
containing information on how to allocate resources for the most efficient staffing,
strategies to meet the needs of diverse students, and methods to incorporate research-
based professional development and other activities to promote effective instruction. In
many ways, an asset to the study is the dire financial backdrop against which the research
will be conducted, supplying principals with valuable information on how to best
reallocate resources to achieve instructional goals in spite of severe budget constraints.
Other direct stakeholders, such as school board members, superintendents and district
program directors, will also benefit in determining site funding allocations and ensuring
that their schools are meeting the diverse educational needs of their students. Moreover,
this study presents a unique set of data in regard to the challenges and opportunities
facing single-school districts in rural areas. Unlike much of the prior analysis and the
research being conducted in parallel with this study that must contend with the possibility
that sites do not have direct control of resource allocation due to the involvement of the
district, this study guarantees site-based management and decisions with all schools being
studied being the sole members of their respective districts.
Finally, given the difficult decisions approaching at the national and state levels,
policymakers will also benefit from the study because it will give them relevant data and
best practices on the site-based allocation of funds. With the findings, the hope is that
12

they will be able to utilize the information to develop educational funding policies tied to
recommended research-based instructional strategies to provide schools the efficient
combination of resources they need to succeed.
Research Design
These issues will be addressed using a multiple methods design incorporating
qualitative methods which include interviews with principals/superintendents at each
respective school along with a quantitative examination of student performance data
obtained from the California Department of Education (2010) and resource allocations
at the sites through the use of document analysis of budgets and expenditures, where
available.
Chapter two was constructed from a synthesis of the literature surrounding
educational adequacy, resource use and reallocation, school performance improvement
strategies, leadership for sustained improvement, professional development, the
educational change process, effects of school finance reform initiatives, and the unique
resource allocation challenges faced by small schools and districts. The chapter provides
the foundation from which the research questions were developed. Chapter three
delineates the methodology of the study, describing the design, population, sample,
instruments, procedures, and data analysis. Chapter four presents the findings, in a series
of case studies that compare each school to the prototypical schools detailed in the
Evidence-Based Model. Finally, chapter five summarizes the study and offers
13

suggestions for future research in resource allocation and instructional strategies and their
impact on student achievement.
Limitations and delimitations
The following limitations applied to this study:
1. While some trends and comparative best practices may emerge, due to the small
and relatively similar sample, the findings may not be generalized to other
schools/districts.
2. The study is not a longitudinal analysis of school finance and represents a specific
period in California Public Education that is unique in many ways, especially in
regard to the financial challenges facing the state at large. As a result, the
findings may also not represent the decisions and priorities made during periods
which are not as challenging fiscally.
3. Despite the fact that the sample was purposefully constructed by the researcher,
the final pool of participants in the study will be composed of volunteers which
creates an immediate issue where self-elimination of nonparticipants potentially
biases the sample obtained.
The following delimitations applied to this study:
1. The sample size was limited to five schools.
2. Due to the limited resources available in conducting the research, the sample was
constrained to a single county within the state of California.
3. The sample is self-selected.
14

4. While the schools studied were the sole members of their respective districts, the
study excluded resources and expenditures typically classified and tracked at the
district level, such as student transportation, maintenance, food service, and debt
service, to focus on items characterized as school-level instructional resources and
expenditures.
Assumptions
This study relied upon the honesty and accurate memories, perceptions and
portrayal of programs, expenditures, and other events by the principals in the various
interviews. While a sustained effort will not be made to confirm the information related
by the interviewees using independent sources, the researcher anticipates receiving a
number of supporting documents that reflect the instructional strategies and resource
allocation described.
Definition of Terms
1. Academic Performance Index (API): A number designated by the California
Department of Education (2009b) that ranges from 200 to 1000 and is calculated
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 agencies (LEA) general purpose revenue outside of local property taxes
and state aid (Timar, 2006).
15

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 is 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: Is 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
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. California Standards Tests (CSTs): A series of tests that measure student‘s
achievement of California‘s content standards in the areas of English-language
arts, mathematics, science, and history-social sciences (California Department of
Education, 2009a).
16

7. 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).
8. Comprehensive School Reform: A systematic approach in providing evidence-
based strategies and methods for learning, teaching, and school management that
aligns its focus on helping students meet state standards through professional
development, technical assistance, and formative evaluation (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010a).
9. 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 unique needs (Bhatt &
Wraight, 2009).
10. 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).
11. Excess Taxes: Considered an add-on in California, LEAs are allowed to keep any
excess taxes that they generate beyond their revenue limits and is calculated by
determining the difference between a LEAs revenue limit and property tax
revenues (Timar, 2006).
12. Expenditures: For elementary and secondary schools, all charges incurred, both
paid and unpaid and debt, applied to the current fiscal year (National Center for
17

Education Statistics, 2010). Expenditures types include current expenditures,
instructional expenditures, and expenditures per student.
13. General Purpose Funding: definition here (Timar, 2006). In California, general
purpose funding equals the base revenue limits + revenue limit add-ons + excess
local property taxes.
14. 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.
15. Socio-economic Status (SES): A measure of an individual or family's relative
economic and social ranking (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010).
16. 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 students
meet state adopted academic standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2010a).

18

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
In response to both internal and external pressures, educational funding in the
United States has transitioned from an approach centered on equity for all students
through equal funding across schools to one focused on providing the necessary level of
resources for all students to achieve proficiency in a variety of academic standards. To
better understand the shift, this chapter attempts to identify and link various instructional
strategies presented in the latest research with effective resource allocation methods using
the evolution and current state of funding in California public education as a backdrop.
This literature review consists of five sections. The first, ―School Finance in
California‖ details the changes in educational funding models and regulations that have
occurred within the state over the past forty years. Section two, ―Educational Adequacy‖
explores the shift from equity to adequacy in educational funding as well as the various
methods that have been developed to attempt to determine adequate funding levels for
students. The third section, ―The Evidence-Based Model‖ reviews the resource use
strategies of the Evidence-Based adequacy model developed by Odden and Picus (2008).
Section four, ―Successful School Instructional Strategies‖ highlights practices common to
successful schools, identified in the latest research, using the Ten Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance (Odden, 2009) as an organizational framework. The literature
review concludes with the section, ―Instructional Strategy Implementation and Resource
Allocation Challenges in Small Rural School Districts‖ which will add to and synthesize
research presented in the prior sections as it pertains to small school districts.
19

School Finance in California
According to EdSource (2010a), California‘s state treasury outperforms the state‘s
economy during times of growth and severely underperforms it during downturns. As a
result, with K-12 education representing the single largest state expenditure, the financial
health of California‘s public schools is directly linked to the condition of the state budget
and the economy at large. The current economic crisis, which came to a head in 2008
when the country entered ―the great recession‖, was actually setup in California in the
late 1990s and early 2000s when state revenues increased dramatically with the rising
stock market. The associated taxes on the large capital gains prompted policymakers to
dramatically increase spending and cut taxes. However, with the demise of the dot-coms
and the associated wealth in the stock market in 2001, state revenues decreased
substantially and policymakers failed to adjust expenditures to reflect the new levels.
Much of the disconnect between revenue and spending can be attributed to political
pressures to maintain/increase expenditures or decrease taxes from special interest
groups, both liberal and conservative, though requirements and initiatives originating in
the courts, legislature, and the public, through local and state propositions are also largely
responsible (EdSource, 2010a). Temporary Band-Aids such as increased borrowing or
funding delays did nothing to address fundamental budget issues and left California and
its public schools in a very tenuous position as the overall economy declined in 2008.
While the current state of California public education‘s finances as evaluated by the
literature will be reviewed shortly, the following events combined to shape the current
funding landscape.
20

Early School Reform Efforts and Their Financial Impact. Many of the issues
currently facing California public education are tied to shifts in population and associated
immigration trends in the state dating back to the 1960s (EdBrief, 2010). The resulting
unequal concentration of resources within and between communities and districts
inspired a variety of programs to attempt to equalize the quality of schools such as
bilingual education initiatives and the Early Childhood Education plan (Hatami, 2006).
These attempts were new territory for the state as until the 1970s, California‘s finance
system for public education was based on an approach where each school district was
guaranteed a fixed amount of funding per student in exchange for raising local property
taxes (Picus, 2006). Districts unable to raise the specified amount through property and
other local taxes received state funding to bridge the difference (Policy Analysis for
California Education, 2006). However, this amount did not meet all districts‘ basic needs
(or often was not deemed enough to meet wealthy districts‘ ambitions) and as a result,
many districts were compelled to work to increase the property taxes levied to increase
their revenues (Picus, 2006). California‘s rapid growth and increasing property values
further encouraged the practice with local government regularly raising property taxes
(EdSource, 2009). This structure resulted in a wide disparity in the resources available
to districts due to significant differences in property values and tax rates throughout the
state.
Consequently, property tax relief and equity in educational funding emerged to
become major issues of concern in the state and led to the creation of a base revenue
limit, which placed a cap on the amount a school district could collect per student. Based
21

on a students‘ average daily attendance (ADA), the revenue limit was calculated per
district to represent the total amount of general purpose money available with each
district‘s expenditures in 1972 used in their base calculation (EdSource, 2009a). This
methodology allowed for a wide range of per pupil (ADA) revenue limits and while the
limits were intended to equalize funding across schools, as increases in local property tax
revenues were offset by decreases in the state share (or vice versa), the unequal historical
expenditures used in the calculation allowed inequities to persist (Ed-Data, 2010).
Serrano v. Priest and AB 65. Three decisions by the California Supreme Court,
beginning with Serrano v. Priest (1971), critically examined California‘s revenue limit
based approaches for funding K-12 education because of disparities between districts,
where it was argued that poor communities were required to pay a higher tax rate than
more affluent districts to provide the same educational opportunities for their students.
The argument in the initial suit and the two subsequent Serrano v. Priest cases claimed
that California‘s school finance system, largely tied to property taxes, was
unconstitutional because it did not provide students equal protection under the law
(EdSource, 2010a). The cases asserted that poorer districts were forced to levy taxes at
comparatively high rates to generate revenue that often still fell short of the amount
generated by districts in wealthier communities.
Assembly Bill 65 (AB 65) arose as a response to Serrano in 1977 by providing
additional state assistance to increase per pupil expenditures in low-wealth districts while
imposing additional limits on the growth of expenditures in high-wealth/property-tax rich
districts. Along with various categorical school improvement grants and the merger of
22

separate programs for compensatory and bilingual education into a consolidated system
called Economic Impact Aid (EIA), the goal of the bill was to gradually equalize school
funding (EdSource, 2010b).
Proposition 13, Senate Bill 154, and Assembly Bill 8. However, nine months
after the passage of AB 65, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13
which limited the property tax rate to one percent and imposed the requirement of a two-
thirds majority vote in both the state senate and assembly for future tax increases (Lipson
& Lavin, 1980). Naturally, its passage dramatically reduced local property taxes and
severely handicapped public schools, forcing them to face the prospect of operating with
significant reductions in their largest funding source. In order to create time to manage
the resulting crisis, the Legislature passed SB 154 (1978) which provided state funds to
temporarily bail out schools and other local government institutions. With a large portion
of AB 65 tied directly to a property tax funding structure that no longer existed,
policymakers worked to construct an alternative system to fund schools. This resulted in
the Legislature passing AB 8 in 1979 and formally breaking the direct link between local
property taxes and schools while significantly increasing the state‘s part in funding
education (EdSource, 2009b; Rebell, 2007).
Proposition 98. The shift from the comparatively stable and predictable base of
property taxes to the often erratic funding provided by the state due to varying economic
conditions has challenged schools and their students since Proposition 13‘s passage
(Walter & Sweetland, 2003). Proposition 98 was passed in 1988 in an attempt to stabilize
public education‘s revenue streams, guaranteeing a funding source that is designed to
23

keep pace with the economy and enrollment growth (EdSource, 2010b). With various
amounts of property tax revenues collected by cities, counties, and other special districts,
redirected to what are termed educational revenue augmentation funds (ERAF),
Proposition 98 was designed with also designed with goals of funding schools across the
state to achieve equity (Kirst, 2006). Provisions of the proposition include a
constitutionally protected portion of the budget that is dedicated to funding K-14
education as well as a set of rules that govern the amount of the increase to funding
annually. While Proposition 98 was passed to provide a minimum guaranteed funding
level, it has also become a sort of informal limit on K-12 funding according to Timar
(2004) who relates California lawmakers are hesitant to allocate general use, unrestricted
money to school districts. As a result, during years which meet the criteria for a positive
economic environment in the state budget, additional funds are allocated via categorical
programs rather than through the unrestricted General Fund, a trend in California that will
be discussed further below (EdSource, 2010a).
Williams v. California. In 2004, the funding levels established for California
public schools following Proposition 98 were carefully scrutinized after the lawsuit and
associated settlement in Williams v. California. The core assertions in the suit alleged
that state agencies failed to provide public school students with equal access to
instructional materials, safe and decent school facilities, and qualified teachers
(EdSource, 2010b). As a result, almost one billion dollars was allocated in additional
funding for standards-aligned instructional materials as well as the critical repair of
facilities along with the promise to address teacher quality and instructional materials
24

(EdSource, 2010a). A fundamental issue raised in the case was the claim that the state
was holding districts accountable to high standards without providing the necessary
resources for them to meet those standards (Hatami, 2006). While the state did provide
the funding described above, districts are still grappling with the financial and logistical
burdens associated with the extra reporting and accountability requirements introduced in
the settlement (EdSource, 2010a).
California Public Education’s Current Funding Environment. With the
events described above gradually transitioning financing for California schools from the
sphere of local control to the state, the pool of funds school districts pull from today is
very different than it was forty years ago. The majority of district revenues come from
the state as general purpose money which is derived by multiplying a district‘s revenue
limit by their ADA (Ed-Data, 2010). Due to the funding structure introduced in
Proposition 98, the revenue limit is composed of state funds derived primarily from state
sales and income taxes as well as local property taxes allocated by the state.
As presented previously, the revenue limit may vary for each district though after
the Serrano decision has been largely equalized per pupil where by the year 2000,
approximately 97% of the state‘s students were within a band (known as the "Serrano
Band") of about $350 (Ed-Data, 2007). However, the revenue limit does change
depending on whether the district is an elementary, unified or high school district with
the following estimates for 2010 per pupil for each type at $5,007, $5,235, and $6,016
(EdSource, 2010a). Districts defined as ―small‖ with up to 100 pupils for elementary,
300 students for high school, or 1,500 students for unified districts receive additional
25

funding. Additionally, the revenue limit is typically increased each year with a cost-of-
living-adjustment (COLA) that is tied to inflation. The actual amount, however, is
dependent on the legislative apportionment and in recent years, while the index used to
measure inflation increased over four percent, policymakers chose not to provide any
COLA due to the critical condition of the state budget.
As Table 2.1 below illustrates, the estimates for 2009-10 indicate California‘s
general purpose revenues compose almost 66% of the total funding a district receives.
Approximately one-third of a school district‘s funding comes from state and federal
categorical programs.
Table 2.1: Total Revenues for K-12 Education (CDE), 12/09
Total Revenues For K-12 Education
2007-08 2009-10

(Billions) (Billions)
State Proposition 98 Funds $37.8 53.1% $31.2 46.8%
Local Prop. 98 Property Taxes 12.6 17.7% 13.4 20.1%
Federal Government (Ongoing) 6.4 9.0% 7.1 10.6%
Federal Government (One-Time Stimulus) 2.3 3.4%
Local Miscellaneous 5.2 7.3% 5.2 7.8%
Lottery 0.9 1.2% 0.8 1.2%
Subtotal $62.9 $60.0
State Non-Prop. 98 Funds 5.6 7.9% 4.0 6.0%
Local Non-Prop 98 Property Taxes 2.7 3.8% 2.7 4.0%
Total $71.1 $66.7

Money from these programs is often tied to a districts‘ student demographics such
as the federal Title I program targeting students who live in poverty or Title III, which is
designed to assist English learners and immigrant students. Other categorical programs‘
26

monies are allocated using competitive grants which individual districts apply for such as
Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) or more recently the School
Improvement Grants (SIG) attached to the Race to the Top Funds (EdSource, 2009). A
number of categorical programs are also setup as incentives whereby a district has the
option to provide a service that often achieves both local and global policy goals in
exchange for funding, such as the state money attached to student nutrition, after school
programs, or K-3 class size reduction. The Gann limit attached to Proposition 4 also
provides another class of categorical funds, where the state is required to reimburse local
government agencies, including school districts, for the costs associated with the
implementation of new programs or services mandated by the state. The state‘s recent
deferrals of the reimbursements has emerged to become a serious problem for many
districts, with a lawsuit being filed in November of 2007 to attempt to force the state to
accelerate payment. In December of 2008, the state appealed a court decision ruling that
the deferments were unconstitutional with a final decision expected in 2010 (EdSource,
2010a).
Controversies such as those surrounding the deferment of reimbursements are a
common topic for debate in educational finance within California today. Complaints
criticizing the complexity, inflexibility, and overhead costs associated with the audits and
monitoring for compliance of categorical programs date back to their inception though in
the past two years approximately forty state funded programs have been made flexible
out of necessity due to the dire condition of the state budget (EdSource, 2010a).
Similarly, a great deal of frustration is regularly expressed by districts and communities
27

regarding their limited ability to control their own financial destinies due to the steady
encroachment of the state and federal government in California school finance.
Ironically, many of the equity issues these often-criticized programs were created
to address are still serious problems for many school districts and the state, with the threat
of litigation ever present as evidenced by recent lawsuits such as Williams vs. California.
However, while it encompassed several arguments related to the equity in educational
opportunities available to California students, the lawsuit primarily focused on the state‘s
failure to provide adequate resources to schools for students to meet increased
performance expectations. The suit was one of several that symbolized a focus on
adequacy, or the link between the inputs of the educational system in the form of the
amount of resources allocated and the resulting outputs as indicated by student outcomes
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). The following section will examine this new focus more
closely along with the various models that have been developed to support it.
Educational Adequacy
In researching the effects of the lawsuits and ensuing legislation on California
education over the past half-century and the state‘s resulting move toward adequacy
based funding, it is essential to understand the major difference between equity and
adequacy based funding. Equity based funding does not explicitly address educational
quality or student achievement, instead the primary focus is on ensuring that all students
receive the same amount of resources to help support their learning (Odden & Picus,
2008). Adequacy based models, on the other hand, allocate resources for students based
on their individual needs along with a clear focus on the amount of resources required for
28

them to achieve proficiency. This approach should avoid many of the criticisms
associated with equity based funding where although revenue disparities have been
significantly reduced across districts, they have not been completely eliminated. For
example, the Education Trust (2003) found significant funding disparities between
districts with low and high numbers of socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority
students. Perhaps more importantly, equity based funding is criticized for its failure to
address the inefficiencies in all districts‘ allocation of resources in their efforts improve
student outcomes (Evers, 2006). In his analysis of equity based funding in education,
Hanushek (1996) boldly states that the efforts focusing solely on financial equity were
akin to a quest for equalized mediocrity.
Adequacy based education funding differs in that it is focused on the final product
desired in public schools where each child receives a quality education with high levels
of student learning (Odden & Picus, 2008). With the current financial crisis and
disappointing levels of student performance, policymakers are increasingly concerned
with the amount of money necessary to deliver this level of education and whether
districts are effectively allocating their resources (Odden & Picus, 2008). Court cases
such as Williams v. California that have centered on school adequacy highlight another
challenge in providing a quality education in that the students whose performance is in
most need of improvement are the students who require the most resources (Olsen, 2005).
With the dramatic decline in revenue, as indicated by the revenue limit per student for the
29

average unified school district, displayed in Figure 2.1 below, the scope of the challenge
of improving the performance of these students is becoming apparent.
Figure 2.1: Per-Pupil Funded Limits for the Average Unified District

Note: Adapted from School Finance 2009–10 by EdSource (2010b), pp. 17. Copyright
2010 by EdSource. Adapted with permission.

Unfortunately, the pressure to improve the performance of these struggling and resource
hungry students in the face of dwindling resources has proven to be too much for many
districts as illustrated in Figure 2.2 below, where there has been a significant increase in
the number of local education agencies in California with qualified or negative
certifications. In the case of a qualified certification, this represents an LEA or its
overseeing agency determining that the certifying entity may not be able to meet its
financial obligations in the current or subsequent two fiscal years while a negative
30

certification indicates the certifying agency will not be able to meet its obligations for the
remainder of the fiscal year or the subsequent fiscal year.
Figure 2.2: Local education agencies with qualified or negative certification

Note: Adapted from School Finance 2009–10 by EdSource (2010b), pp. 18. Copyright
2010 by EdSource. Adapted with permission.

As a result, Odden and Picus (2008) assert that the main strategic financial challenge for
districts today is connecting their resource allocation and funding to the instructional
strategies required to achieve high levels of student performance.
Although there are several different approaches to determine what constitutes an
adequate funding level, a common element in the various adequacy based funding models
is standards-based education, which establishes performance standards for students.
31

Most recently, the reauthorization of the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 formalized a standards-
based approach to education by tying federal funding to students meeting a series of
standards as determined by their performance on various assessments designed to
measure proficiency. The legislation marked a turning point in its effect of compelling
all states to address the issue of standards-based reform and as a result has played a
prominent role in the transition from equity to adequacy based models (Gamoran &
Long, 2006). However, there are a number of criticisms surrounding the legislation, a
few of which are briefly summarized below (EdSource, 2008):
 Critics decry the strict accountability requirements and the related bureaucracy
and costs as an example of how NCLB is an unfunded mandate. They claim that
states, counties, districts, and schools do not receive sufficient resources to
implement the programs and changes necessary to meet performance objectives or
reporting requirements.
 Much of the controversy centers on standardized testing and its use to evaluate
school progress. Opponents of NCLB argue that assessments which review a
limited set of standards encourage teachers to only teach a narrow subset of skills
to increase test performance rather than improve learning.
 A similar critique is presented regarding NCLB‘s focus on Math, English, and
Science. Many educators, policymakers, parents, and students claim that subjects
32

such as Art, Music, and Foreign Language do not receive as many instructional
resources as subjects which are mandated to be tested.
 Finally, a persistent objection to NCLB has been expressed regarding the fact that
the determination of the essential standards and the associated minimum
competencies are established by each state independently. As a result, many
states have lowered their achievement goals to meet the performance objectives.
This problem has gained a great deal of attention and a significant piece of the
discussion surrounding the changes needed for the reauthorization of NCLB
concentrates on the need for common standards across all states.
Along with the commonly articulated criticisms above, NCLB is also lacking in that it
does not directly address the second core component in adequacy based models:
allocating the necessary resources to enable all students to meet the standards established.
This has left the task to states, districts and schools, many of which have begun to
evaluate various adequacy funding models on their own accord with others being
compelled to do so by the courts (Odden & Picus, 2008). Along with independent
adequacy reviews examining the general costs of providing a quality education, a number
of states have performed detailed analyses to establish the costs associated with a
comprehensive implementation of NCLB (Olsen, 2005).
There are four primary models used by these entities in determining an adequate
funding level, each of which will be reviewed in this section:
33

Expert/Professional Judgment Model. In this method, a panel of educational
experts determines the resources necessary for all students to meet performance standards
based on effective educational strategies (Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007). This approach is
one of the most common adequacy methods for attempting to determine educational
costs. Once the resources and strategies have been determined, experts then assign each
component a cost and modify the calculations to account for individual district
characteristics such as student demographics and size. The final total is the amount that
the model determines a district must allocate for all of its students to reach the desired
proficiency levels (Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007). Both Illinois and Alaska used this
method to attempt to determine funding levels for their schools, but neither state
implemented the proposals (Odden & Picus, 2008).
The professional judgment method was used in two of the analyses in ―Getting
Down to Facts‖ which was a research project consisting of more than twenty studies
designed to provide California with comprehensive information about the status of the
state‘s school finance system. One study, conducted by Chambers, Levin and DeLancey
(2007) used two independent panels made up of a diverse set of educators who were each
given three days to design an instructional program for a typical California school that
would ensure all of its students were given the necessary resources to meet the California
performance standards. The researchers reported that both panels would significantly
change the instructional format currently found in most districts and that the resulting
34

plan would require California spend an additional 24 to 32 billion dollars for all students
to achieve the desired performance objectives (Chambers et al., 2007).
One advantage of this approach is that legislators and other stakeholders are said
to be able to easily understand the recommendations generated by the model, however, it
is also criticized due to its reliance on professional opinions rather than research-based
practices (Hanushek, 2006). Additionally, some researchers assert when panels or
individual experts are given unlimited budgets, they often allocate resources based on
what is wanted rather than what is truly needed to provide an adequate education (Loeb,
2007). Another shortcoming of the professional judgment method is that the model‘s
definitions of success have the potential to differ significantly between and within states
depending on how the process is managed (Odden, 2003).
Successful School/District Model. This method identifies successful schools and
districts that consistently meet performance standards and then uses their per-pupil costs
as a base funding level (Odden, 2003). A key piece in attempting to make this model
useful and accurate is the ability of its practitioners to account for differences between
districts as well as schools within the same district by carefully examining student
demographics, staff makeup, size, and other factors (Loeb, 2007). The Successful District
model was utilized in Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, and Ohio (Odden, 2003).
A successful school adequacy study was conducted in California, also as part of
the ―Getting Down to Facts‖ project in 2004. Thirty five high schools, approximately
seven middle schools, and over sixty elementary schools were identified as successful
35

sites due to their performance on the California Standards Test (CST). These schools
were compared with a similar number of schools designated as low-performing (also
based on their CST scores) and their financial data was compared in an attempt to
identify possible areas where their respective resource allocations impacted student
performance (Perez, 2007). Aside from the comparisons involving high-poverty
successful schools to high-poverty low-performing schools where the successful schools
spent approximately $265 more per student than the schools considered to be low-
performing, the researchers found no link between academic achievement and school
resources.
This particular study was criticized for only examining financial data at the
district level instead of also including school level data in the analysis as well as the lack
of documentation regarding what adjustments, if any, were made to account for
differences across the schools. Similar critiques exist for the approach as a whole with,
Odden (2003) and Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) suggest suggesting that that the
approach is limited in that it is difficult to apply to schools and districts that are different
from those selected as models. There is also discussion regarding the difficulty in
establishing the criteria for what elements make a successful school. Hanushek (2006)
extends the criticism referring to the model as the ―Successful Students‖ model as it
offers no explanation of what leads students to do well.
Cost Function Model. This approach uses advanced statistical regression and
econometric modeling in its attempts to determine the amount of resources a district
36

needs to allocate to ensure that its students meet defined performance standards relative
to an average district in a sample set (Rebell, 2007). An essential ingredient of the cost
function approach to adequacy is the availability of detailed state level data breaking out
per-student expenditures, resource allocation, and performance. Once this data is
analyzed, it must then be linked to the unique needs of districts, schools, and individual
students (Loeb, 2007; Rebell, 2007).
A cost functional approach is employed in another study presented as part of the
―Getting Down to Facts‖ project in its attempts to critically examine the state of
California‘s finances. The study analyzed district level spending, student demographics
and performance, as well as enrollment statistics for each district in the 2004-05 school
year and produced an estimate that California school districts need approximately 1.7
billion more dollars to meet state achievement goals as measured by a district earning an
API score of 800 (Imazeki, 2007). By evaluating a wide range of district characteristics,
the model arrived at a formula with provisions to determine the true total per pupil cost of
education across a variety of school districts. In addition to arriving at the total estimated
amount of additional funds needed statewide, the study also indicated that schools with
the highest levels of poverty and other challenges, such as a large concentration of
English learners, are appreciably under-funded by the state‘s current system of school
finance, given their increased need for resources.
A criticism of the approach is that the model is typically limited to an application
at a district level rather than a school and that it does not detail which instructional
37

strategies were most effective in increasing student performance goals (Odden, 2003).
According to Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) another inherent problem with this approach
is that the regression analysis and econometric models that are implemented are not
consistent from study to study, which makes comparing the findings difficult.
Additionally, the extensive amount of data and complex analyses required make it
difficult to explain to policymakers and the public.
Evidence-Based Model. This model utilizes the best practices in current
educational research to determine what resources are needed for all students to receive a
high quality education (Odden, 2003). It begins with various comprehensive school
reform efforts being analyzed and their individual components broken out and assigned a
cost which provides districts the flexibility of being able to tailor their application to their
student populations‘ unique needs with a full understanding of the total expenditures
necessary (Odden, 2003; Odden & Picus, 2008). The evidence-based model is centered
around research-based strategies and aggregates evidence from three primary sources:
research with randomized assignment to the treatment, research with other types of
controls or statistical procedures that can help separate the impact of a treatment, and best
practices either as incorporated in a comprehensive school design program or from
various studies examining a strategy or program‘s impact at the local district or school
level (Odden & Picus, 2008). The approach also enables school districts to identify the
individual instructional strategies that produce the desired results with their respective
student populations as well as benefit from the constantly growing research base that
38

details which programs have proven to be effective in improving student learning and
achievement in various environments (Odden, 2003; Picus 2004).
Critics of the approach such as Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) question its
effectiveness and state that its success is difficult to measure due to the fact it must be
adopted school or district wide. Hanushek (2006) also expresses concern that the model
cannot be generalized across all schools and also that it does not take into account all
research. Loeb (2007) expands on this in questioning the strength of the research that the
model is based on and stating that not enough evidence is available to accurately identify
a number of effective instructional strategies and programs. A number of researchers
also point out that there is conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of various programs
such as class size reduction and their impact on student performance (PACE, 2006;
Rebell, 2007). Measuring student outcomes predominantly through their performance on
standardized tests rather than a broader focus including non-cognitive measures such as
their citizenship and leadership skills is also questioned (PACE, 2006). Finally,
Hanushek and Lindseth (2009), state that the approach encourages educational agencies
to maximize spending and does not address the inefficiencies that currently exist across
school districts.
A number of researchers have responded to these criticisms, stating that evidence-
based approaches combine many of advantages of the other adequacy based methods,
resulting in a consistent, easy to understand, transparent, and flexible model that can
accommodate diverse educational needs and desired goals (Baker, 2005; Bhatt &
39

Wraight, 2009; Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007). In addressing Hanushek‘s claims, Archibald
(2006) found that increases in per pupil spending led to positive performance gains in
both math and reading, determining that the improvement in reading was statistically
significant. According to Archibald (2006), the programs and strategies employed were
tied to the latest research as called for in the Evidence-Based Model and demonstrate the
approach‘s potential to increase student achievement by using resources more efficiently
and purposefully The model is particularly well aligned with the requirements of NCLB
in implementing scientific, research-based school reform efforts and determining their
associated resource allocation requirements (Odden, 2003; Odden & Picus, 2008; Rebell,
2007).
As stated previously, the adequacy approach that will be employed in this study is
the Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2008). The model has been
used to evaluate and develop adequacy studies in Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Washington, Wyoming, and most recently in North Dakota (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
Initially constructed using data from a variety of studies examining high-quality and
successful instructional programs, Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003)
classified expenditures across both instructional and non-instructional expenditure
categories to form the base of the model. Odden and Picus (2008) further refined the
model by developing resource-based expenditure structures for model elementary,
middle, and high schools which can then be adjusted to reflect the unique needs of a
district or school‘s student demographics. Given the assortment of small single-school
40

districts that will compose the sample in this study, the flexibility provided by the
Evidence-Based Model will be a crucial part of the analysis. The following section
details the model‘s components and recommendations for effective resource allocation in
schools.
The Evidence-Based Model
The core approach of evidence-based models is to identify individual school-
based programs, school improvement efforts, and educational strategies identified in
research as improving student learning (Odden & Archibald, 2009). While the depth and
rigor of supporting evidence for each recommendation varies, the approach does not
include any strategies and programs that are not supported by the best practices and
findings in the latest educational research or the results of studies where districts and
schools have significantly increased performance. Finally, although additional research
is needed regarding the effectiveness of each instructional program and their aggregate
impact, the Evidence-Based Model is composed of the educational strategies most
frequently cited by education researchers and practitioners as necessary ingredients in a
high performing school (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
41

Figure 2.3: The Evidence-Based Model

Note: Adapted from Did increased flexibility in the use of categorical grants help
California schools and community colleges improve student performance? A thematic
dissertation proposal by Picus (2009). Adapted with permission.

The model includes provisions for prototypical elementary, middle, and high
schools, though given that the sample in this research study is composed entirely of K-8
schools, only the recommendations for elementary and middle schools are presented in
42

Table 2.2 and then discussed in more detail below. While the Evidence-Based Model is
often displayed and applied to prototypical schools, in actual use and in this research
study, it will be matched to the student numbers and demographics of each school. As a
result, schools with more students than in the prototypical schools displayed will have
proportionately more resources allocated, while schools with fewer students would
receive fewer resources except in certain core areas such as principals, secretaries, and
librarians which are often retained for smaller schools due to diseconomies of scale
(Odden & Archibald, 2009). Schools with greater numbers and concentrations of at-risk
students would also receive a greater level of resources in a number of areas that are
linked to those groups‘ unique challenges and needs. Finally, as is the case with all of the
schools in this research sample, schools that do not match the prototypical school
configuration, such as K-6, K-8, or K-12 schools, will be proportionately resourced using
a combination of elementary, middle, and high school formulas (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Table 2.2: Adequate Prototypical Elementary & Middle School Resources
School Element Elementary Schools Middle Schools
School Characteristics
School configuration K-5 6-8
Prototypical school size 432 450
Class size K-3: 15 4-5: 25 6-8: 25
Full-day kindergarten Yes NA
Number of teacher
work days
195 teacher work days
(increase of 5 days)
195 teacher work days
(increase of 5 days)
Percentage poverty (free
& reduced price lunch)
50% 50%
Percent ELL 10.6% 10.6%
Personnel Resources
43

Table 2.2, Continued
1. Core teachers 24 18
2. Specialist teachers 20% more assuming
a 6 period day with each
FTE teaching 5 periods: 4.8
20% more assuming
a 6 period day with each
FTE teaching 5 periods:
3.6
3. Instructional facilitators 1/200 students: 2.2 1/200 students: 2.25
4. Tutors for struggling
students
1/100 poverty
students: 2.16
1/100 poverty
students: 2.25
5. Teachers for ELL
students
An additional 1 teacher/100
ELL students: 0.46
An additional 1
teacher/100 ELL students:
0.48
6. Extended day 1.8 1.875
7. Summer school 1.8 1.875
8. Students with mild
disabilities
Additional 3 professional
teacher positions and 1.5
aide positions
Additional 3 professional
teacher positions and 1.5
aide positions
9. Students with severe
disabilities
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds
10. Resources for
gifted/talented students
$25/student $25/student
11. Substitutes 10 days/FTE 10 days/FTE
12. Pupil support staff 1/100 poverty students:
1.32 total
1/100 poverty students plus
1 guidance/250 students:
3.18 total
13. Supervisory aides 2 2
14. Librarians/LMC 1 1
15. Principal 1 1
16. School site secretary 1 secretary and 1 clerical 1 secretary and 1 clerical
Dollar per Pupil Resources
17. Professional
development
Included above:
Instructional facilitators
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses– trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
Included above:
Instructional facilitators
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses– trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
44

Table 2.2, Continued
18. Technology and
equipment
$250/pupil $250/pupil
19. Instructional materials,
textbooks, assessments
$200/pupil $200/pupil
20. Student activities $250/pupil $250/pupil

Note: Adapted from School finance: A policy perspective (4th ed.) by Odden and Picus
(2008), pp. 132-133. Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Adapted with permission.

School Configuration and Size. According to Odden and Picus (2008), existing
research on school size has produced more consistent conclusions than the research on
class size reduction discussed in more detail below. While most of the research on the
subject has focused on whether large schools (schools with significantly more than 1000
students) are both more effective and efficient than smaller schools (schools of 300 to
500), and whether potential cost reductions and performance improvements can be
realized through consolidation, studies have generally shown that elementary schools
between 400 to 600 students and secondary schools between 500 and 1000 students are
ideal (Lee & Smith, 2001). For the purposes of this study, given that the schools
examined will contain a mixture of elementary and middle-school age students as all of
the sites are K-8, the prototypical school size generated by the model is approximately
440.
Issues surrounding the diseconomies of scale and potential for consolidation
associated with the small size of many of the schools in this research study will be
discussed in the final section of the chapter.
45

Full-day kindergarten. There have been a number of studies that demonstrate
full-day kindergarten programs have a significant positive impact on student learning in
primary grades, particularly for students from socioeconomically disadvantaged
backgrounds (Odden & Picus, 2008). As an example Fusaro (1997) presented a meta-
analysis of 23 studies comparing the impact of half-day to full-day kindergarten and
determined an average effect size of +.77 standard deviations; according to Fusaro, the
all-day kindergarten programs accounted for approximately 60% of the difference in
outcome measures. Along with improved academic, social and behavioral outcomes,
research also found that teachers and parents with students enrolled in all-day
kindergarten had positive attitudes about the programs and believed that all-day
kindergarten better prepared students for first grade (Elicker & Mathur, 1997).
Additionally, Elicker and Mathur (1997) found that teachers also indicated that they felt
they had more time to get to know their students and families with full-day kindergarten,
enabling them to better meet their student‘s needs. As a result, full-day kindergarten is
an important component in the Evidence-Based Model and should be implemented at all
elementary sites (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Core-class sizes/teachers. According to Odden and Picus (2008), core-class sizes
of 15 are recommended for kindergarten through third grade and class sizes of 25 for
grades 4-12, where core is defined as the regular classroom teacher in elementary school
and teachers of math, science, English, history, and foreign language in secondary
schools. These ratios produce an average class size of 18 in elementary school and 25 in
middle and high schools.
46

Much of the evidence for the small class sizes called for in the model come from
the Tennessee K-3 Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) report (Finn & Achilles,
1999), a large-scale randomized longitudinal study funded by the Tennessee Department
of Education, which concluded that students in smaller classes in primary grades perform
better in subsequent grades than students in regular sized classes. According to Odden
and Picus (2008), the effect of small class sizes in these primary grade years is even
greater for students from low-income and minority backgrounds, making the initiative
even more important for schools with a high percentage of socioeconomically
disadvantaged students. As there is not currently a definitive individual study or
collection of research that demonstrates a clear link between a particular class size and
student performance for grades 4-12, the Evidence-Based Model uses data from research
and best practices as well as the professional judgments of educators to determine the
recommended 25 to 1 ratio for these grade levels.
Specialist Teachers. Specialist teachers deliver curriculum beyond the core
subjects identified previously for the various grade levels in areas such as art, music, and
physical education. In addition, they serve an important function in the Evidence-Based
Model by providing release time for core teachers to participate in collaborative planning,
job-embedded professional development, as well as curricular development (Odden &
Picus, 2008). The number of specialist teachers required is calculated by determining the
number of core teachers for a school and then multiplying that number by twenty percent
to provide enough specialists teachers to allow sufficient time for at least one period of
47

planning and preparation time each day for all teachers in elementary, middle, and high
schools.
Pupil Support Staff. Pupil support in the Evidence-Based Model includes
counselors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, and family liaison personnel (Odden &
Picus, 2008). Schools with a large number of disadvantaged students particularly benefit
from student support and family outreach programs with the model providing one
licensed professional for every 100 students from low-income backgrounds, with a
minimum of 1.0 full time equivalent (FTE) position for each prototypical school. The
model also funds guidance counselors at both the middle and high school level, using the
recommendation of the American School Counselor Association (ASCA), which is one
counselor for every 250 secondary students (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Administration and Support Staff. In explaining why there is no research
comparing the performance of schools with or without principals, Odden and Picus
(2008) state that it is essentially because all schools in the United States feature this
position. Additionally, all comprehensive school designs and prototypical school models
generated by professional experts include the position; however, most of these designs do
not include an assistant principal for schools with less than 500 students (Hallinger &
Heck, 1998). As a result, the Evidence-Based Model provides 1.0 principal for each
prototypical school that can be adjusted up or prorated down based on a school‘s number
of students compared to the respective prototypical schools. Responding to many
districts that insist secondary schools also require an assistant principal position to
48

address discipline, student activities, and athletics, the Evidence-Based model provides
instructional coaches which can assume many of those duties and as a result, does not
include this additional administrative position (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Finally, every school is allocated secretarial positions to provide clerical and
administrative assistance to administrators, teaching staff, and parents along with other
essential duties at a school. The model recommends that the prototypical elementary and
middle schools be provided one 12-month secretarial position and one 9-month
clerk/typist position, and that the prototypical high school be provided one senior
secretary and 3 clerk/typist positions (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Professional Development Resources. As stated previously, the literature shows
that professional development is an essential part of any comprehensive school reform
program‘s efforts to improve student performance by making teachers more effective
(Desimone et al., 2002; Fermanich et al., 2006; Marzano, 2003; Supovich & Turner,
2000). Consequently, Odden & Picus (2008) state that intensive professional
development is potentially the most important resource strategy identified in the
Evidence-Based Model. This emphasis is supported by Marzano (2003), who found that
professional development is the primary method where teachers transform practice into
high quality instruction, which in turn is the key to improving student learning.
The Evidence-Based Model provides resources for the following professional
development activities to support the transformation of all resources recommended in the
model into improved student learning (Odden & Picus, 2008).
49

Time during the summer for intensive training institutes. It is strongly
recommended that provisions for this time be reserved in the teaching contract, where ten
days in the work year are allocated to professional development and the teacher salary is
augmented to provide the additional time.
On-site coaching. By allocating resources for instructional facilitators and
coaches to assist all teachers in incorporating of research-based strategies into their daily
teaching, the Evidence-Based Model provides the critical ongoing instructional coaching
and mentoring that the professional development literature shows is necessary for
teachers to improve their instructional practice (Desimone et al., 2002). The Evidence-
Based Model provides for both instructional facilitators and technology coordinators by
allotting 2.5 FTEs for each school of 500 students. The bulk of the facilitators‘ and
coordinators‘ time is spent in the classroom, dedicated to modeling lessons, presenting
feedback to teachers, and helping improve the overall instructional program at the school.
While the positions are identified as FTE positions, schools have the flexibility of
dividing their responsibilities across several teachers to best meet the resource allocation
challenges and needs of their students (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Collaborative work with teachers during the school day. Using some of the
strategies discussed in the section above on specialist teachers, the Evidence-Based
Model provides teachers with planning and preparation periods to improve the curricular
and instructional program.
Funds for summer and ongoing training during the school year. Independent
of the embedded internal professional development occurring on a school site, the
50

Evidence-Based Model utilizes a formula that allots approximately $100 per pupil,
providing sufficient funding for outside trainers and other assorted professional
development costs.
Technology, Equipment and Other Instructional Materials. As a prime
example of an instructional tool whose ultimate effectiveness is linked to a
comprehensive and intensive professional development program, a significant amount of
resources are dedicated to technology‘s effective and ongoing implementation in the
Evidence-Based Model, in the form of an allocation of approximately $250 per student.
Odden and Picus (2008) state that if implemented correctly, research has identified four
areas where technology in education can benefit students: 1) student preparation to enter
the workforce or higher education, 2) student motivation, 3) student learning or increased
academic achievement, and 4) teacher/student access to resources.
Instructional Materials also receive a substantial allotment, with $200 allocated
per student in the model to provide up-to-date textbooks and supplementary materials.
Odden and Picus (2008) emphasize that while expensive, current instructional materials
are essential to encouraging meaningful instruction and learning, and estimate that
approximately ninety percent of classroom activities are driven by textbooks and
associated content to illustrate their importance.
Aides. The Evidence-Based Model acknowledges the need for elementary,
middle and high schools to have staff dedicated to responsibilities such as lunch duty,
playground supervision, bus duty, etc. As a result, it allocates approximately 2.0 FTE
supervisory aide positions for a school of 400-500 students to be used for relieving
51

teachers from lunchroom, playground and other non-teaching responsibilities. However,
the model does not recommend that funds be provided for instructional aides citing that
research, such as the previously reviewed Tennessee STAR study, provides no evidence
that instructional aides in schools positively impact student academic achievement
(Odden and Picus, 2008).
Extra-Help Strategies and Resources. Schools must provide additional
programs and assistance for students that are unable to keep pace and fully understand the
curriculum and associated standards delivered in the core instructional program (Odden
and Picus, 2008). Groups with additional needs such as disabled students or English
language learners (ELL) are especially important to factor into these efforts. Another
area that must be addressed is the Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) group which
consists of students that generally perform above proficiency standards. Schools must
provide adequate resources to develop the hidden talent of low income and/or
socioeconomically diverse students, secure curriculum and other materials designed
specifically for the group, accelerate the curriculum, and provide special training to
teachers to develop the full potential of these students (Odden & Picus, 2008).
As a result, the Evidence-Based Model includes the following components to
ensure struggling, high-needs, and GATE students, receive the resources they need to be
successful:
Tutors. According to Odden and Picus (2008) research has shown that the most
effective way to assist struggling students to meet state standards is by offering one-to-
one tutoring provided by certificated teachers. The Evidence-Based Model allocates one
52

tutor for every 100 low-socioeconomic students with the expectation that each tutor
should be able to tutor one student every 20 minutes, or three students per hour, and that
because not every student from a low-income background will require individual
tutoring, a portion of the allocation can be used to serve students in the school who may
not be from a lower income family, but nevertheless could benefit from tutoring (Odden
& Picus, 2008). Finally, the model also allows for the flexibility for the tutors to be
deployed in evidence-based configurations other than just one-on-one tutoring, drawing
on research from Torgeson (2004) that shows how individual tutoring, one-to-three
tutoring, and one-to-five small group sessions can be combined for different students to
enhance their chances of learning to read successfully.
English Learners and Special Education. English Language Learners have
additional assistance embedded into the Evidence-Based Model where schools are
allocated 1.0 FTE credentialed teacher for every 100 English Learner students enrolled.
While most ELL students are generally from lower-income backgrounds and are thus
included in the free and reduced lunch counts which trigger other evidence-based
resources such as extended day and summer programs, schools with a large enough
number of ELL students receive the dedicated teaching resource described above to
provide services specific to the unique needs of this group (Odden & Picus, 2008).
The Evidence-Based Model also provides special education classes for mild to
moderately disabled students with special education aides, allocating approximately 3.0
FTE teachers and 1.5 FTE aide positions. However, Odden and Picus (2008) note that
many disabilities, such as those surrounding a student‘s efforts to learn to read can be
53

corrected through targeted early interventions. They advocate moving away from the
pull-out programs associated with funding sources such as categorical and special
education toward a model where regular classroom and special education teachers
collaborate with each other to quickly identify and work to correct students‘ individual
challenges.
GATE students are served under the Evidence-Based Model through several
approaches including placement in special classes comprised of all gifted students,
accelerated lessons where students receive instruction at a much faster pace than in
regular classes, and when pull-out or acceleration approaches are not possible, students
are skipped grades to be exposed to accelerated instruction. An added benefit is that both
of the above strategies have little or no cost, except for scheduling and training teachers
(Odden & Picus, 2008).
Extended Day. After school programs are designed to provide students with
additional academic support as well as a safe environment to spend time following the
end of the school day. The Evidence-Based Model allows for an extended-day program
in all school prototypes to offer this supplementary help for students to meet academic
performance standards using an allocation formula that provides one teacher position for
every fifteen eligible students. As all students will not need or be able to attend, the total
count of eligible students is determined by taking 50 percent of the school‘s adjusted free
and reduced pupil number (Odden & Picus, 2008). The model recommends a 2 ½ to 3
hour extended-day program five days per week and while the resources can be used for a
54

different mix of teachers and other non-certificated staff, teachers must provide at least
one hour of homework help or tutoring after school (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Summer School. Similar to extended-day programs, summer school provides
additional instructional time to allow students to the opportunity to meet state
performance goals. The Evidence-Based Model offers programs that are eight weeks in
length, feature class sizes of no more than fifteen students, and four hours of instruction
in math and English as well as two hours of non-academic activities, for a total of six
hours. The calculation of 1.8 FTE for the prototypical elementary school of 432 students
is based on 50 percent of the number of students participating in a school‘s free and
reduced lunch program (Odden & Picus, 2008).
As demonstrated by the various resource allocations described above, the
Evidence-Based model seeks to identify the optimal combination of instructional
strategies and best practices in the latest academic research in order to provide an
adequate and high-quality education for all students (Odden, 2000, 2003; Odden & Picus,
2008). While a number of the model‘s strategies were examined in some detail as they
were presented, the following section provides additional information and further support
for the strategies employed in the model and improving/successful schools across the
United States.
Successful School Instructional Strategies
A comprehensive plan to improve student performance was developed by Allan
Odden, who aggregated research from a wide range of sources including the Consortium
for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), the consulting firm of Lawrence O. Picus and
55

Associates as part of school finance adequacy analyses, in addition to studies and best
practices published by other practitioners and academic researchers (Odden, 2009).
While the specifics of the various studies varied in terms of items such as school size,
metropolitan or geographic location, and the socio-demographic status of students, the
end result of the synthesis was the identification of a consistent set of general strategies
that schools and districts have utilized to produce significant gains in student
performance (Odden, 2009). The following items are the ten major strategies districts
and schools employ to make dramatic improvements in student achievement (Odden,
2009):
1. Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge
2. Setting Ambitious Goals
3. Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program
4. Data-Based Decision Making
5. Ongoing Professional Development
6. Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
7. Providing Interventions for Struggling Students
8. Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership
9. Inspiring a Professional Organization
10. Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues
The following sections examine each of these strategies in greater detail,
providing relevant literature to support the recommendations.
56

Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge. Odden
(2009) recommends that school leaders begin a comprehensive analysis of data as the
first step in their school reform efforts. Oftentimes the prompt to begin this investigation
comes from both external and internal sources such as the poor performance of an entire
school or particular subgroup on a state assessment, the recognition of the need for
students to secure additional skills coupled with the demand from business for students
capable of competing in the world economy, or a moral drive to close the achievement
gap. Schmoker (2006) affirms this recommendation by relating that many district and
school leaders examine their existing performance data to better understand the
challenges facing all stakeholders in the improvement effort.
The analysis often begins with the study of student performance on state tests and
while Odden (2009) claims there are often valid criticisms surrounding the tests voiced
by participants in the analysis, educators in improving and successful schools typically
move beyond them quickly in their attempts to identify various areas that need
improvement. Beyond simple criticisms of the instrument used to determine potential
performance issues, the large number of stakeholders with competing agendas involved
in education often creates serious obstacles which must be overcome to improve student
learning (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). It is critical that all stakeholders fully
grasp the performance challenge and that data is analyzed carefully before collectively
setting improvement goals (Odden, 2009).
Setting Ambitious Goals. After completing the initial data analysis and
recognizing their performance challenge(s), successful schools must set ambitious goals
57

that include students from all subgroups. According to Odden (2009), schools focused on
improving their performance must avoid being constrained by the realities of their student
demographics and need to work to engage minority, low-income, and other student
groups typically viewed as barriers to high schoolwide achievement.
Benefits of such a strategy are supported by Marzano (2003), who found that
schools that established clear learning objectives with high expectations for all of their
students substantially improved their performance on state assessments. While it is
recommended that the goals established be very challenging to reach for all students and
teachers (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006; Elmore, 2002; Marzano, 2003), even if
schools do not completely attain their ambitions, they typically make great progress and
are in an improved position moving forward (Odden, 2009).
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program. According
to Marzano (2003), many problems students and teachers encounter in the classroom are
linked to inadequate curriculum. As a result, Odden (2009) found that all successful
districts and schools adopt new curriculum and instructional approaches as part of their
educational strategies to dramatically improve student achievement. These successful
schools generally make this decision and simultaneously have their teachers work
collaboratively to develop more effective ways to deliver the curriculum, expanding the
effort systemically across all classrooms and often across all schools in a district (Odden,
2009).
In selecting and implementing the new curriculum, practitioners would be well
served to pay close attention to one of the five key factors that Marzano (2003) extracted
58

from a meta-analysis of various studies examining school effectiveness. In the analysis
he found that a guaranteed and viable curriculum, providing students the opportunity to
be exposed to and learn a standards-based curriculum was an essential component of an
effective school. Schools must involve all stakeholders in selecting primary materials
and instructional programs as well as supplemental curriculum. Blueprints identifying
the essential standards and associated pacing should also be constructed collaboratively
and posted in student friendly language in all classrooms (Marzano, 2003).
Data-Based Decision Making. Along with evaluating the standardized state tests
referred to in the first section dedicated to understanding the performance challenges,
educational leaders in districts and schools that are significantly improving performance
also are using formative and summative assessments to guide their instructional decisions
(Odden, 2009). While often viewed negatively by both students and teachers (Louis &
Marks, 1998), high-quality assessments have been determined by a number of researchers
to be essential instruments in judging student mastery of state content standards and are
central components in many of the data-driven decisions that feed school improvement
efforts (Stecher, Hamilton, & Gonzalez, 2003). One study found that schools that
incorporated frequent assessments in their instructional programs saw their students
perform better than students in schools that lacked regular assessments (Symonds, 2004).
Though a number of schools still use commonly available end-of -unit or end-of-
course assessments, research increasingly points to the advantages in the implementation
of benchmarks and especially formative assessments. Fullan (2005) and Marzano (2003)
claim that these types of assessments are extremely useful as they directly drive
59

instruction as they are diagnostic in nature. Marzano (2003) indicates that in order for the
diagnostic feedback to be truly effective it must be timely and specific in nature.
Additionally, along with the diagnosis of which standards and content is giving students
difficult, these assessments should also inform teachers which areas they may need
additional improvement or training in to improve their overall teaching (Stecher,
Hamilton, Gonzalez, 2003; Odden, 2009).
Ongoing Professional Development. In many successful districts and schools,
professional development is embedded in the school day at the school site as teachers
work with other teachers of the same grade-level or content area in analyzing the results
of formative assessments, developing and refining standards-based curriculum units, and
assessing student performance on summative end-of-unit assessments that indicate how
well both teachers and students performed (Odden, 2009). Researchers consider this type
of ongoing, collaborative professional development successful when teachers not only
discover new skills and best practices but also transfer the new acquired information and
strategies to their daily instruction (Butler, 2002).
In summarizing the key features of effective professional development, Odden
(2009) identified following six structural features:
1. Form refers to how the professional development activity is organized, such as a
study group, teacher network, workshop, or other method. Best practices as
presented in the research suggests that the most effective professional
development is school-based, job embedded and ongoing (DuFour & Eaker, 1998;
Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1999)
60

2. Duration of the activity, which includes the total number of contact hours
participants spend on the professional development activity as well as the span of
time the activity takes place, is also important. Continuous, ongoing, long-term
professional development is key to promoting successful learning for teachers and
should total 100 to 200 hours annually (Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Odden, 2009;
Desimone, et al., 2002)
3. Collective Participation is another key element of professional development
with the degree that the activity is focused around groups of teachers from the
same department, grade level or school a major contributor to its ultimate success
(Odden, 2009). Providing time for teachers to work together and allowing the
resulting group to define a part of the structure and goals of the professional
development is essential (Dufour & Eaker, 1998). Additionally, the professional
development activity should eventually be expanded to include everyone in the
school (Elmore, 2002; Odden, 2009)
4. Content Focus is the extent to which the activity is focused on strengthening and
broadening teachers‘ content knowledge and understanding of how students best
learn that content (Odden, 2009). Specifically, the research states that effective
professional development activities should be connected to standards mastery,
specific curricular programs, and instructional strategies (EdSource, 2006).
5. Active Learning refers to the number of opportunities the professional
development activity provides participants to become engaged in the meaningful
analysis of teaching and learning (Fullan, 1998; Odden, 2009). Dufour and Eaker
61

(1998) state that examples of these opportunities include coaching for mastery of
new skills, demonstrations, as well as guided practice and feedback.
6. Coherence is the degree to which the activity aligns the professional development
to other key parts of the educational system such as teacher evaluations, state
standards, and district goals (Odden and Picus, 2008).
A number of researchers such as Fullan (2001) state that professional
development is a critical component of school improvement plans and directly
contributes to their goals of increasing a school‘s internal capacity to build student
achievement. As previously described in the Evidence-Based Model, a number of
strategies exist to allocate the necessary resources to support effective professional
development such as the use of pupil-free days, dedicated training funds, instructional
facilitators, and the collaboration time made available during the regular school day
through the use of specialist teachers and effective scheduling (Odden, 2009; Odden &
Picus, 2008)
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively. The sixth step for schools that doubled
some aspect of their student performance was to modify the way they used instructional
time during the school day to formulate a more efficient schedule (Odden, 2009). While
acknowledging that many policymakers often suggest a simple extension of the school
day, year, or both, Odden (2009) states there is little evidence to suggest that the
extension would have a significant effect on student learning except for struggling
student where research suggests that extended-day and summer programs provide a
62

benefit; instead, the strategies employed by most schools to use time more effectively did
not require additional funding, rather the more efficient reallocation of existing resources.
Elementary schools instituted a protected time block for the core subjects of
mathematics and reading, screening out potential distractions such as intercom messages,
phone calls to the class room, or trips to the office. Other schools allocated additional
time for core subjects, expanding the number of minutes dedicated to reading, for
example, from 90 to 120 minutes a day. Grouping strategies were also leveraged to
maximize what Odden (2009) terms, ―academic learning time‖ (ALT) where students
were placed into classes composed of cross-age groups based on their reading
achievement level; such an organization allowed teachers to use the bulk of the time for
instruction rather than organizational activities related to separating students. The
resulting instruction was also more intensive given that there were no periods where
students were not receiving direct attention due to the teacher working with another
group.
As described previously in the Evidence-Based Model, some schools used a lower
class size in their attempts to use time more effectively, which while increasing costs,
increased ALT with the reduction in time spent on discipline and the improvement in
students‘ response to instruction (Odden, 2009). To create more collaborative time in the
day, many successful schools turned to creative scheduling, ensuring that all teachers on
the same team were assigned the same student-free period or that grade-level teacher
teams had their schedules mesh to allow for common planning two times per week
(Supovitz & Turner, 2000; Fermanich et al., 2006). Many of these efforts and solutions,
63

as in the Evidence-Based Model, are supported by the presence of specialist teachers
already on campus who teach courses such as music, art, or physical education which
allows core teachers time throughout the school day to work collaboratively with one
another (Odden, 2009).
Providing Interventions for Struggling Students. Odden‘s (2009) seventh step
to significantly improve student performance also involves time; however in this
instance, the resource is dedicated to providing additional instructional opportunities to
struggling students. Using many of the same resources allocated and described
previously in the section detailing the Evidence-Based Model, the successful schools
examined by Odden (2009) implemented a range of tutoring offerings, instituted
extended-day programs that incorporated academic, recreational and cultural components
Fashola (1998), and provided time outside the school year through a summer school
program.
A number of research studies relate the negative impact that summer breaks have
on student achievement with a particularly large effect on at-risk children‘s reading and
mathematics achievement (Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay, & Greathouse, 1996). To
combat this effect and assist these groups especially, the recommendations as presented
by Borman and Boulay (2004) for an effective summer program are found below:
 Initial intervention during elementary school
 A six- to eight-week duration
64

 A strong focus on the core subjects of reading and math for elementary or credit
recovery options for high school students
 Small class sizes or abundant opportunities for individual instruction
 Parent engagement and participation
 Close monitoring of instruction along with student attendance
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership. As in the
business world where companies have increasingly shed vertical hierarchies to create flat
organizations that often see employees taking on a variety of responsibilities, schools are
gradually transitioning from a leadership model dominated by a single principal toward a
team-based approach resulting in multiple and distributed roles for teachers and
administrators (Odden, 2009). For this collaboration to occur, many of the other
strategies previously presented, such as a focus on common goals using data to drive
decisions, must be in place (Schmoker, 2004; Symonds, 2004).
Schmoker (2004) provides evidence regarding the importance of this team-based
approach, more formally known as professional learning communities (PLCs), in
emphasizing the impact teachers can have in raising student performance by working
together to improve pedagogy and create more effective practices. Research has shown
that teachers benefit more from collaboration and instruction with peers compared to
other types of externally provided professional development (Schmoker, 2004). As a
result, creating an environment that is centered on collaboration and decisions based on
the analysis of data enables effective intervention systems to emerge that can benefit and
65

support all students (DuFour et al., 2006). DuFour et al. (2006) provides specific
examples on one connected chain of items a PLC is ideally suited to construct to improve
student learning such as the identification of essential standards, their corresponding
pacing guides, and assessments that supply teachers with the required data and language
to work together to design dynamic instructional programs for students. In this specific
instance and in all important decisions, a professional learning community makes
recommendations based on a shared expertise, with no conclusions made without a clear
link between data and evidence of the learning outcomes, based on systematic approaches
to learning (DuFour et al., 2006).
Inspiring a Professional Organization. As a natural extension of many of the
organizational features that emerge when a school site or district embraces professional
learning communities and the distributed leadership that often results, Odden (2009)
emphasizes that educational leaders must take the issue to the next level in inspiring the
creation of a professional organization in all aspects of its operation.
Providing a clear example as an instructional leader of a willingness to continue
to seek out the most recent research-based approaches to assist in decision making and
the implementation of new programs is critical. Additionally, as stated in previous
sections, school leaders must ensure there are sufficient opportunities for collaboration
around these evidence-based practices and that teachers are given the appropriate
resources to incorporate them into their instruction (DuFour & Burnette, 2002). This
effort will, in turn, inspire the creation of internal capacity and represents a concrete way
66

that schools can be organized to systematize behavior focused around implementing best-
practices (Odden, 2009).
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues. The final recommendation to
school and districts looking to significantly increase student performance focuses on
investing in talent and human capital (Odden, 2009). Odden (2009) begins the section by
citing a list of problems associated with staffing schools that includes: the difficulty
nationwide in attracting the ―best and brightest‖ to the teaching profession; the chronic
shortages of qualified math, science, and technology teachers; high teacher turnover,
particularly in the highest-needs schools; ineffective and expensive professional
development; compensation systems that are not tied directly to the core goal in
education- student performance; and finally, the lack of a talent recruitment,
development, or management strategy (Odden, 2009). Consequently Odden (2009) states
that a continued failure to address these problems as part of comprehensive efforts to
improve student performance, will likely result in schools not being able to meet
increasingly challenging performance objectives.
While all of the preceding strategies have been shown by a variety of research to
be effective tools in increasing student achievement, their full potential cannot be realized
unless a school has talented and effective teachers and administrators to implement the
recommendations (Odden, 2003). Blankstein (2004) acknowledges the need for quality
personnel, recommending a significant investment in human capital to ensure that the
culture of reform introduced by the above strategies is sustained through continued
effective instruction and leadership. As a result, researchers recommend that districts
67

work to develop talent management strategies that closely resemble those employed by
the private sector (Lawler, 2008) and implement the following specific improvements in
their approach to human development: work to improve teacher/administrator recruitment
and retention; exploit nontraditional sources and national organizations for top talent;
implement internal training programs to foster the development of the best teachers and
administrators within the district; utilize an array of incentives such as housing support or
tax-free grants as compensation for teaching in high-needs schools; and lastly, to not be
afraid of replacing administrators or teachers when a lack of performance or the unique
needs of a particular school or program warrant its consideration (Odden, 2009).
Instructional Strategy Implementation and Resource Allocation Challenges and
Opportunities in Small Rural School Districts
Controlling for inflation, California school districts were spending approximately
forty percent more in 2006 than they were ten years prior. This rise in expenditures was
especially pronounced for high poverty and small districts (Loeb, 2006) and has only
intensified in the last several years with increasing resources demanded as part of federal
and state accountability initiatives. A 2004 General Accounting Office (GAO) report
highlighted many of the challenges unique to rural schools and districts in meeting the
goals of NCLB specifically, noting the following:
 Rural schools had more difficulty than suburban and urban schools in
marshaling community resources such as libraries to help students,
68

particularly those that were economically disadvantaged, overcome their
educational challenges.
 District office staff members in rural school districts were frequently forced to
take on multiple responsibilities which decreased the total time they could
spend gathering and disseminating information on the latest instructional
strategies along with assisting in their actual implementation to increase
student achievement.
 Similarly, information about key educational improvement efforts through
professional development, advanced learning technologies, and supplemental
services was less accessible in rural schools. Additionally, some of the more
aggressive sanctions and proposed solutions, such as full school closure and
re-staffing, were close to impossible given the shortage of highly trained and
qualified personnel available to fill open positions in rural communities.
While the resource demands of the accountability component in standards based
education are significant, they are by no means the only challenges facing rural schools in
terms of efficient resource allocation and the implementation of effective instructional
strategies. Unfortunately, according to a number of academics and practitioners, the
majority of the research focusing on school improvement strategies does not address the
unique challenges facing rural districts (Arnold, et al., 2005). Additionally, researchers
assert that the few studies that have specifically examined the distinct needs and
opportunities in rural districts have not employed true experimental designs and, as a
result, there is little data to reliably inform policymakers (Arnold, et al., 2005). However,
69

a number of organizations and researchers such as The Rural School and Community
Trust and Lawrence O. Picus and Associates have recently conducted and aggregated a
significant amount of research in the field. The following sections detail areas in which
their findings might assist rural schools in their decisions surrounding resource allocation
and the implementation of instructional strategies
Consolidation Movement and other Economic Challenges. According to the
National Center for Education Statistics (2006), the United States had 117,108 school
districts in 1937-38. During the same year, which was the first year numbers were
documented, there were approximately 250,000 public schools. By the year 2000, the
total number of school districts had decreased to 14,928 along with the number of
schools, to 92,012. This massive reduction occurred despite the fact that enrollment in
public schools increased from 25.5 million to 46.9 million during the same time period.
A large reason for this trend is the belief many policymakers have harbored
historically that small districts and schools are not efficient. According to Wood et al.
(2006), it costs more to achieve the same outcome in a smaller school, especially when in
the case of an elementary school, enrollment drops below 100 pupils; similarly, Riew
(1986) states that very small schools experience diseconomies of small size while Wood
et al. (2006) reports that cost function research suggests consolidation of very small rural
districts may save money.
On a similar note, the financial viability of small districts in the face of pressures
from unfunded mandates is also questioned; in this instance, the additional requirements
added at the state or federal level for specific staff positions like full-time counselors or
70

facility features such as specialized science labs that large schools typically already have,
or the finance formula makes feasible only in large settings, often affects small districts
most severely (Jimerson, 2006). The impact that persistent declining enrollment has on
these small districts is also explored where the loss of per-pupil state revenue typically
results in deeps cuts in programs and staff. Small rural schools are especially vulnerable
to the issue, given they have proportionally less latitude in finding cost-saving areas to
the point where even a small number of years of declining enrollment can lead to their
closure (Jimerson, 2006).
In spite of this, many of the same researchers have stated that the promised cost
savings and economies of scale purportedly associated with the closure and consolidation
of small rural districts and schools have not materialized (Riew, 1986; Wood, et al., 2006;
Thorson, 2006; Odden & Picus, 2008). Wood et al. (2006) claims that increasing district
size beyond a certain level of students in a sparsely populated area will probably not save
significant money while Riew (1986) asserts that the real opportunities for cost savings
from school consolidation from small sizes are not great because many of the schools are
located in isolated rural areas where there are no other schools nearby with which to
consolidate. Additionally, Odden and Picus (2008) relate that some researchers have
found that consolidation may actually harm student performance in rural schools in
addition to having wide ranging negative effects on rural communities. They state that if
small schools or districts actually do cost more, but the act of consolidation negatively
impacts student performance and damages communities, a more sensible policy choice
71

might be to avoid consolidation and instead provide special adjustments to compensate
for the higher costs.
This is the approach they took in their work with the consulting firm of Lawrence
O. Picus and Associates in developing a customized Evidence-Based school funding
model for the state of Wyoming, which The Rural and Community Trust (2006) asserts is
one of the few that recognizes the strengths and values of small schools and provides the
necessary funding to protect them as important asset. While the model accounts for the
unique characteristics of small rural districts, there are a number of other rural challenges
that practitioners at all levels in education must address such as those surrounding teacher
recruitment and retention presented in the next section.
Teacher Recruitment and Retention. Though rural communities often have a
slightly higher percentage of veteran teachers with an average experience of 14.5 years
for rural teachers compared to 13.6 years for urban teachers, researchers have
consistently found that teachers in rural areas have a comparatively lower educational
attainment and are less likely to have graduated from top-ranked colleges and universities
than their urban counterparts (Provasnik, 2010). A number of studies have also
determined that it may take additional incentives to recruit and retain teachers in rural
settings (Odden, Picus & Fermanich, 2003). A solution proposed by Odden et al. (2004)
recommends that states implement higher salary schedules for teachers in different labor
markets, such as teachers in subject areas in which there are shortages (mathematics,
science, and technology) in addition to those who work in high poverty urban areas or
sparse and geographically isolated rural areas.
72

However, the reality is that salaries are often much lower for teachers in rural
areas with thirty-nine out of fifty states featuring lower beginning salaries for rural
teachers compared to their urban peers. In forty-four out of fifty states, rural teachers
receive lower average pay. As an illustration, Pennsylvania teachers, made an average of
$44,287 per year in 2000 if assigned to a rural school while urban teachers (concentrated
in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh regions) made an average of $50,290 per year. Illinois
offers another example where the highest-paid teachers in non-rural areas make
approximately $34,000 more than the highest-paid rural teacher (Alliance for Excellent
Education, 2010).
An increasing number of rural communities are addressing these challenges
internally, using many of the same recommendations made by Odden (2009) in the
human capital section of his ten strategies for doubling student performance. Using
―grow-your-own‖ programs paired with advanced technologies and distance-learning
opportunities many small rural districts are working to develop and retain internal talent.
These districts are also becoming more sophisticated in their marketing efforts,
highlighting studies that show rural teachers generally report higher job satisfaction,
greater autonomy, and more direct influence in shaping school policy (Alliance for
Excellent Education, 2010).
School Configuration and Size. A similar type of promotion is occurring in
small rural districts with their emphasis on the benefits provided by the grade-
level/grade-span and school sizes typically associated with small schools. For example,
Alspaugh (2000) stated that research showed students in the middle grades (6th, 7th, and
73

8th) performed better academically when mixed with elementary-level grades (i.e. in K-8
schools, in contrast to 6-8 schools, 7-8, or 8-12 high schools). A majority of rural
districts feature similar formats such as the many variations of small schools in
Wyoming, where additional smaller prototypes were created out of necessity by Odden
and Picus (2005) in a customized version of their Evidence-Based Model. In their work
with the state, three different prototypes were constructed for elementary schools (with
enrollments of 96, 192 and 288), three prototypes were created for middle schools (with
enrollments of 105, 210 & 315) and 4 prototypes were established for high schools (with
enrollments of 105, 210, 315 & 630). The model also provided additional approaches for
alternative grade structures that did not fit into the K-5, 6-8, 9-12 prototypes as requested
by the professional judgment panels used to guide much of the process (Odden, et al.,
2005).
Emphasis is also increasingly placed in marketing efforts on research that
indicates that the most positive outcomes for rural students occur in small schools located
in small districts. According to the studies‘ findings, it is in these types of districts that
schools are most likely to be governed by adults who relate and respond to the unique
needs of students and the school's entire constituency (Howley, 2004). Additionally,
small rural districts have pointed to research stating that the higher the level of poverty in
a community served by a school, the more damage larger schools and school districts
inflict on student achievement. A study in Arkansas found that the impact of school and
district size was quite small in affluent communities, yet became increasingly strong, the
poorer the community (Johnson, 2002).
74

Class Size. Many of the same arguments applied to the advantages associated
with rural schools in terms of school size are also used in claims centered on the benefits
of smaller class sizes. Typically one of the most expensive instructional strategies
identified by Odden (2009) and embedded in the Evidence-Based Model is class size
reduction which according to a number of researchers and rural proponents is a natural
byproduct of small rural schools. Wood et al. (2006) states that even where inter-
generational rural poverty exists coupled with similar concerns over a community‘s
access to social capital, in a school funding system that provides the appropriate support
for small schools, rural students typically have the advantage of attending schools with
smaller class sizes to begin with. Acknowledging that small class size is not limited to
small schools, researchers still identified a strong link between the two by examining
enrollment data using the Common Core of Data (CCD) from 2003-2004 and observing a
statistically significant positive correlation between school size and class size of .261—
significant at p < .001 (Jimerson, 2006).
Professional Development. As stated previously in the section on teacher
recruitment and retention, rural schools often face a significant challenge in developing
their human capital. Ongoing professional development is one of the most critical
elements of both the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and Odden‘s (2009)
strategies for doubling student performance. Unfortunately, for many practitioners in
rural areas, their remote locations often make providing meaningful professional
development problematic.
75

As an example, according to Odden et al. (2004), while the majority of students in
Arizona attend schools in more urban areas, a significant number of students are enrolled
in extremely isolated rural areas. Odden states that in the majority of cases, neither these
remote schools nor their parent districts can provide the types of professional
development targeting important areas such as special needs students. External
professional development opportunities are also hampered because of the associated costs
and distance to attend or bring in training while internally these schools often cannot
recruit sufficient numbers of instructional facilitators (Odden, 2003). Efforts to bridge
the distance using technology to invest in high quality distance learning programs and
training also have yet to see widespread success due to failures in providing technical
training, ongoing support, and maintenance (Jimerson, 2006).
Another issue impacting professional development actually occurs before many
teachers secure full-time employment in rural districts: urban-oriented teacher training.
With most teacher training programs located in cities, as a result, many typically place
their students in clinical settings near the college. This practice prevents prospective
teachers from the experience of teaching in rural and small school settings, precludes
most rural schools from hosting and participating in the training of student teachers, and
also disconnects rural schools from an important source of newly trained teachers.
To combat many of the disadvantages associated with their size and remote
location, Odden et al. (2004) recommends smaller schools and districts consider pooling
some of their resources and creating or supporting some sort of regional agency, which
76

would organize and deliver specialized resources, including professional development to
schools in these remote rural settings.
Instructional Strategies. According to Wasley et al. (2000), though there is still
a need for additional study in the area, there is some research that many types of reform
efforts tend to be met with more success in smaller settings, where there are fewer
barriers to implementation. The Alliance for Excellent Education (2010) shares the view
stating that many school improvement initiatives are simply easier to implement in
smaller schools, citing case studies where the smaller learning communities in these
environments make the flexibility of scheduling and individualized learning experiences
possible. Another example was presented by Wasley et al. (2000) where it was
determined using a 1999-2000 School and Staffing Survey that looping and
heterogeneous grouping were more common in smaller schools than in larger schools. A
similar advantage was highlighted by Odden et al. (2005) who cited a report from The
Rural School and Community Trust on school finance adequacy that emphasized the
prevalence of multi-age classrooms in rural schools as one of several advantages that
small, rural districts provide. Linley (1999) summarizes the benefits of the practice by
explaining that teachers of multi-age classes cannot logically have similar expectations of
all the students in the class and as a result, are more likely to focus on the individual
differences and needs of their students. Consequently, Linley (1999) argues that this leads
to the use of some of the instructional approaches advocated by Odden (2009) such as
grouping strategies.
77

Along with the instructional benefit, a financial argument is also presented where
multiage configurations may be helpful when schools are faced with economically
awkward numbers of students in each grade. For example, a school with 42 third graders
in a single-age classroom setting can have two teachers with 21 each or three with 14
each. If the same school also has 42 fourth graders, it has a similar choice. With the
difference between four and six teachers representing both a significant amount of money
as well as instructional potential, additional flexibility is available to small rural schools
that implement multiage classes which have another option in selecting five combination
―grade 3-4‖ teachers with 16 or 17 students each (Jimerson, 2006).
Summary
With the transition from equity to adequacy based funding in education well
underway across the United States, this literature review attempts to identify and link
various instructional strategies presented in the latest research with effective resource
allocation methods to identify an optimal pairing, whereby districts and schools receive
the most from their investment in terms of student performance and increased learning.
With the current economic crisis and the significant number of California school districts
that are failing to meet the goals outlined by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the
efficient use of resources to drive instruction is more important than ever, particularly for
small districts who may find themselves facing the threat of consolidation or closure if
their performance does not meet expectations. As a result, this study seeks to better
understand the unique challenges facing these districts, specifically studying their
78

resource allocation and how it links to their instructional strategies and performance by
examining five rural single-school districts in California‘s Central Valley.
In order to provide a foundation for this comparison, this literature review
detailed the history and current condition of school finance in the California before
exploring its shift from equity to adequacy in educational funding models. The next
section reviewed the details and resource allocation recommendations of the Evidence-
Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) with the subsequent portion examining the details
of many of the instructional strategies associated with the model and in the practices of
successful schools. Finally, the review concluded with a section examining the
challenges facing small rural school districts in terms of resource allocation and the
implementation of research-based instructional strategies.
As this study is designed to identify how single schools allocate their resources in
support of their instructional improvement plan, each site will be compared to the
recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and the
instructional strategies embedded within. The methodology that will be used to guide the
study is presented in the following chapter.

79

CHAPTER 3
Methodology
This chapter details the individual research questions, prospective sample,
instruments used in the data collection, and the planned data analysis of the study. As
stated in the preceding chapters, the central focus of the research is to utilize the
Evidence-Based Model (EBM) developed by Odden and Picus (2008) as a framework to
analyze the resource allocation patterns in schools and the extent to which the Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) are implemented and related
to student outcomes within each respective school. As the study was limited to the
examination of small rural, single-school elementary districts, an additional point of
emphasis was on the unique resource allocation challenges and opportunities such
organization presents. While it is an independent project, the study is one of twelve
occurring at the University of Southern California in a thematic dissertation group
dedicated to exploring the link between resource allocation, instructional strategies, and
student achievement in California schools through the examination of school level data.
Research Questions
The study is framed by the following four 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?
80

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 Model
detailed by Odden and Picus (2008)?
Sample and Population
This study used a purposeful sample of five rural, single-school elementary school
districts located in the Central Valley of California. According to the California
Department of Education (2010), while all of the intended schools are relatively small,
particularly when compared to the school sites studied by other members of the thematic
dissertation group, they are still relatively diverse in size, with a low of 45 students to a
high of 749. In terms of demographics, the schools are predominantly a mixture of
Latino and White students with a high percentage of the population meeting the criteria
of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students. In all schools except two which have a
total student population that is less than one hundred and by extension do not meet the
CDE‘s criteria to report significant subgroups, the three groups are considered
numerically significant and factor into the schools‘ API calculation. Three of the schools
also report English Learners (EL) as a significant subgroup as they total at least 100
students, or number 50 students at a minimum and comprise at least 15 percent of the
school‘s total STAR Program scores. No schools reported more than twenty Students
with Disabilities and therefore did not meet the criteria to have the group considered as
81

numerically significant in the API calculation (California Department of Education,
2009). Finally, all schools receive Title I funds schoolwide. Table 3.1 below provides a
summary of the grades each school encompasses, their enrollment numbers, along with a
demographic summary consisting of the percentage of each significant subgroup.
Table 3.1: School Sample Grade Range, Enrollment, and Demographics
School Grade
Range
Enrollment %
Latino
%
White
%
ELL
%
Free &
Reduced
Bach Elementary
∩
K-6 45 21 20 0 54
Chopin Elementary K-8 430 90 9 43 75
Liszt Elementary K-8 86 54 43 34 63
Mozart Elementary K-8 346 13 82 0 27
Schubert Elementary K-8 749 36 60 22 44
Notes: ∩ - This school includes a significant subgroup not displayed in the table: 59%
American Indian.

In comparing a particular school to schools of the same type in the state as a
whole (an elementary school compared to all other California elementary schools, a
middle school compared to all other California middle schools, etc.) or to 100 schools
which the CDE deems to possess similar demographic characteristics, a school receives
two respective rankings: a statewide and a ‗similar schools‘ rank, with each on a scale
from one to ten. The statewide rank for the schools in the sample ranges from one to
seven, while the similar schools rank ranges from only two to five. Two schools in the
sample are designated as ‗Small Elementary Schools‘ as they have less than 100 students
and as a result do not receive a similar schools ranking (California Department of
Education, 2009). Given the small sample at these sites, the CDE notes that the API and
associated statewide rank is less reliable and should be carefully interpreted. As a point
82

of clarification, the statewide and similar schools rank often differ dramatically with a
school receiving a low statewide rank but a high similar school ranking, or vice versa.
Consequently, a number of schools in the study‘s sample possess higher statewide ranks
than the other schools in the sample yet compare unfavorably when examining the
respective ‗similar schools‘ rankings. This phenomenon indicates that while a particular
school may be performing at a higher level than another in terms of their raw scores, they
should be achieving at an even more advanced level given the demographics of their
student population.
Along with a school‘s total API and the resulting rankings, another important
characteristic to examine is a school‘s growth from one year to the next in its overall API
score and those of its significant subgroups. One school in the sample saw a sizeable
decline while the remaining schools posted a range of increases. Please see Table 3.2 for
a summary of each school‘s API scores and growth along with their statewide and
‗similar schools‘ ranking.
Table 3.2: School Sample API and State Rankings
School 2010
API
Score
2009-10
API
Growth
2009-2010
State Ranking
2009-2010
Similar
Schools
Ranking
Bach Elementary 530 -20 1 N/A
ǂ

Chopin Elementary 724 6 2 2
Liszt Elementary 777 23 4 N/A
ǂ

Mozart Elementary 813 8 6 2
Schubert Elementary 845 28 7 5
Notes: ǂ - Schools do not receive a ‗similar schools‘ ranking if their enrollment is less
than 100 students.
83

Instruments and Data Collection
As the study was part of a larger body of research being conducted at the
University of Southern California on school resource allocation, a comprehensive eight
hour training session was conducted on March 13, 2010 by Dr. Lawrence Picus to
establish data collection protocols and share best practices. Along with the data
collection protocol, which contains a series of open-ended questions intended to capture
each school‘s strategy for improving performance (see Appendix E), a codebook (see
Appendix F) was also distributed that details the individual data collection items, as well
as their definitions. All researchers in the dissertation group utilized the same protocol
and instruments to gather data and entered the information into an online database using a
secure web-interface hosted by Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
Quantitative Data Collection. Quantitative data was gathered and categorized
according to the framework developed by Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross
(2003) and includes the following main areas which are described in more detail in
Appendix D:
1. School profile data and contacts- identifying items such as physical address,
state identification number, website, and the contact information of the person
at the school site.
2. District profile data and contacts- identifying items such as physical address,
state identification number, website, and the contact information of the person
at the district office.
84

3. School resource indicators- indicator such as school enrollment, grade span,
number of ELL students, length of school day, length of math class, etc.
4. Core academic teachers- number of licensed grade-level teachers who teach
core subjects.
5. Specialist and elective teachers- number of specialist teachers such as art,
music, and physical education, who often provide regular classroom teachers
with planning and preparation time.
6. Library staff- full-time equivalents (FTEs) assigned to library related
instruction/tasks such as library media specialists or library aides.
7. Extra-help staff- FTEs consisting mainly of licensed teachers used in a variety
of strategies to assist struggling students or students with special needs.
8. Other instructional staff- number of staff members that support a school‘s
instructional program but do not fit in previous categories such as consultants
(excluding those related to professional development) and permanent
substitutes.
9. Professional development staff and costs- FTEs and other expenditure
elements related to providing processional development for a school.
10. Student services staff- school-based support staff such as counselors along
with positions and expenditures related to extra-curricular activities and
athletics.
85

11. Administrative staff- number of staff entered as FTEs dedicated to
administrative functions such as the principal, secretary, technology
coordinator, etc.
12. Elementary class size- recorded for grades Pre-8th.
Qualitative Data Collection. The Qualitative data collected and the data
collection protocol, which is presented in its entirety in Appendix E, is based on a series
of adequacy studies and research conducted by Lawrence O. Picus and Associates
(Odden, et al., 2007; Odden, et al., 2005; Picus, et al., 2008). As stated previously, the
data was collected in a series of open-ended interviews with school
principals/superintendents designed to focus on understanding the key elements of the
instructional improvement effort with less emphasis on the process aspect, and addresses
the following areas:
1. Curriculum and Instructional Vision- explores items such as content focus,
assessments, and curricula utilized in the instructional improvement effort.
2. Resource Allocation- analyzes specific resource elements of the instructional
strategy, such as implementation details of class size reduction and
interventions, along with how long they have been in place.
3. Instructional Leadership- determines whether the improvement effort was
centrist (central office initiated) or bottom up, among other leadership issues.
4. Accountability- inquires about items built into the plan such as the
requirement of a School Board report that helped solidify focus.
86

After the initial training session, all members of the thematic dissertation group
made contact with the principal/superintendent of their prospective schools via e-mail
(see Appendix B), telephone conversations, or in-person meetings to introduce
themselves, the purpose and parameters of the study, and to secure the school‘s consent
to participate. Additionally, a tentative appointment for the in-depth interview was
scheduled after conducting a quick review of some of the documents and information that
would be helpful for the researcher to review before the full interview was held. The
following list details the documents requested for review:
1. School/Site Budget (resource allocation)
2. Staff Roster/Assignments (number and duties of personnel)
3. School/Site Plan (instructional programs, focus and plans)
4. Bell Schedule (instructional minutes, professional development/collaborative
or individual planning time)
5. School Mission Statement (instructional focus)
When possible, these items were obtained in electronic form and, if available,
downloaded from public sources such as the school or district website to minimize the
burden of participation for the school principal/superintendent. A second follow-up
training occurred in the fall of 2010 to review the data collection protocol and ensure all
researchers were comfortable with and fully understand the parameters governing the
study before the full interviews were conducted with site principals. After the refresher
training was completed, interviews with the principals/superintendents began given that
the thematic group‘s collective exemption from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was
87

received, April 28, 2010, due to the similarity of the current group of studies with prior
year‘s dissertation groups that have received an exemption. Please see Appendix A for a
copy of the IRB Approval.
Data collected in the full principal/superintendent interviews and the preceding
and subsequent analysis was both quantitative and qualitative with a multiple methods
design (Patton, 2002). Research has shown several methodologies have been suggested
to gather and analyze resource allocation and the implementation of instructional
strategies and the resulting student outcomes in previous studies. One of the best known
is Cooper‘s (1993) use of the School Site Allocation Model (SSAM), which separates
expenditures as they flow to school sites into five categories: administration, operations,
staff support, pupil support, and instructional support. Miller, Roza, and Swartz (2004)
provide an updated model which allows the categorization of school district expenditures
to track centralized resources that are used at schools. Costs are recorded according to
the district framework with multiple layers that indicate how shared district resources are
allocated at the school site and how the allocation was separated as a result of student
need. As this particular study focused on single-school elementary districts, a more
appropriate methodology and framework is the Evidence-Based Model outlined by
Odden and Picus (2008) which provides a point of comparison between the actual
resources each site has allocated and the level of resources the Evidence-Based Model,
which is based on a set of researched best practices, suggests for each school.
88

Case Studies
The data collected regarding the instructional improvement strategies (or lack
thereof) exhibited in the sample schools were synthesized into a series of case studies.
This format allows a comprehensive comparison between the schools within the sample
and more importantly, an examination of how their resource allocation and instructional
improvement strategies compare with those suggested by the Evidence-Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008) and the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden
& Archibald, 2003) at the school level (Patton, 2002). The case studies were composed
according to Patton‘s (2002) framework where raw data is assembled and organized into
a condensed case record that will be generated and classified with the final case study
written in a descriptive manner to construct a narrative of each school.
While case studies have been criticized by some researchers as being too
subjective, lacking in rigor, and producing findings that cannot be generalized across
settings (Merriam, 1988), the format as implemented in this study allows for a
meaningful comparison of sample school resource allocation and the instructional
strategies implemented to increase the likelihood of positive student outcomes. The
issues of subjectivity and rigor have been carefully considered with the comprehensive
training session and clear data collection protocol developed by Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates used as tools to minimize any inherent problems with the format. In terms of
the issue of generalizable findings, while each individual study features a relatively small
sample, the collective body of all studies in the dissertation group coupled with those of
89

prior years using the same protocols, has produced an increasingly diverse database of
information.
Data Analysis
The analysis of the data gathered involved several steps, beginning with the entry
and upload of the qualitative information collected from the principal/superintendents and
the quantitative data retrieved from the California Department of Education, Policy and
Evaluation Division (2010) into the secure web-based database hosted by Lawrence O.
Picus and Associates described previously. The next step was the creation of individual
case studies (Appendix H) using the structured interview protocol (see Appendix E) to
create a comparison between the information collected from the individual, in-depth
principal/superintendent interviews regarding resource allocation and instructional
improvement strategies to the Evidence-Based Model (Odden and Picus, 2008) and the
Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009). It was anticipated that
the creation of the case studies and the embedded comparisons between the collected
school data and the Evidence-Based Model and the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance would highlight areas where additional research or data is required and as a
result, very brief and targeted follow-up discussions with site principals were scheduled
to address the information gaps identified. The results of these subsequent conversations
were incorporated into the case studies and included in the findings presented in Chapter
Four.
With the current financial crisis in California, where reductions in budgets across
all areas of funding have increasingly impacted school districts‘ ability to even provide
90

basic services, the impact these reductions have had on the allocation of resources and
instructional improvement strategies were also carefully monitored. Additionally, the
unique challenges and pressures facing rural single-school districts like those in the
study‘s sample, such as the assertion of cost savings through economies of scale offered
by consolidation, were also closely examined.

91

CHAPTER 4
Findings
This study was conducted to examine the resource allocation patterns and
implementation of research-based instructional strategies with the goal of further
understanding how the two combine to affect student performance in schools. Because
the study was limited to the examination of small rural, single-school elementary
districts, an additional point of emphasis will be on the unique resource allocation
challenges and opportunities such organization presents. The chapter is a synthesis of the
findings from five case studies of schools located in the Central Valley of California and
detailed in Appendices H-L. Each of the five schools is unique in terms of their
demographic composition and recent academic performance, with a few of the schools
seeing substantial gains in student outcomes while others have experienced no growth or
seen their scores regress. In detailing the findings, the chapter is organized to: first,
present a summary of the sample school profiles; second, review and compare each
school‘s performance schoolwide and across subgroups on state assessments; third,
evaluate each school‘s implementation of instructional strategies to improve student
performance; fourth, examine the resource allocation at each site and how it compares to
the recommendations laid out by the Evidence-Based Model (EBM); fifth, determine how
the allocation and use of resources changed in response to recent budget adjustments.
92

School Profiles
As stated previously, all schools in the sample are found in small, rural single-
school elementary districts located in the Central Valley of California. However, they
vary substantially in size with one district at the time of the study enrolling only forty-
five students while another had an enrollment of 749. Table 4.1 below displays the
enrollment information for all of the schools in the sample:
Table 4.1: Student Enrollment of Sample Schools
Bach
Elementary
Chopin
Elementary
Liszt
Elementary
Mozart
Elementary
Schubert
Elementary
Enrolled
Students
45 430 86 346 749

The student demographic composition of the schools is fairly consistent in terms
of ethnicity, with the Hispanic and White subgroups representing the majority of students
at every site except one; Bach Elementary is adjacent to an Indian Reservation and as a
result, its student body is composed primarily of Native American students. As Figure
4.1 below details, the percentage of White and Hispanic students varies significantly from
school to school with three schools being fairly evenly balanced (Bach Elementary, Liszt
Elementary, Schubert Elementary), one school with a significant majority of White
students (Mozart Elementary), and one school with a substantial majority of Hispanic
Students (Chopin Elementary).
93

Figure 4.1: Ethnic Distribution in Sample Schools

The sample schools also feature a wide range of English Learner (EL) and
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) students in terms of the percentage of the total
enrollment that each group represents. Given their location in the agriculturally focused
Central Valley, it is surprising that two of the sites do not have any students classified as
English Learners, while at another school in the sample, EL students make up almost half
of the student enrollment. Similarly, one school has just over a quarter of its students
classified as being Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, as measured by the number of who
are eligible for the federal free and reduced lunch program, while another site had almost
three quarters of its total students classified as SED. Figure 4.2 displays the percentage
of the two subgroups‘ enrollments across all schools in the sample as well as their set
percentages in the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) prototype school. In examining the
percentages of the two groups in each school compared to the EBM prototype school,
94

two of the sites have significantly more SED students than the prototype, two have
approximately the same number of SED students, and three have a substantially higher
percentage of English Learners.
Figure 4.2: Percentage of SED and EL Students enrolled in Sample Schools

Achievement Data
The performance on state assessments both schoolwide and for individual
subgroups is examined below for each school.
API and School Rankings. Schoolwide results over a five year period are
presented below in Figure 4.3 with each school‘s performance on the Academic
Performance Index (API) displayed for the 2005/2006 and 2009/2010 school years.
Three of the schools saw sizeable increases and are performing well overall with
Schubert Elementary‘s score growing 80 points to reach 845, Mozart Elementary‘s score
rising 32 to 813, and Liszt Elementary‘s score climbing 41 points to 777. The remaining
95

two sites saw decreases, with one, Chopin Elementary falling a single point to 724 while
the second, Bach Elementary, experienced a massive drop of 138 points, putting its score
at 530.
Figure 4.3: API Change in Sample Schools Over Five Year Period

These API scores are compared across California with each school receiving a
ranking from 1 to 10 based on how their score matches with all schools of the same type
(elementary, middle, or high) in the state and also a ranking from 1 to 10 based on how
their score compares to one hundred ―similar schools‖ which the CDE deems to possess
comparable demographic characteristics in terms of their opportunities and challenges.
In both scales, a score of 1 represents performance in the lowest or 1
st
decile, while a
score of 10 indicates performance in the highest, 10
th
decile. A school that achieves a
ranking of 10 indicates their API score is in the highest 10% of all schools in the state.
96

As Table 4.2 displays below, the statewide rank for the schools in the sample
ranges from one to seven, while the similar schools rank only ranges from one to five. In
examining the change for the schoolwide rankings over the five year period for each
school the results are mixed, with two sites posting decreases, two sites remaining at the
same level, and one site posting an increase of a single point. In performing the same
analysis using the similar schools ranking, the results also vary with two sites showing
drops and one site showing an increase. Two schools in the sample, Bach Elementary
and Liszt Elementary, are designated as ‗Small Elementary Schools‘ as they have less
than 100 students and as a result do not receive a similar schools ranking (California
Department of Education, 2009). Given the small sample at these sites, the CDE notes
that the API and associated statewide rank is less reliable and should be carefully
interpreted. As Table 4.2 illustrates and as a point of clarification, the statewide and
similar schools rank often differ dramatically with a school receiving a low statewide
rank but a high similar school ranking, or vice versa. Consequently, a number of schools
in the study‘s sample possess higher statewide ranks than the other schools in the sample
yet compare unfavorably when examining the respective ‗similar schools‘ rankings. This
phenomenon indicates that while a particular school may be performing at a higher level
than another in terms of their raw scores, they should be achieving at an even more
advanced level given the demographics of their student population.
97

Table 4.2: Similar Schools and Statewide Ranking of the Sample Schools
Bach
Elementary
Chopin
Elementary
Liszt
Elementary
Mozart
Elementary
Schubert
Elementary

05-06 09-10 05-06 09-10 05-06 09-10 05-06 09-10 05-06 09-10
Statewide
Ranking
2 1 4 2 4 4 6 6 6 7
Similar School
Ranking
N/A N/A 5 2 N/A N/A 1 2 7 5

Below, Figures 4.4 and 4.5 present each year over the five year period for both Statewide
and Similar Schools Rankings respectively. In examining the scores from each, it is
evident that all of the schools in the sample have a significant amount of room for
improvement in both the Statewide and Similar Schools rankings with Schubert being the
highest scoring school in both categories yet only achieving a 7 in the Statewide and a 5
in the Similar Schools ranking.
Figure 4.4: Statewide Ranking of Sample Schools Over Five Years

98

Figure 4.5: Similar Schools Ranking of Sample Schools Over Five Years

Note: Because they have an enrollment fewer than 100 students, Bach and Liszt
Elementary do not receive a similar schools ranking.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). As displayed in Figure 4.6, the schools‘
performance as measured by the AYP report in Language Arts shows a similar range of
improvement as the overall API scores. Two sites, Schubert Elementary and Liszt
Elementary saw gains of 20% and 10% respectively in the percentage of all students
categorized as proficient or advanced while two schools, Chopin Elementary and Mozart
Elementary, saw almost no change in their scores. The fifth and final site, Bach
Elementary, experienced a significant decrease of 13%.
99

Figure 4.6: English Arts AYP Schoolwide Change in Sample Schools

When examining the same data in finer detail and separating the results by the
various significant subgroups, with particular emphasis on those that have traditionally
struggled academically, the scores on the Language Arts AYP report provide another
perspective on the improvement efforts at all schools. Figure 4.7 displays the change in
the English Arts AYP for Hispanic students, where the students in that group realized a
gain at each school except Bach Elementary who saw its Hispanic students remain at 0%
proficient. Two of the sites, Liszt Elementary and Schubert Elementary saw gains of
20% while Chopin Elementary and Mozart Elementary saw increases of 5.4% and .5%
respectively.
100

Figure 4.7: English Arts AYP Change for Hispanic Students

The change in the English Arts AYP for SED students as presented in Figure 4.8
displays a similar result, with students in that group seeing gains at each school except
Bach Elementary who saw the percentage of its SED students that were proficient or
advanced fall from 35.7% to 11.8%. Two of the sites, Liszt Elementary and Schubert
Elementary saw gains of just over 15% while Chopin Elementary and Mozart Elementary
saw increases of approximately 6%.
101

Figure 4.8: English Arts AYP Change for SED Students

While Bach Elementary and Mozart Elementary did not have any of their students
classified as English Learners, the EL students at the other three sites in the sample
posted substantial gains in the percentage of total students in the group classified as
proficient or advanced on the English Arts AYP report. Figure 4.9 displays the gains,
with Schubert Elementary achieving a growth of almost 18%, Liszt Elementary
increasing just short of 17%, and Chopin Elementary reporting a rise of just over 6%.
102

Figure 4.9: English Arts AYP Change for EL Students

Figure 4.10 displays the total change in the English Arts AYP for all subgroups at
the sample schools in the five year period. Interestingly, at all of the school sites except
Schubert Elementary, the White subgroup saw significant decreases as in the cases of
Bach Elementary and Chopin Elementary or stagnant growth as in the cases of Mozart
Elementary and Liszt Elementary, compared to that of the other subgroups in the schools.
As a result, the achievement gap at all of the sites with the exception of Schubert
Elementary has virtually been eliminated in the area of Language Arts as measured by the
schools‘ scores on the AYP report. Detailed results for each subgroup along with an
analysis of each school‘s progress in closing the achievement gap are presented in the
case studies found in Appendices H-L.
103

Figure 4.10: English Arts AYP Change for All Subgroups in Sample Schools

As displayed in Figure 4.11, the schools‘ performance as measured by the AYP
report in Mathematics shows a similar range of improvement as the overall API scores,
however, the total gains are significantly greater than the schools‘ performance change on
the AYP Language Arts report. Two sites, Schubert Elementary and Liszt Elementary,
saw gains of approximately 20% in the percentage of all students categorized as
proficient or advanced while Chopin Elementary and Mozart Elementary realized
increases of approximately 10% and 7%. The fifth and final site, Bach Elementary,
experienced a significant decrease of 13%.
104

Figure 4.11: Math AYP Schoolwide Change in Sample Schools

As was the case with Language Arts, examining the same data more granularly
and separating the results by the various significant subgroups, with particular emphasis
on those that have traditionally struggled academically, the scores on the Mathematics
AYP report provide another perspective on the improvement efforts at the schools.
Figure 4.12 displays the change in the Mathematics AYP for Hispanic students, with the
subgroup realizing a substantial gain at each school except Bach Elementary who saw its
Hispanic students remain at 0% proficient over the five year period. One of the schools,
Liszt Elementary experienced just short of 30% growth while two of the sites, Mozart
Elementary and Schubert Elementary saw gains of over 20%. Finally, Chopin
Elementary experienced an increase of almost 15%.
105

Figure 4.12: Math AYP Change for Hispanic Students

The change in the Mathematics AYP for SED students as presented in Figure 4.13
displays gains that are almost as large as those experienced by the Hispanic group, with
SED students realizing increases at each school except Bach Elementary who saw the
percentage of its SED students that were proficient or advanced fall from 35.7% to
17.6%. One school, Liszt Elementary experienced a gain of 30%, while Schubert
Elementary and Chopin Elementary realized growth of approximately 17%. Finally,
Mozart Elementary had its scores increase almost 7%.
106

Figure 4.13: Math AYP Change for SED Students

As in Language Arts where Bach Elementary and Mozart Elementary did not
have any of their students classified as English Learners, the EL students attending the
other three sites in the sample posted substantial increases in the percent classified as
proficient or advanced on the Mathematics AYP report. Figure 4.14 displays the gains,
with Liszt Elementary achieving growth of 34%, Schubert Elementary increasing over
16%, and Chopin Elementary reporting a rise of over 11%.
107

Figure 4.14: Math AYP Change for EL Students

Figure 4.15 displays the total change in the Mathematics AYP for all subgroups at
the sample schools in the five year period. While not as pronounced as each of the
groups‘ performance in Language Arts, at all of the school sites except Schubert
Elementary, the White subgroup did not see nearly as great an increase in the percent
proficient or advanced compared to the increases of the other subgroups in the schools.
As a result, the achievement gap at all of the sites with the exception of Schubert
Elementary and Chopin Elementary has virtually been eliminated in the area of
Mathematics as measured by the schools‘ scores on the AYP report. In fact at Liszt
Elementary and Mozart Elementary the existing achievement gap has been replaced with
a new one as Hispanic students have experienced such a rapid amount of growth that
their most recent scores are greater than the schools‘ White students. Detailed results for
108

each subgroup along with an analysis of each school‘s progress in closing the
achievement gap are presented in the case studies found in Appendices H-L.
Figure 4.15: Math AYP Change for All Subgroups in Sample Schools

As the achievement data presented in the section demonstrates, each of the
schools in the study finds itself at different stages in their improvement efforts. Some
sites such as Schubert Elementary have shown consistent growth overall and across all
subgroups over the last five years while others such as Mozart Elementary and Chopin
Elementary have not made gains from one year to the next or have not experienced
substantial growth in a content area and/or subgroup, which in turn affects their overall
growth. Finally, in the most challenging situation moving forward, Bach Elementary has
shown major decreases in its scores schoolwide, across both content areas, and within
each subgroup over the past five years.
109

The following section addresses another dimension in these schools‘
improvement efforts by presenting a set of instructional strategies that research has
shown increase student achievement and then evaluating the extent to which each school
has implemented these strategies.
Instructional Vision and Successful School Instructional Strategies
A comprehensive plan to improve student performance was developed by Allan
Odden, who aggregated research from a wide range of sources including the Consortium
for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) as part of school finance adequacy analyses, in
addition to studies and best practices published by other practitioners and academic
researchers (Odden, 2009). While the specifics of the various studies varied in terms of
items such as school size, metropolitan or geographic location, and the socio-
demographic status of students, the end result of the synthesis was the identification of a
consistent set of general strategies that schools and districts have utilized to produce
significant gains in student performance (Odden, 2009).
As a result, the following ten strategies will be used as an organizing framework
in evaluating the various schools‘ educational efforts and how they relate to improving
student achievement:
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge. With the
exception of one school, Bach Elementary, whose principal de-emphasized the
importance of high stakes test results, it was clear that all of the other principals in the
sample were very familiar with their respective CST performance data and were working
to interpret and analyze its meaning. Most of the sites had begun the year with a staff
110

development meeting involving all teachers to review the assessment data and attempt to
identify trends at the student, class, grade, and school level. This analysis was guided by
the principals in different ways, with only Chopin utilizing an Assessment Management
System to disaggregate the data to break out information about individual standards,
students, subgroups and other areas. The other principals relied on a manual review of
the information though all three communicated a desire to add a computerized assessment
system in the near future if they could identify funds in the budget. A major motivation
in adding such an application was expressed by Schubert Elementary‘s principal who
related that she believed her site finally understood the challenges they were up against,
but much of the key data that would drive their strategies and be used to evaluate their
success was too difficult to access in a timely manner. The principal at Mozart
Elementary affirmed the need for an automated system with her comments surrounding
the amount of work her staff had to perform, the potential for error, and the fact that
because it was so resource intensive only the CST received the appropriate attention
while many other important assessments did not receive sufficient analysis.
In summary, all of the sites except Bach Elementary have a strong understanding
of the performance challenges facing their respective sites, with the principals leading
their staffs in the analysis of data. The principals at Schubert, Liszt, and Chopin
Elementary appeared to have the best grasp of their sites issues, though being that Chopin
Elementary‘s principal is new to the position, it remains to be seen whether the staff will
respond to his leadership in the area. Finally, with the various schools‘ performance on
the CST over the past five years, it is clear that the sites that have consistently used the
111

approaches detailed in Odden and Archibald‘s (2009) research, have shown the most
improvement in student achievement.
Setting Ambitious Goals. After completing the initial data analysis and
recognizing their performance challenges, successful schools must set ambitious goals
that include students from all subgroups (Odden, 2009).
Surprisingly, in the sample schools, only Schubert Elementary appeared to have
formally established a schoolwide goal for improvement. At this site, the overall API
goal score of 867 was displayed on t-shirts all staff were wearing on the day of the
principal interview with the principal explaining that the first Friday of every month was
always ‗API Day‘ and the school planned a number of activities to focus students and
emphasize the importance of doing well on the test. This score, if the school is able to
achieve it, represents a twenty-two point increase, an ambitious target for growth in a
single year. However, the principal shared the school has experienced a great deal of
success in establishing bold yet attainable goals, having set a target of 835 (a goal that
represented an 18 point gain) the year prior and achieving a score of 845. According to
the principal, including the entire school community from students to parents to teachers
in communicating the school‘s objectives and the hard work that would be required along
the way, was essential to achieving and exceeding their ambitious goals.
Implementation of the strategy was less apparent at the other schools with many
of the principals speaking in very general terms about their sites and associated goals for
improvement. For example, a number of schools such as Liszt Elementary and Mozart
Elementary were comfortable using the fairly conservative schoolwide AYP growth
112

targets with neither principal extending the discussion on the topic to include goals for
their individual subgroups. Chopin Elementary‘s principal was much more focused in his
approach, identifying the school‘s poor performance in math overall and emphasizing
that the school needed to drastically improve its scores in Algebra; however, he did not
attach a specific number to the improvement. Finally, aside from describing a meeting
where his teachers share the expectation that students will see one grade level of
academic growth per year, the principal of Bach Elementary neglected to establish any
schoolwide goals for improvement, perhaps unsurprisingly given his comments regarding
the little value he placed in state test results.
In the end, the sample schools‘ performance on the state assessments over the
previous five years fully supports Odden and Archibald‘s (2009) work regarding the
importance of setting ambitious goals for improvement. Schubert Elementary is the only
site to have strongly exhibited the strategy and is also the only site to have seen growth
over the period that consistently outpaced the minimum targets established by the state.
Similarly, in the case of Chopin Elementary after experiencing years of stagnant growth,
the new principal believes the school is due for a large gain and has attempted to transfer
that feeling to the staff, though he did not share a specific score the school was targeting;
it will be interesting to see the effect this new mentality has on the school‘s growth.
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program. According
to Marzano (2003), many problems students and teachers encounter in the classroom are
linked to inadequate curriculum and as a result, Odden (2009) found that successful
113

schools adopt new curriculum and instructional approaches as part of their educational
strategies to dramatically improve student achievement.
In the sample schools, this was one of the instructional strategies that almost all
sites were proficient in executing. The lone exception was Bach Elementary where aside
from relating that the school adopted state approved textbooks, the principal did not
describe efforts to effectively implement the curriculum or improve instruction. Instead,
the principal stated as long as a classroom had a good teacher, curriculum wasn‘t even
necessary, especially in a small school district.
At Chopin Elementary, while the school utilizes state approved curriculum and is
generally satisfied with its content and the breadth of standards covered, they are still
working through issues related to pacing. The principal found that a large number of
staff members were still teaching to the textbook, working methodically from beginning
to end. In working with various grade levels, they quickly identified a number of
problems with this approach where a number of the most heavily emphasized standards
on the CST would not be covered until after the test was already administered.
Consequently, they worked to develop a modified pacing guide to better mesh with the
testing calendar, creating a series of posters that cover every standard that they teach and
when a teacher addresses a particular standard in a lesson, they put a check mark next to
it to indicate it was covered. Then at each trimester, they will examine their coverage and
make adjustments where necessary.
Liszt Elementary described a similar process with the principal stating that one of
the most challenging and time consuming activities in effectively implementing their
114

curriculum was identifying its gaps in terms of the standards that were covered in
addition to adjusting the sequencing and pacing of the material. However, she claimed
this process was central to the school‘s improvement and had allowed the school to
identify additional resources such as EdHelper.com to bridge gaps in coverage and
supplement the curriculum when necessary.
Mozart Elementary also described adjustments the school regularly made to
thoroughly implement a comprehensive curricular and instructional program, citing their
work with Saxon Math as an example. According to her, a number of the schools in the
area had shared they had not been satisfied with the Saxon Math curriculum and were
looking to replace it as soon as possible. Conversely, she related that Mozart Elementary
had a lot of success with Saxon in grades K-6 and that the teachers appreciated how well
it spiraled. She shared that the school had made a significant investment in adjusting the
curriculum between third and fourth grade as it was not originally standards based and
left the students behind by the time they prepared to take Algebra.
As is the case in a number of the instructional strategies, Schubert Elementary‘s
description of its curriculum and instructional program implementation was the most
comprehensive. In communicating the intense focus in financial resources and time
associated with the school‘s initiative to train all of its teachers in the effective
implementation curriculum, the principal shared the site‘s efforts after their recent
adoption of Houghton Mifflin‘s new math curriculum. One of the major reasons for the
intense transition according the principal was that the adoption seemed to be more
aligned to the common core standards, which she asserted was a good thing for the
115

future, but a short-term hardship. In working through the issues over the past year and a
half where now the staff expressed an appreciation for the curriculum‘s more involved
problem solving and writing in the area of math, the principal credited a series of
trainings on identifying the essential standards and adjusting pacing that the school
organized. Additionally, she pointed to several informational sessions and updates in the
school newsletter on the implementation and challenges associated with the new
curriculum that the site used to communicate with and reassure parents.
In summary, this strategy was implemented in one way or another across all of the
sites with the exception of Bach Elementary. The essential elements detailed in research
by Marzano (2003) and Odden (2009) were present in all of the schools who achieved the
greatest performance gains such as the examples presented at Schubert Elementary where
teachers worked collaboratively to best implement the new Math curriculum by
identifying essential standards and pacing while also involving all of the school‘s
stakeholders in the process. Conversely, the lack of understanding and emphasis of the
strategy and the resulting impact such an approach has on performance, is well
demonstrated by Bach Elementary, by far the lowest performing school overall and the
only site that has seen decreases in its scores each year.
Data-Based Decision Making. Though a number of schools still use commonly
available end-of -unit or end-of-course assessments, research increasingly points to the
advantages in the implementation of benchmarks and especially formative assessments.
Fullan (2005) and Marzano (2003) claim that these types of assessments are extremely
useful as they directly drive instruction given that they are diagnostic in nature.
116

However, Marzano (2003) indicates that in order for the diagnostic feedback to be truly
effective it must be timely and specific in nature.
In evaluating the sample schools‘ use of data from assessments to drive
instructional decisions, once again, Bach Elementary had the most difficulty with its
implementation. Rather than administering assessments on a defined schedule that
corresponds to the coverage of essential standards and a common pacing guide, Bach
Elementary appears to assess its students on a varying schedule according to its principal
that ranges from twice a week to every five weeks. Furthermore, the results are only
discussed informally with the principal and the teachers are largely left to their own
judgment in terms of what instructional action should be taken.
On the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of the school‘s capacity and skill in
the analysis and use of data to drive instruction is Chopin Elementary. It is this
instructional strategy that the new principal is most passionate about and has expended
the most effort to implement. Along with a number of staff development meetings
dedicated to examining the CST data to identify potential concerns across grade levels,
pacing, and individual student challenges, the principal has also worked to disaggregate
and expose important data surrounding the assessments. For example, he identified and
communicated the names of all of the school‘s English Learners to each teacher so they
would be aware of their needs and could provide additional assistance. Additionally,
once school began, he coordinated a major overhaul of the school‘s Benchmark Tests,
working with teachers to redesign the assessments as well as moving to increase the
frequency of their administration. Instead of every 12 weeks, the Benchmarks are now
117

delivered every six, with the principal analyzing reports in Edusoft after their
administration and immediately sharing the results with teachers individually. To
demonstrate how carefully he examines the results, the principal selects two or three
students from every class that appear to be struggling and personally asks their teachers
what they are planning to do to address their needs.
While lacking an Assessment Management System to analyze data to the extent
described at Chopin, Liszt Elementary critically analyzes the results of the CST at the
school, classroom, and student level and uses the data to shape the instructional strategies
planned for the coming year. The principal has also implemented weekly standards tests
which are scored immediately after administration and entered into a spreadsheet for
review and analysis by all staff. Finally, beginning last year, the principal made contact
with the unified school district to which its students matriculate to attend high school and
discussed utilizing the benchmarks they have spent the last several years developing.
Along with gaining access to the actual test documents, she has also contracted with the
unified district to have the testing materials printed and delivered along with obtaining
the district‘s pacing guides for each subject.
Mozart Elementary is well behind the other schools in implementing district
benchmarks and CFA‘s. The principal did describe a very labor intensive and manual
process of taking the scores from the CST and having teachers record them on a series of
cards that follow the students from year to year. However, the principal is not happy with
the system as it does not take into account assessments beyond the state tests and as
stated previously is a lengthy process that produces information that is difficult to access.
118

Additionally, while the school uses formative assessments extensively as well as
the tests that are included with the curriculum, the principal stated that she was struggling
to maintain a balance between giving teachers the freedom to administer their own
assessments on their own schedule and implementing a common assessment model that
allowed all stakeholders to continually review and act on the data generated to make
instructional decisions.
Schubert Elementary‘s principal believes her staff to be experts in collecting and
utilizing data to drive instruction. For the past ten years, the site has implemented
assessment binders in which teachers store all of the results from their assessments and
turn them into the principal at the end of every trimester for review. The data is
examined by an assessment committee composed of the administration and select
teachers with the resulting student progress results transferred to a spreadsheet to enable
additional analysis. The principal also shared that the site is constantly working at
refining its internal assessments, citing the school‘s benchmarks in language arts and
math. These tests are a mixture of teacher created questions, CST release items, as well
as questions pulled from their adopted curriculum. In referencing the need again for an
Assessment Management System, the principal stressed that this test development was
extremely time consuming, especially when conducting item analyses to determine the
validity of the questions on assessments or to identify other trends.
Overall the schools collectively did not demonstrate their proficiency in this
strategy as strongly as their familiarity with and commitment to implementing an
effective curriculum and instructional program. However, once again, the results
119

indicated that the schools with the best understanding of the components required to
successfully implement the strategy have seen the best performance over the past five
years. The exception here is at Chopin Elementary which had seen virtually no growth
over the past five years, but had recently experienced the new principal implement a data-
driven culture. It will be interesting to see if this major shift and emphasis allows the site
to experience the growth in performance that the other data-driven sites such as Schubert
and Liszt Elementary have posted.
Ongoing Professional Development. In many successful districts and schools,
professional development is embedded in the school day at the school site as teachers
work with other teachers of the same grade-level or content area in analyzing the results
of formative assessments, developing and refining standards-based curriculum units, and
assessing student performance on summative end-of-unit assessments that indicate how
well both teachers and students performed (Odden, 2009).
Unfortunately, many of the schools in the study such as Bach Elementary are not
constructed in the manner described above where professional development is embedded
in the school day. At Bach, the limited size of the school and associated staff prevent a
great deal of collaboration from occurring during the day and similarly there is not an
early release day each week as part of the schedule. And while there is one minimum day
scheduled each month, there is no formal plan for ongoing staff development planned
during the time; instead when PD activities do occur they are often isolated and
disconnected making it difficult for teachers to transfer information gained into the
classroom.
120

Both Liszt Elementary and Mozart Elementary are in a similar situation in that
their principals both expressed a lack of time for meaningful staff development given
each site also did not have an early release day. They also both shared a concern
regarding their lack of internal capacity for professional development. However, in the
case of Liszt Elementary, the principal has used the partnership she established to secure
benchmarks from the unified district where her students go to attend high school, to
benefit from the staff development offered by the unified district. As the benchmarks are
aligned with the other district‘s pacing, the principal shared that Liszt Elementary has
used the opportunity to revisit their own pacing and make adjustments where necessary.
To understand some of the reasoning for the sequencing, the principal has sent all of her
teachers at one time or another to participate in the unified district‘s curriculum council
meetings along with that district‘s work with WestEd in benchmark creation and analysis.
According to the principal, Chopin Elementary‘s contract provided for an early
release day each week that allowed time for staff collaboration as well as professional
development activities he orchestrated school wide. However, after working in a larger
district for years, the principal spoke about the difficulty he had already encountered in
providing meaningful staff development in a small school district. Rather than being able
to leverage the expertise or resources in another school or take advantage of services
provided by the district office such as an instructional coach, the principal stated that he
immediately learned that he would need to find other solutions. As a result, he
established several other contracts with outside professional development providers such
as Dennis Parker who comes in bi-monthly to train staff in his Strategic Schooling Model
121

as well as DataWORKS who have conducted several trainings on Explicit Direct
Instruction (EDI). The principal has also worked with the superintendent of the high
school district to which Chopin Elementary is a many of his teachers included in the high
school department meetings, collaboration, and professional development opportunities.
In addition to three days devoted entirely to staff development during the year,
according to the principal, Schubert Elementary is structured to embed a great deal of
professional development during each school week. Schubert‘s strategy has been to pare
down the breadth of training topics and has attempted to link each professional
development activity to the goals established in their school site plan, all of which are
strongly tied to mastery of the essential standards. Activities and their effectiveness are
also regularly reviewed and revisited such as the school‘s trainings in Step Up to Writing
where AVID came in subsequently to evaluate the implementation of many of the
elements embedded in the original training while also providing supplementary writing
strategies. In discussions with the principals, Schubert Elementary was also the only site
that linked its staff development to the needs of a particular group. In using English
Learners as an example where because the school has not consistently met its growth
targets for the group, the principal shared that much of the school‘s professional
development is focused on strategies to assist these students. Staff development
surrounding test preparation, tools to identify ‗bubble students‘ and the instructional
strategies that are most effective to move these students past the intermediate
performance levels have been a fixture.
122

In summary, all principals expressed the desire for more time and additional
internal capacity, such as the instructional coaches recommended by the EBM, to provide
staff development. The sites that were the most successful in this area were creative in
arranging resources such as personnel and adjusting their schedules to best facilitate and
embed professional development opportunities in the school day. Schubert Elementary,
the model for consistent growth in terms of its API performance employed many of the
elements outlined by Odden (2009) in their strategy, providing opportunities for
collaboration in the school day, regular early release days for additional training time,
activities that involved a range of stakeholders, and had all work in the area focused on
the goals outlined in the school site plan. Additionally, the smallest schools in the sample
appeared to struggle the most in implementing effective staff development as they lacked
the personnel and other resources such as time outlined by Odden (2009).
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively. The sixth step for schools that doubled
some aspect of their student performance was to modify the way they used instructional
time during the school day to formulate a more efficient schedule (Odden, 2009).
Perhaps out of necessity due to their small sizes and status as single-school
districts, all of the schools in the sample exhibited innovative elements of this strategy.
For example, while struggling with the implementation of the other strategies for
improvement, Bach Elementary leverages the benefits afforded by its small class sizes
and grade combinations in leveling its students. More specifically, because of its small
size, Bach Elementary is divided into three combination classes: K-1, 2-3, and 4-6.
According to the principal this format allows maximum flexibility in terms of grouping
123

students for instruction and one of his first priorities in arriving was actually to attempt to
get the teachers to move away from the idea that a child needed to be locked into a
particular grade. As a result, students in one grade level are often mixed with students
from another within a class and when appropriate, students are moved into another
physical class. The principal shared that small class sizes make this easier where because
none of the three classes has more than 15 students, there is plenty of space to
accommodate kids moving between classes.
Upon arriving at Chopin Elementary, the new principal immediately made
changes in mandating an uninterrupted sixty minutes of instruction in Mathematics each
day. He also stressed that the school was in a fortunate position for its size and location
in having a full time music teacher which enabled the school to use the time in which
students were in their music class (which occurred twice a week) to have teachers work
collaboratively. Additionally, while the seventh and eighth grade classes are self-
contained as in all of the other grades, the teachers do deploy for math to enable students
of similar skills levels to be grouped according to ability. This enables the teachers to
enact more differentiated instruction and is organized so that struggling students are kept
in the smallest group possible to receive increased assistance.
As Liszt Elementary does not have any instructional facilitators and all of their
certificated staff members, including the principal, are classroom teachers, the need to
use time efficiently is critical according to the principal. In the meetings at the beginning
of this year, for example, at the principal‘s suggestion the staff developed a new schedule
incorporating two 90 minute blocks of uninterrupted instruction for language arts and
124

math. Additionally, the school uses its small class sizes and multi-age combinations to
group its students according to their ability level when assigning teachers at the
beginning of the year to maximize whole group instructional time. The principal also
shared that the school also attempts to implement looping strategies whenever possible so
that students are assigned to teachers for two consecutive years which allows the teachers
to better recognize their needs and by extension, minimizes the time dedicated to
classroom management and organization that is tied to becoming familiar with students.
Mozart Elementary cited a number of efforts at the school to more efficiently
utilize time with one being the reconfiguration of the sixth through eighth grades into a
four period day with seventy five minutes of uninterrupted instruction in each period.
The principal claimed this configuration allowed the teachers to work through a lesson
with the entire class and then break students into smaller groups or, when appropriate,
provide one-to-one instruction. She also stated she was proud of how her teachers
responded to the need to establish several multi-grade classes. While she indicated she
was not personally in favor of combination classes and generally only implemented them
as a last resort, she did relate that the configuration allowed for a natural leveling and that
the school had achieved surprisingly good results over the years with the practice.
Finally, she shared that the school was fortunate to have a full-time music instructor
which allowed additional time for collaboration or interventions when students were
scheduled to attend his class.
As the largest school by almost a factor of two in the sample, Schubert
Elementary has a little more flexibility and resources to optimize its schedule and use of
125

instructional time. The school implemented ninety minutes of uninterrupted instructional
time for the first time this year and the principal claimed the practice has already been
extremely helpful. For example, the school has a reading lab which it pulls students into
for additional interventions every day for a period of thirty to fifty minutes. This practice
was obviously cutting into teacher directed language arts instruction and between the
reading lab and interventions targeting English Learners as well as regular computer
pullouts, teachers were having students shuffled in and out frequently. Teachers have
commented that they really appreciate the uninterrupted instructional time where all
students are together with no distractions. The school has also used teachers in the upper
grades and the electives it offers to free up a number of teachers to assume additional
duties in the afternoon when those electives are offered. For example, the part-time Vice
Principal is an administrator in the morning and teaches elective courses in the afternoon
while the school‘s part-time counselor teaches sixth grade core classes in the morning
and then rather than teaching electives, provides counseling in the afternoon.
As stated previously, their small sizes and status as single-school districts
prompted all of the schools in the sample to utilize some of the innovative approaches
outlined by Odden (2009) and the EBM to organize their schedules in such a way that
instructional time and efficiency were maximized. A common strategy across the
smallest schools was the use of combination classes where multi-age classes were created
to manage class sizes as well as the number of personnel allocated. However, the
presence of the strategy did not automatically translate into performance improvements;
instead, the sites that also emphasized the instructional advantages that could result
126

through looping and leveling realized the greatest API gains and maximized what Odden
(2009) terms as academic learning time. The larger schools in the sample, namely
Schubert Elementary provided further support for the effectiveness of the strategy
through their performance gains and implementation of creative scheduling to increase
collaboration and intervention opportunities without increasing costs.
Providing Interventions for Struggling Students. Odden‘s (2009) seventh step
to significantly improve student performance also involves time; however in this
instance, the resource is dedicated to providing additional instructional opportunities to
struggling students.
Where the previous instructional strategy was employed to some extent by all
schools in the sample because of their small size, this strategy appeared to be more
difficult to implement for the smaller schools. In fact, except for Schubert Elementary,
the largest school in the sample, no other sites have interventions that occur before or
after school. The smallest site, Bach Elementary, actually does not have any
interventions at all even during the school day, relying only on an outside resource where
with approximately sixty percent of its students being Native American children that live
on a reservation a few miles away, these students are attending an Education Center on
the reservation to receive homework assistance and other help. However, aside from the
bus run to transport the students to the center after school, which would have occurred
regardless to bring the students home, the district does not commit any resources to the
effort with the funds being provided entirely by the Tribal Council.
127

As stated previously, Chopin Elementary does not have any before or after school
interventions, primarily because of the large group of students that would require
transportation. However, a new effort this year is the introduction of lunchtime
interventions where students who do not score above a seventy percent (70%) on weekly
focus standard assessments are sent to teachers who are paid during their lunch to
conduct targeted interventions. These students are required to attend interventions for
three days a week during the two week period after the standard was originally taught.
The principal noted he often walks into classrooms during lunch where the teacher has a
sandwich in one hand and a dry-erase marker in the other as they work. Additionally, the
school was unique among the schools interviewed in the sample in that it was only one of
two sites to run a summer school program the previous summer. The principal explained
the site had worked very hard to keep their program as it serviced a number of students
that were struggling in the core academic areas yet also provided a recreational and
cultural learning opportunity with a performing arts component. However, the principal
indicated that with the continued state economic crisis, it was possible the only summer
school the district would be able to offer was through the Migrant program this year.
At Liszt Elementary interventions are a practice that the principal stated the
school needed to improve and claimed that they were one instructional area where the
school‘s small size actually made the effort more difficult. With no teachers dedicated to
managing the process, the interventions the school attempts to implement take place for
the most part within the classroom during the school day. The principal shared that both
primary classes have full-time instructional aides which allows the teacher to divide the
128

class into groups when appropriate for small group instruction. In the primary classes the
aides also work with the teachers to administer in-class, pseudo pullouts for students that
are struggling. The principal stated that interventions were the area she felt was impacted
most by the state budget cuts where the school was forced to reduce the number of aides
it employed by 1.5 FTE and also has been unable to offer a summer school program for
the past two years.
Interventions for struggling students at Mozart Elementary have become more of
a challenge this year with the budget, fluctuating enrollment and the associated demands
of classroom reduction. The past several years, the school has been able to hire one
teacher that has been devoted entirely to working with students and managing the various
interventions across all grade levels. However, this year, that teacher was pulled back
into the classroom part time as the teacher for half of the day of one of the combination
classes and now only works on interventions for the remaining half of the day. As a
result, the school which has always depended on instructional aides in its intervention
efforts has been forced to utilize them to an even greater degree than before.
While Schubert Elementary has implemented a number of services to assist
struggling students found in many other schools such as the reading pullouts discussed
previously, its foundation has allowed it to provide a new range of interventions. The site
features a before-school and after-school option that is staffed and managed underneath
the umbrella of the foundation and offers homework help that is coordinated with the
classroom teachers. Tutoring is also available during these times with a lunch option
where participating students are released from their classes five minutes early to move
129

through the cafeteria or retrieve their lunch quickly and avoid any bottlenecks that could
cut into their instructional time. Perhaps most impressively, the school‘s foundation had
recently purchased a house, dubbed ‗The Villa‘, in a residential community that is the
home to most of the school‘s low-income students. This home is staffed with four
employees from Monday through Thursday, 3:15 to 5:00 PM and currently provides
students access to computers and assistance with homework. The home was purchased as
a more cost effective and innovative solution to the problem of transportation being
unavailable to students participating in after school interventions.
In summary, it is clear from the principals‘ responses that providing interventions
for struggling students was one of the most challenging of the ten strategies to
implement, especially for the smaller schools. Transportation concerns where the
majority of students at a number of the sites depended on bussing coupled with a lack of
funding and staff to oversee the programs made offering after school interventions
problematic. Financial and personnel considerations also complicated intervention
efforts that took place during the school day and the budget was the major reason cited in
schools‘ suspensions of their summer school programs. However, in the sites such as
Schubert Elementary that were able to marshal the necessary resources to maintain and
offer new interventions, all of their subgroups posted significant growth each year,
affirming the effectiveness and importance of the strategy.
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership. As in the
business world where companies have increasingly shed vertical hierarchies to create flat
organizations that often see employees taking on a variety of responsibilities, schools are
130

gradually transitioning from a leadership model dominated by a single principal toward a
team-based approach resulting in multiple and distributed roles for teachers and
administrators (Odden, 2009).
Unlike interventions where most principals stated they believed their small school
sizes made implementing the strategy more difficult, all were in agreement in stating they
believed small sites were great assets in contributing to a collaborative culture and
distributed leadership. At Bach Elementary, the principal touted the benefits a small
school provides in creating the necessity for teachers to be leaders who are largely self-
sufficient because of the limited support resources available. Additionally, the principal
described a very comfortable environment for communication where staff members
ultimately make decisions together to get things done in part because of his limited hours
that make it difficult for him to attend many of their meetings.
At Chopin Elementary School, in describing the school‘s culture the principal
shared that upon his arrival his emphasis on the importance of assessments was
particularly contentious initially with many teachers stating that their students were
unable to perform some of the activities recommended in their professional development
such as graphing their progress on tests and understanding what the results mean.
Surprisingly, the principal had his young kindergarten teachers with less than five years
of teaching experience take a lead role in modeling many of these instructional strategies.
Given that their students were the youngest and needed the most help to understand and
perform the different activities, yet were ultimately capable, the principal saw most of the
131

opposition fade away and in the end believed the entire school‘s expectations for student
performance and ability were recalibrated.
At Liszt Elementary, in discussing her efforts to promote a collaborative culture
and distributed leadership, the principal responded similarly to what the principal at Bach
shared in giving most of the credit to the school‘s small size and the professionalism of
her staff. She emphasized that unlike providing interventions, she felt the school‘s size
helped immensely in creating a collaborative culture with strong leadership from teachers
in a variety of areas. She did share, however, that many of the teachers often expressed
being exhausted and wished for more support resources as they felt they were stretched
too thinly and wearing too many hats.
In a departure from the responses at all of the other sites, in relating her
experiences leading Mozart Elementary the first couple of years, the principal actually
stated that she has backed away from a number of her early efforts to establish a
distributed leadership model in the school. Describing her career‘s progression where
ultimately she became the supervisor to teachers who had previously had her in their
classrooms as an instructional aide, the principal stated that she faced an enormous
amount of skepticism and resistance from a number of these teachers. She claimed that
her initial attempts win these teachers over were ultimately unsuccessful and that their
involvement in committees or meetings generally led to them questioning her leadership
and attempting to usurp her authority. Consequently, she took a firmer position in her
approach and marginalized many of the dissenting teachers by reshaping committees and
slowly bringing teachers in that understood and shared her vision and goals for the
132

school. With the enthusiasm and support of these new staff members, she is beginning to
revisit her approach and stated her desire to see a more collaborative culture emerge at
the school.
At Schubert Elementary the principal was quick to tout the benefits that a single
school district provided in this arena. She spoke about it naturally eliminating the
artificial vertical hierarchies and barriers to communication in that everyone from the
newest teacher to the superintendent was in the same location and generally always
available to provide guidance or to listen to concerns. The principal also emphasized that
when the administration asked teachers for their input on a particular matter, that they did
so with every intention of actually utilizing their ideas. She expressed that she believed
that a number of schools actually manipulate teachers to believe they are being included
in decisions and that she thought her teachers would catch on very quickly if they
attempted the same behavior. More importantly, she stated that she relied on her teachers
to provide the expertise that would often be attached to a position such as the Director of
Curriculum at the district level in a larger school district.
In evaluating the overall implementation of this strategy, aside from Bach
Elementary and the residual effect of personnel issues early in the tenure of the principal
at Mozart Elementary, the sample schools‘ all demonstrated a strong commitment to
maintaining a collaborative culture. As another strategy that all principals believe their
small school sizes actually fosters, it also meshes well with the challenging fiscal
environment in which the schools are operating, in that it can largely be implemented
without requiring additional resources. Chopin, Liszt, and Schubert Elementary each
133

feature an environment and mentality that resemble the professional learning
communities (PLCs) described by Schmoker (2004) and Odden (2009) in emphasizing
the impact teachers can have in raising student performance by working together to
improve pedagogy and create more effective practices. In the cases of Liszt and Schubert
Elementary, the recent increases in the schools‘ API scores lend support to the approach
and given the heavy emphasis the principal at Chopin has placed on creating a
collaborative culture, a significant increase in their scores this year will provide further
evidence of the strategy‘s benefits.
Inspiring a Professional Organization. As a natural extension of many of the
organizational features that emerge when a school site or district embraces professional
learning communities and the distributed leadership that often results, Odden (2009)
emphasizes that educational leaders must take the issue to the next level in inspiring the
creation of a professional organization in all aspects of its operation.
In the implementation of this particular strategy, almost all of the principals had a
different understanding as to what a professional organization looked like and all took a
different approach in their attempts to inspire its creation. As has been the case with a
number of other strategies in the case of Bach Elementary, aside from emphasizing that
his teachers were all professionals that generally knew what was best for each student and
as a result, giving them the freedom to make their own instructional decisions, the
principal did not address items research has proven inspire professional organizations.
At Chopin Elementary, while intensely focused on using data to drive the
decisions made in the classroom and school, the principal stated he is also aware that
134

much of the challenge is ensuring that the data is analyzed through the lens of the latest
research and methodologies. As a result, he constantly works to disseminate this
information, oftentimes modeling effective teaching techniques such as the use of think-
pair-share, partner talking, or individual whiteboards. He initiated a ―Data Team‖ who
was the first to implement and eventually trained all staff in creating a ―Data Wall‖ to
make each class‘s goals and progress transparent to the entire school community.
Additionally, while orchestrating schoolwide staff development and discussions for two
of the Mondays each month, he allows each grade level to collaborate independently for
the other two early release days, noting that a great deal of leadership emerges in these
smaller meetings. However, he does regularly join in these discussions and also requires
that minutes of the collaboration time be submitted to ensure that the time is being used
in a professional and effective manner.
In relating her work to promote a professional organization, the principal of Liszt
Elementary stressed that while she sometimes felt the pressure of being pulled in a
number of different directions without enough time in the day, she believed that the split-
nature of her position gave her more credibility with her staff in discussing instructional
improvement strategies. As she spent most of her time as a classroom teacher, she said
that the staff expressed an appreciation that they knew that she understood their
challenges and that her decisions were made with their best interest. As a result, she was
pleased to share that most of her suggestions surrounding the implementation of
instructional strategies, professional development, or various articles and research she
found helpful, were well received by her staff.
135

Mozart Elementary School‘s principal stated that with all of the difficulties and
energy she has expended in establishing herself as an instructional leader at the school
site, a significant amount of her time is also spent addressing the logistical issues and
daily problems that arise in a small school. In understanding the demands of a range of
positions, having personally worked in a number of them, she emphasized that she is
always ready and willing to step back in and get her hands dirty if need be and that she
often does when someone is absent. The principal did not share her approach to inspiring
a professional organization through the dissemination of research or best practices and
appeared to equate her performance of any job that needed to be done with the fulfillment
of her professional duty to do what was best for the organization.
In speaking about creating a professional organization Schubert‘s principal shared
that she was extremely proud of how vital and assertive the school site council had
become. Beginning with helping to construct the school site plan, the principal stated
there is an extremely rich and diverse set of experiences and expertise from all of its
members. Linking back to the collaborative culture and distributed leadership, the site
council has taken ownership of the critical evaluation of performance goals and is active
in holding the school accountable to them. According to the principal, they are also
hungry to discuss and implement the latest instructional strategies and trends and a
portion of each monthly meeting is dedicated to such a topic, which the principal or
superintendent typically brings to the table. This is frequently the first venue for
information that eventually is taken to the whole staff and often finds its way into the
classroom.
136

Overall the quality and degree of the principals‘ efforts to inspire a professional
culture in their schools varied widely; however, unlike a number of other strategies where
the school size appeared to have an effect, this school characteristic did not seem to
influence the strategy‘s implementation. Instead, the sites that most strongly featured a
professional organization were built on the strengths of the relationship that was forged
between the administration and teaching staff. As stated above, the principal at the
largest school in the study, Schubert Elementary, spoke of the emergence of a strong
school site council that worked closely with the administration to establish and evaluate
performance goals along with reviewing the latest instructional strategies. Similarly, the
principal at one of the smallest sites in the study, Liszt Elementary, related that she
believed her split assignment between administration and the classroom gave her
credibility as she worked to instill a sense of professionalism. In the end, although the
approach to establishing the professional organization was different, the result was the
same and the growth achieved in each school validates the importance of the strategy.
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues. The final recommendation to
schools and districts looking to significantly increase student performance focuses on
investing in talent and human capital, addressing a wide range of issues such as talent
recruitment, development and management (Odden, 2009).
The implementation of this strategy was the final area in which the schools‘ small
sizes appeared to hurt rather than help them, at least according to the discussions with the
site principals. This was especially true with Bach Elementary where the principal did
not address any items surrounding the cultivation of talent and other human capital issues
137

such as recruitment and retention, much like he failed to provide details surrounding the
school‘s attempts to inspire a professional organization. Similarly, in the conversations
with the principal at Liszt Elementary it was difficult to determine that she was focused
on addressing any of the elements within this strategy. Given the school‘s small size and
limited schedule for formal staff collaboration, the principal‘s efforts to form partnerships
with outside entities such as the unified school district its students go to attend high
school, seemed to provide the best example of creatively cultivating internal human
capital by offering opportunities for professional growth.
Chopin Elementary‘s principal did address the subject and in doing so expressed
frustration related to working in a small school district in that it was difficult to provide
formal opportunities for growth and that many of the most ambitious and talented
teachers often were forced to move to larger school districts because there were not
administrative or other opportunities in small districts. To attempt to combat that he was
working to develop a ―Leadership Team‖ and assign various duties for projects such as
the training for implementing a new version of Accelerated Reader to teachers that
wanted additional experience and responsibility.
Mozart Elementary‘s principal was perhaps the most vocal on this particular
improvement strategy in sharing that she felt both constrained and empowered as a small
single school district in her attempts to address at least the recruitment piece. Rather than
attract potential teaching recruits with a comparatively higher salary, she shared that she
often took pictures of the school‘s physical location with the backdrop of the Sierra
Nevada Mountains and that her discussions would center on the school‘s small overall
138

size and comparatively small classes and that she emphasized many of the discipline
problems and challenges related to poverty and language barriers were much less of an
issue at Mozart than other districts. As far as managing her existing human resources,
she shared that a similar conversation and approach occurs with her teachers whom she
tries to be as flexible with as possible in hiring part time staff to provide supervision
before school, during recess, lunch, and after school as a small perk while also increasing
the likelihood that teachers will use the time to conduct informal interventions and
provide assistance to struggling students. Additionally, the principal has a number of
small stipends at her disposal to reward teachers who take on additional responsibility.
However, as was the case in a number of the other strategies, Schubert
Elementary appeared to have done the most thorough job in its implementation of the
items recommended by Odden (2009) as effective tools to cultivate internal talent and
best address a variety of human capital issues. Beginning with their hiring and recruiting
process where the school had worked to establish contacts with several of the nearby
education schools within the universities in the area, Schubert had a very refined
interview process incorporating practical displays of an applicant‘s skills and
methodology through activities such as teaching demonstrations. Additionally, the
principal shared that the school had a pipeline through which she could personally attest,
after having moved through it, where teachers that were interested in administration and
leadership roles could begin to learn and assume additional responsibility. A number of
stipends are available that the principal uses to delegate responsibility such as the
school‘s special projects director. Serving as the principal of summer school is another
139

option for staff to get a taste of the requirements of administration and the approach has
served the district well in training and retaining highly qualified teachers and
administrators.
In evaluating the principals‘ descriptions of their efforts in this area, it was clear
that this strategy was the most neglected, with only the largest school, Schubert
Elementary, having the resources in place to both attract and cultivate the best talent. All
of the other principals expressed frustration in the limited opportunities for advancement
their small schools offered, however, with the exception of the principal at Chopin
Elementary who was attempting to address the problem by establishing leadership teams,
none offered specific solutions they were considering for improvement. Lastly, this
strategy also appeared to be more difficult for the smaller schools to implement, with the
principals at both Bach and Liszt Elementary, the smallest schools in the sample,
neglecting to identify any efforts in the area.
Table 4.3 summarizes the implementation of the ten strategies in the various
sample schools, assigning a value from 1 to 5 that ranks their execution in each area as
well as a total score representing their overall performance.
140

Table 4.3: Implementation of Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance
10 Strategies to
Double Student
Performance
School
Bach
Elementary
Chopin
Elementary
Liszt
Elementary
Mozart
Elementary
Schubert
Elementary
Analyzing the Data
and Understanding
the Performance
Challenge
1 4 4 3 4
Setting Ambitious
Goals
2 3 3 2 5
Implementing an
Effective Curriculum
& Instructional
Program
1 4 4 4 5
Data-Based Decision
Making
2 5 4 3 4
Ongoing Professional
Development
2 3 2 3 4
Using Time
Efficiently and
Effectively
3 4 4 5 4
Providing
Interventions for
Struggling Students
1 3 2 4 5
Creating
Collaborative
Cultures and
Distributed
Leadership
2 4 4 2 4
Inspiring a
Professional
Organization
1 4 5 1 5
Addressing Talent
and Human Capital
Issues
1 2 2 3 4
Total:
16 36 34 30 44
Note: 5 = Advanced; 4 = Proficient; 3 = Basic; 2 = Below Basic; 1 = Far Below Basic
141

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
Along with the breadth and degree of the implementation of the instructional
strategies reviewed above, another significant set of data reviewed are each school‘s
resource allocation decisions and how they compare to the guidelines established in the
Evidence-Based Model. Initially constructed using data from a variety of studies
examining high-quality and successful instructional programs, Odden, Archibald,
Fermanich, and Gross (2003) classified expenditures across both instructional and non-
instructional expenditure categories to form the base of the model. Odden and Picus
(2008) further refined the model by developing resource-based expenditure structures for
model elementary, middle, and high schools which can then be adjusted to reflect the
unique needs of a district or school‘s student demographics. Given the assortment of
small single-school districts that compose the sample in this study, the flexibility
provided by the Evidence-Based Model is a crucial part of the analysis.
One of the most expensive resource allocation based strategies to improving
student performance is reducing class size. According to Odden and Picus (2008), core-
class sizes of 15 are recommended for kindergarten through third grade and class sizes of
25 for grades 4-12, where core is defined as the regular classroom teacher in elementary
school and teachers of math, science, English, history, and foreign language in secondary
schools. These ratios produce an average class size of 18 in elementary school and 25 in
middle and high schools. As Table 4.4 displays below, one area that the schools in the
sample compare reasonably well to the EBM, in terms of approaching close to its
recommendations, is class size. While many schools in California feature classrooms
142

approaching or even exceeding 40 students with all of the recent budget cuts, the sample
schools have avoided that to this point, with no school reaching even 30 average students
in a single class. Several of the sites such as Bach Elementary and Liszt Elementary
actually meet the recommendations of the EBM in the area. Chopin Elementary and
Schubert Elementary are unique in that they have larger class sizes in the primary grades
while meeting the recommendations of the EBM in the intermediate, which appears to be
a questionable arrangement given the research emphasizing the importance of small class
sizes in the lower grade levels (Finn & Achilles, 1999). Finally, Mozart Elementary
exceeds the recommended sizes in all grade levels though by a fairly small amount.
Table 4.4: Comparison of Class Sizes in the EBM vs. Sample Schools
Grade
Range
EBM Bach
Elementary
Chopin
Elementary
Liszt
Elementary
Mozart
Elementary
Schubert
Elementary
K
15 15 27 17 17 21
1-3
15 15 22 14 21 21
4-5
25 15 23 23 29 25
6-8
25 N/A 25 15 28 25

After evaluating class sizes and moving to assess other elements of the schools‘
resource allocations, the situation changes dramatically as displayed below in Table 4.5
where in almost every category, the schools fall far short of the amount recommended by
the EBM.
143

Table 4.5: Resource Allocation According to EBM vs. Actual Resource Allocation at
Sample Schools

Bach
Elementary
Chopin
Elementary
Liszt
Elementary
Mozart
Elementary
Schubert
Elementary
EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual
Principals N/A N/A 1 1 0.9 0.2 1.15 1 1.5 1.5
Secretary/
Clerical
N/A N/A 2 2 1.2 1.0 1.8 1 2 1.75
Core
Teachers
FTE
N/A N/A 24 18 9.0 4.8 19.2 16 41.6 31
Specialist
Teachers
FTE
N/A N/A 4.8 1 .96 0 3.8 1 8.3 1
Instructional
Facilitators/
Mentors
N/A N/A 2.2 1 .44 0 1.75 0 3.8 0
Tutors for
Struggling
Students
N/A
N/A
3.2
0 .54 0 0.9 0 3.3 0
Teachers for
EL Students
N/A N/A 1.85 0
.29
0 0 0 1.65 0
Extended
Day FTE
N/A N/A 1.8 .45
1
.36 0 1.4 0 3.0 0
4

Summer
School FTE
N/A N/A 1.8 2 .36 0 1.4 0 3.1 3.0
Learning &
Mild
Disabled
Student FTE
N/A
N/A
3.0
1.8 0.6 0 2.4 2.2 5.2 1.3
Substitutes $ N/A N/A $17,100 $0 $3,888 $0 $14,535 $0 $27,360 $5,890
Pupil
Support Staff
FTE
N/A N/A 3.23 0 .54 0 .93 .30 3.3 .75
144

Table 4.5, Continued
Non-
Instructional
Aides FTE
N/A N/A 2 .5 .4 1.5 1.6 1.75 3.5 0
Instructional
Aides FTE
N/A N/A 0 10.0 0 2.75 0 4 0 20
Librarians/
FTE Media
Specialists
N/A N/A 1 1 .20 .10 1 0.6 1.75 1.75
Resources for
gifted
students
N/A N/A $10,750 $1,350 $2,150 $0
3
$8,650 $0
3
$18,725 $7,850
Technology N/A N/A $108,000 $0
2
$21.500 $1,700 $86,500 $31,400 $187,250 $38,828
Instructional
Materials
N/A N/A $60,200 $44,381 $12,040 $7,000 $48,400 $27,743 $104,860 $45,089
Student
Activities
N/A N/A $86,000 $56,400 $17,200 $3,440 $69,200 $9,000 $149,800 $17,980
Professional
Development
N/A N/A $40,000 $43,000 $8,600 $1,500 $34,600 $0 $74,900 $63,480
Note: As Bach Elementary‘s school size is smaller than 50 students, the EBM uses a
different set of guidelines, described later, to resource the school.

1
This FTE figure includes certificated teachers working at lunch time on time
card to provide interventions.

2
Chopin Elementary does not have anything budgeted specifically in the general
fund; instead categorical money is usually used to fund technology purchases.
Estimate of over $50,000 a year.
3
Neither school has any GATE students.
4
Schubert Elementary benefits from an extensive extended-day program that
operates under the umbrella of the school‘s foundation with approximately 6.5
FTE.

Except in the smallest schools where the allocated FTEs at the sites are far below
the EBM‘s guidelines, such as in Liszt Elementary where the school only has a .2 FTE
principal while the EBM resources .9 FTE, the schools are fairly close to EBM
recommended levels for administrative support. The number of core teachers, however,
is significantly less than the EBM in all schools with one site achieving just over half of
145

the number of FTE allocated through the EBM. Specialist teachers are another area in
which the resource allocation gap continues with smaller sites such as Liszt Elementary
not having even a fraction of a dedicated FTE and the largest site, Schubert Elementary,
resourced with only 12% of the FTE allocated under the EBM. With the exception of the
1 FTE Curriculum Coach at Chopin Elementary (which was still resourced at only ½ of
what the EBM called for), none of the sites had any percentage of an FTE dedicated to
providing instructional coaching/facilitation.
The same is true for a number of other categories of instructional resources such
as tutors for struggling students, dedicated teachers for EL students, and staff dedicated to
providing extended learning time for students with activities such as before-school or
after-school interventions as well as summer school remediation, where if the resource
existed at all in a school, it was allocated at a much lower level than the EBM suggested.
The imbalance shifts the other direction in only one area in that where the EBM does not
allocate any resources for instructional aides due to the lack of research to support their
positive impact on student achievement, each of the schools in the sample features a
significant number of FTEs in the position with a high of 20 FTE in Schubert Elementary
to a low of 2.75 FTE in Liszt Elementary (which is still a substantial amount given their
entire staff is 10 FTE). Per pupil resource allocations to support items such as
technology, professional development, instructional materials, and student activities are
also severely underfunded in the sample schools compared to the amounts recommended
in the EBM.
146

EBM Small School Resource Allocation Adjustment. As described in the notes
for Table 4.5, schools with under 96 students and schools with under 49 students total
enrollment trigger two different resource allocation processes when applying the EBM
because of their small sizes:
 Schools from with forty-nine or fewer students are resourced at 1 FTE assistant
principal plus 1 FTE teacher position for every seven students, with a minimum of
two FTE. For example, this formula would provide 2 FTE teaching positions for
a 1-7 student school, 3 FTE positions for a 14 student school, and 4 FTE positions
for the 21 student school, prorating the FTE count for schools with a number of
students that lay in between these figures (Odden, Picus & Goetz, 2005).
 The resources are flexible to allow a variety of combinations of staffing teachers,
aides, specialists and principals along with combined positions for secretarial,
maintenance and other classified duties. In the case of classified staff members,
which are typically compensated at a lower rate than certificated, the staff FTE
resources are allocated at the rate of a certificated FTE. For example, if
certificated staff were paid at an average rate of thirty dollars per hour, while a
classified position was paid at $15 per hour, a school could allocate two classified
positions for every 1 FTE generated by the formula.
 Standard resource formulas are used for schools with between 50 and 96 total
students, with the principal prorated from 1 FTE at an enrollment of 96 down to .5
FTE for the 50 student elementary school.
147

With Bach Elementary having a current student enrollment of 45, according to the
guidelines above, it would generate the base 1 FTE Assistant Principal plus 6.5 additional
FTE for a total of 7.5 FTE; these FTE could be distributed across various job duties to
achieve the required coverage to operate the school. As described previously, in the case
of classified staff, depending on the average compensation for certificated and the rate for
a particular classified position, the school would generally end up with a greater than 1:1
ratio of classified staff members per allocated FTE in the model.
The actual resource status at Bach Elementary is significantly lower than the
EBM guidelines for school of its size. Without including benefits, the average hourly
compensation of certificated staff is $41 per hour while the average compensation of
classified is $14. The school has three full-time teachers for grades K-1, 2-3, and 4-6 in
addition to the principal who works a couple of hours each day on an irregular schedule,
which translates to approximately .25 FTE. Additionally, the school employs a full-time
secretary, a full-time Bus Driver/Maintenance person, and three instructional aides that
equate to almost 2.75 FTE; as a result, the total number of classified FTE is 4.75, which
equates to approximately 1.6 certificated FTE. The total number of FTE at the school to
compare to the model is 4.85, which leaves a gap of 2.65 FTE, a significant amount of
personnel for a school its size.
EBM Central Office Resource Comparison. Another complicating factor in
analyzing the resources at all of the sample schools and comparing them to the guidelines
provided by the Evidence-Based Model is the fact that along with being small schools,
each site is a self-contained district as well. While little research exists to determine the
148

optimum staffing model in a central office as many of the positions housed within are
often funded by federal or special education funds, Odden, Picus & Goetz (2008)
conducted a number of professional judgment panels and focus groups that have provided
a recommended design for a central office to support a prototypical district of 3,500
students. The model they propose divides positions into three different categories of
staffing: Administrative, Professional, and Clerical. These groups consist of 1
Superintendent, 1 Assistant Superintendent, 1 Business Manager, 1 HR Manager, 1
Director of Special Education, 1 Director of Pupil Services, 1 Director of Technology, 1
Psychologist, 1 Director of Maintenance/Operations, 1 Payroll Clerk, 1 AP Clerk, and 4
Secretaries.
In their research in North Dakota, Odden, Picus & Goetz (2008) extended the
calculations to smaller districts where in a North Dakota district of 2,000 students, the
model would provide 5.1 senior administrative and 5.14 secretarial positions, and half
that, or 2.6 senior administrative and 2.57 secretarial positions for a 1,000 student district.
Previously, in their work in Wyoming (Odden, Picus & Goetz, 2005), a similar
calculation was reached for districts with 500 or less students where their formula
generated 3 admin and 3 secretarial positions.
California, the state in which all of the sample schools are located, is surprisingly
unique in that while being the most populous state in the United States with many of the
biggest districts in the country; it features a large number of single school districts with
student enrollments substantially less than the models above. As a result, it is difficult to
use existing research to estimate the optimum number and distribution of central office
149

staff, especially in the smallest school districts in the study such as such as Bach and
Liszt Elementary. However, given the responsibilities that are incumbent upon a district
office to perform such as supervising curriculum and instructional programs,
implementing federal, state, and local reforms, as well as the management of the budget
and facilities, it is clear that at least some additional resources are required for even the
smallest districts. While many of these districts can and do obtain a large amount of
support from their county offices of education, additional personnel at the district are still
necessary to act as liaisons and coordinate these district responsibilities. In most of the
schools studied except Schubert Elementary which had a couple of district-level type
positions (though still far from the number recommended by the EBM), the only
additional personnel resources that would be termed as district-level support, were a part-
time bookkeeper at Bach Elementary, a .5 FTE Business Manager at Liszt Elementary, a
full-time 1.0 FTE Business Manager position at Mozart Elementary, and a full-time 1.0
FTE Business Manager along with a .5 FTE Technology Director at Chopin Elementary.
With these numbers it is evident that the central office component in all of the school
districts is another area where a significant gap exists between the recommendations of
the EBM and the actual district resource allocations.
In addition to the disparities described at both the district and school level
between the EBM and the sample schools, leaders at all of the sites also had already
endured a number of budget reductions due to the economic crisis in California and were
bracing for more. The impact of these cuts is discussed in the following section.
150

Impact of Budget Reductions
Despite the significant reductions to education funding at the state level in
California, one of the recurring themes in speaking to principals was an exclamation of
their good fortune in that their sites remained intact for the most part. However, moving
forward there was a great deal of concern expressed because of the loss of the one-time
federal ARRA stimulus funding which each site shared they had used to avoid
widespread layoffs. Furthermore, the prospect of additional cuts, especially at midyear
added to the anxiety along with a potential loss in flexibility of the approximately 40
―Tier 3‖ categorical programs which a number of principals stated were almost
exclusively used to backfill money lost in the budget cuts.
In specifying how the budget cuts had already impacted their sites, several
principals quickly pointed to their elimination of summer school and also to reduced
opportunities and resources to conduct interventions for struggling students. Mozart
Elementary‘s principal shared she was forced to pull the certificated teacher that had been
managing the site‘s interventions as her full-time position for the last several years back
into the classroom for ½ of the day, seriously impacting their activities in the area and
forcing the school to rely more on instructional aides whom the principal acknowledged
weren‘t as effective. Liszt Elementary reported that they released an instructional aide
dedicated to their interventions and Schubert Elementary‘s principal stated that her first
priority if the budget situation normalized would be to replace the reading teacher‘s
position that also doubled as a curriculum coach that the district was forced to eliminate
with the cuts.
151

A major strategy utilized in all of the schools was to take advantage of attrition in
reducing the total staff at the site by not replacing positions whenever possible. This
approach also had the impact of increasing class sizes such as at Schubert Elementary
where the principal stated that along with the reduced penalties for CSR incentive funds,
the school was allowing several grades to exceed the threshold to avoid replacing
positions. At Mozart Elementary, the strategy also led to an increased use of combination
classes to manage the non-replacements‘ effect on class-sizes.
Finally, all of the principals except Bach Elementary‘s, emphasized in one form
or another that the major impact the budget cuts had so far was in stifling a great deal of
innovative programs and growth that they believed would have been possible with
additional resources and support. Each principal reported that their schools had made
significant reductions in their student activities and professional development budgets,
with many putting a freeze on out of county field trips or trainings. While all reported
doing their best to find creative ways to still introduce and retain as many of these items
as possible, all claimed they had their hands full in just maintaining their most basic
services. As a result, the principals expressed a great deal of frustration in their attempts
to provide the continued support they said was essential for groups of students that
traditionally had struggled, such as English Learners, and were often primary reasons
their schools had not achieved growth targets.
Conclusion
All schools in the sample are found in small, rural single-school elementary
districts located in the Central Valley of California although they vary substantially in
152

size with one district enrolling only forty-five students while another had an enrollment
of 749. While the student demographic composition of the schools is fairly consistent in
terms of ethnicity, with the Hispanic and White subgroups representing the majority of
students at every site except one, the percentage of White and Hispanic students varies
significantly from school to school. The sample schools also feature a wide range of
English Learner (EL) and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) students in terms of
the percentage of the total enrollment that each group represents. In examining the
percentages of the two groups in each school compared to the EBM prototype school,
two of the sites have significantly more SED students than the prototype, two have
approximately the same number of SED students, and three have a substantially higher
percentage of English Learners.
However, in comparing each school‘s resources with the allocation specified by
the EBM, it is clear that all are dramatically understaffed and underfunded. One primary
exception to this is the area of class sizes where the sites feature sizes fairly close to the
recommendations of the EBM and much smaller than many other schools throughout
California. The other significant area in which the schools in the sample have more staff
than is called for by the EBM is in the number of Instructional Aides, which the EBM
does not fund because of the lack of research available to support their contribution to
increasing student performance yet represent a large number of the personnel resources
deployed at each site. Other resource areas such as the number of core and specialist
teachers, tutors for struggling students, and instructional facilitators were present in
numbers far below what was funded in the EBM if they were there at all. Per pupil
153

resource allocations to support items such as technology, professional development,
instructional materials, and student activities are also severely underfunded in the sample
schools compared to the amounts recommended in the EBM. Finally, as each of the
schools is also a self-contained school district, an examination of the resources dedicated
to functions that would normally be addressed in a central office, revealed another area
where a significant gap exists between the recommendations of the EBM and the actual
district resource allocations.
This extreme lack of resources, fortunately, has not prevented most of the schools
from implementing many research-based instructional strategies to improve student
performance. With one exception, Bach Elementary, the sample schools have all worked
to analyze their performance challenges and achievement data, implement an effective
curriculum and instructional program, and utilize data from a range of both formative and
summative assessments in their decision making. The most prevalent instructional
strategy employed by the sites in their attempts to increase student achievement was
organizing their schedules to most effectively use time and provide maximum flexibility
and educational opportunities for students; all schools, from the smallest to the largest,
innovatively made adjustments in this area to increase the efficiency of their instructional
delivery.
A number of the other instructional strategies detailed by Odden (2009) as being
key to dramatically improving student performance are also present in the sample
schools, though are not as widespread in their implementation. Several sites effectively
created collaborative cultures and distributed leadership with the principals working
154

diligently to inspire professional organizations. Additionally, in spite of the budget
crunch, some sites managed to initiate and maintain interventions for struggling students
as well as continue to provide meaningful staff development opportunities.
In analyzing the overall implementation of the various strategies across all of the
schools in the sample, it was apparent that the strategies were closely linked. Many, such
as the creation of collaborative cultures, require the presence of another strategy such as a
focus on common goals using data to drive decisions, to be fully realized. Furthermore, it
also was evident that the schools in the sample that achieved the greatest growth in their
API scores over the five year period analyzed, Liszt and Schubert Elementary, were the
sites that had emphasized and implemented the greatest number of Odden‘s (2009)
improvement strategies. Ultimately, the significant progress these two schools have
realized over the past five years coupled with the more recent success of Mozart
Elementary, demonstrates the results that are possible through the implementation of a
strategic instructional vision that is aligned to best utilize a school‘s precious resources.

155

CHAPTER 5
Discussion
Background
In its attempts to improve student achievement and maintain the country‘s
position in the world economy, the United States has focused predominantly on the
outputs of the educational system and in the process, invested ever larger amounts of
money. However, with the economic crisis affecting the country at large and the budgets
of state and local government in particular, the approach has shifted to include a new
focus on the return on investment in education (Odden & Archibald, 2000). As part of
this emphasis on both the inputs and outputs in the educational system, public schools are
charged with continuing to attempt to meet the multitude of needs of their diverse student
population, using less money in the process. Nowhere is this more apparent than in
California where student demographic shifts and massive budget reductions in recent
years have combined to make this task increasingly difficult, in turn prompting educators
to critically examine methods to increase school productivity. The deliberate use of
instructional strategies and efficient allocation of resources are key ingredients in this
effort. As a result, this study examined the various incarnations of each with an emphasis
on the associated challenges facing California‘s rural single-school districts and was
guided by the following four research questions:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
156

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 Model
detailed by Odden and Picus (2008)?
To provide a framework for the analysis of instructional strategies, this study
utilized the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009). This book
aggregated research from a wide range of sources including the Consortium for Policy
Research in Education (CPRE), a range of school finance adequacy analyses conducted
across the United States in addition to studies and best practices published by other
practitioners and academic researchers. The end result of this synthesis was the
identification of a consistent set of general strategies that schools and districts have
utilized to produce significant gains in student performance (Odden, 2009).
In evaluating the resource allocation and usage found in schools, this study
employed the Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2008). Initially
constructed using data from a variety of studies examining high-quality and successful
instructional programs, Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003) classified
expenditures across both instructional and non-instructional budget categories to form the
base of the model. Odden and Picus (2008) further refined the model by developing
157

resource-based expenditure structures for model elementary, middle, and high schools
which can then be adjusted to reflect the unique needs of a district or school‘s student
demographics. The core approach of the Evidence-Based model is to identify the
individual school-based programs, school improvement efforts, and educational strategies
most cited by researchers and practitioners as necessary ingredients in a high performing
school (Odden & Archibald, 2009). While the Evidence-Based Model is often displayed
and applied to prototypical schools, in actual use and in this research study, it was
matched to the student numbers and demographics of each school.
This study was based on a comprehensive review and analysis of the existing
literature as well as five case studies of rural single-school elementary school districts
located in the Central Valley of California. Each of the five schools is unique in terms of
their demographic composition and recent schoolwide academic performance, with a few
of the schools seeing substantial gains in student outcomes while others have experienced
no growth or seen their scores regress. Along with an examination of the schoolwide
results, the performance analysis in the case studies extended to each of the schools‘
subgroups, highlighting the respective sites‘ progress in addressing the achievement gap.
Finally, through interviews with site principals, each school‘s implementation of
instructional strategies, their resource allocations, and the adjustments they made in each
area due to recent budget reductions, were compared to the recommendations of the
Evidence-Based Model and Odden‘s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance. The following sections of this chapter present a discussion of the study‘s
158

findings, implications for practice and policy, and recommendations for additional
research.
Discussion of Findings
The findings of this study indicate that none of the five schools in the sample had
the resources the Evidence-Based Model prescribed and that the level of adoption of
instructional strategies to improve student achievement varied widely between the
schools. However, the findings do make it apparent that the schools with the widest
breadth and degree of implementation of the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (Odden, 2009) also exhibited the greatest increases in student achievement.
While four of the sites incorporated a variety of the strategies outlined by Odden (2009),
the smallest school in the study, Bach Elementary, appeared to be an outlier in enacting
near zero of the instructional strategies to improve student achievement, a fact reflected
in its API scores which were by far the lowest of all schools studied and decreasing every
year. Beyond this site, however, in analyzing the application of Odden‘s (2009) ten
strategies across the sample schools, the following four emerged as key components in a
number of the schools‘ improvement plans.
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge. As noted
above, with the exception of one school, Bach Elementary, whose principal de-
emphasized the importance of high stakes test results, it was clear that all of the other
principals in the sample were very familiar with their respective CST performance data
and were working to interpret and analyze its meaning. Most of the sites began the year
with a staff development meeting involving all teachers to review the assessment data
159

and attempt to identify trends at the student, class, grade, and school level. Each site
principal led the effort of disaggregating the data to break out information about
individual standards, students, subgroups and other areas.
The principals at Schubert, Liszt, and Chopin Elementary appeared to have the
best understanding of the issues facing their sites, though Chopin Elementary‘s principal
is in his first year in the position and it remains to be seen whether the staff will respond
to his leadership in the area. Finally, with the various schools‘ performance on the CST
over the past five years, it is clear that the sites that have consistently implemented the
approaches surrounding the analysis of data in Odden and Archibald‘s (2009) research,
have shown the most improvement in student achievement.
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program. In the
sample schools, all sites were rated as proficient or above in executing this instructional
strategy except Bach Elementary where the principal did not describe any formal efforts
to effectively implement curriculum or improve instruction.
Each of the other schools implemented many of the essential elements detailed in
research by Marzano (2003) and Odden (2009) such as creating time for collaboration
between teachers to implement the new curriculum, developing blueprints identifying
essential standards and pacing, while also involving all of the school‘s stakeholders in the
process. Sites also worked to identify gaps in the curriculum‘s coverage and locate
supplementary instructional materials to fill the voids when required.
Data-Based Decision Making. In evaluating the sample schools‘ use of data
from assessments to drive instructional decisions, once again, four of the schools
160

exhibited proficiency in the area. With the exception of Bach Elementary, the other
schools in the sample implemented a combination of benchmarks and formative
assessments, which Fullan (2005) and Marzano (2003) claim are critical to school
improvement efforts as they directly drive instruction. The sites also worked to address
one of Marzano‘s (2003) concerns by ensuring the assessments were quickly scored with
the performance data immediately analyzed and made available to staff.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively. Perhaps out of necessity due to their
small sizes and status as single-school districts, all of the schools in the sample exhibited
a number of the innovative approaches outlined by Odden (2009) to organize their
schedules in such a way that instructional time and efficiency were maximized. A
common strategy across the smallest schools was the use of combination classes where
multi-age classes were created to manage class sizes as well as the number of personnel
allocated. However, the presence of the strategy did not automatically translate into
performance improvements; instead, the sites that also emphasized the instructional
advantages that could result through looping and leveling realized the greatest API gains
and maximized what Odden (2009) terms as academic learning time. The larger schools
in the sample provided further support for the effectiveness of the strategy through their
performance gains and implementation of creative scheduling to increase collaboration
and intervention opportunities without increasing costs.
A number of the other instructional strategies detailed by Odden (2009) as being
key to dramatically improving student performance are also present in the sample
schools, though are not as widespread in their implementation. Several sites effectively
161

created collaborative cultures and distributed leadership with the principals working
diligently to inspire professional organizations. Additionally, in spite of the budget
crunch, some sites managed to initiate and maintain interventions for struggling students
as well as continue to provide meaningful staff development opportunities.
In analyzing the overall implementation of the various strategies across all of the
schools in the sample, it was apparent that the strategies were closely linked. Many, such
as the creation of collaborative cultures, required the presence of another strategy such as
a focus on common goals using data to drive decisions, to be fully realized. Furthermore,
as stated previously, it was evident that the schools in the sample that achieved the
greatest growth in their API scores over the five year period analyzed, Liszt and Schubert
Elementary, were the sites that had emphasized and implemented the greatest number of
Odden‘s (2009) improvement strategies.
Resource Allocation. In comparing each school‘s resources with the allocation
specified by the EBM, it is clear that all are dramatically understaffed and underfunded.
One primary exception to this is the area of class sizes where the sites feature sizes fairly
close to the recommendations of the EBM and much smaller than many other schools
throughout California. The one significant area in which the schools in the sample have
more staff than is called for by the EBM is in the number of Instructional Aides, which
the EBM does not fund because of the lack of research available to support their
contribution to increasing student performance yet represent a large number of the
personnel resources deployed at each site. Other resource areas such as the number of
core and specialist teachers, tutors for struggling students, and instructional facilitators
162

were present in numbers far below what was funded in the EBM if they were there at all.
Per pupil resource allocations to support items such as technology, professional
development, instructional materials, and student activities are also severely underfunded
in the sample schools compared to the amounts recommended in the EBM. Finally, as
each of the schools is also a self-contained school district, an examination of the
resources dedicated to functions that would normally be addressed in a central office,
revealed another area where a significant gap exists between the recommendations of the
EBM and the actual district resource allocations.
Implications for Policy and Practice
The results of this study provide school leaders of small schools and districts with
information on how to allocate resources for the most efficient staffing, strategies to meet
the needs of diverse students, and methods to incorporate research-based activities that
promote effective instruction. In many ways, an asset to the study was the dire financial
backdrop against which the research was conducted, supplying examples of some of the
difficult decisions principals in the schools made to best reallocate resources to achieve
instructional goals in spite of severe budget constraints. Other direct stakeholders, such
as school board members, superintendents and district program directors, will also benefit
in determining site funding allocations and ensuring that their schools are meeting the
diverse educational needs of their students. Moreover, this study presents a unique set of
data in regard to the challenges and opportunities facing single-school districts in rural
areas. Unlike much of the prior analyses and the research being conducted in parallel
with this study that must contend with the possibility that sites do not have direct control
163

of resource allocation due to the involvement of the district, this study guarantees site-
based management and decisions with all schools in the sample being the sole members
of their respective districts.
Specifically, leaders in small districts and schools that are facing budget shortages and
other resource limitations would be well advised to incorporate the following
instructional strategies in their improvement efforts: analyzing the data and understanding
the performance problem, implementing an effective curriculum and instructional
program, data-based decision making using formative and summative assessments, and
using time efficiently and effectively. In addition to setting ambitious goals and creating
a collaborative culture and distributed leadership, these strategies‘ implementation proved
to be attainable for schools of all sizes and did not require a significant amount of
additional resources. The preceding strategies were also complementary to one another,
with effort expended to instill one, often encouraging the development of another such as
a focus on common ambitious goals contributing to the creation of a collaborative
culture. Many of the approaches above are also well suited to being implemented in
small schools, with the study indicating that strategies such as using time efficiently and
creating a collaborative culture were natural byproducts of a smaller site‘s organization.
Once the above strategies are implemented, school leaders should move to address the
other instructional strategies outlined by Odden (2009) such as the establishment of
ongoing professional development, interventions for struggling students, and the
cultivation of talent and other human capital issues. In implementing these practices,
164

school leaders should carefully monitor their return on investment and measure their
impact on improving overall student performance as well as their effect on reducing the
achievement gap. Additionally, where the study indicated the achievement gap was
being bridged in a number of the sample schools through the use of many of the
improvement strategies outlined by Odden (2009), educational leaders must also closely
analyze the progress of all subgroups in their own improvement efforts to attempt to
avoid a scenario where the gap is reduced through the performance growth of some
groups and the decline of others.
Finally, given the difficult decisions approaching at the national and state levels,
policymakers will also benefit from the study because it presents relevant data and best
practices on the site-based allocation of funds. The study also provides specific resource
allocation and performance details of several of the smaller school districts in California
and given the extremely poor student achievement and financial condition of one, raises
the question of whether such small school districts and schools should remain in
operation. In instances such as Bach Elementary where transportation no longer poses a
significant challenge to students attending other districts with higher performance and
financial strength, policymakers must consider the impact that keeping these schools
open has on the state‘s budget as well as the students who underachieve by attending
them. Similarly, the accountability system should also be examined in terms of the
exemptions it gives to such schools because of their small size in meeting various
benchmarks for improvement. With the findings of the study and such analysis, the hope
165

is that sensible educational funding policies tied to recommended research-based
instructional strategies can be implemented to provide schools the efficient combination
of resources they need to succeed.
Recommendations for Additional Research
This study adds to the body of research on school-level resource allocation
strategies to improve student achievement. The focus of the study was rural single-
school districts. Given the fiscal crisis plaguing California that all of the schools found
themselves operating under at the time of the study, it would be useful for future research
to examine the resource allocation decisions of similar single-school districts during a
time that is less challenging economically. Such a study would enable the researcher to
observe the capacity of smaller schools to truly make discretionary site-based decisions,
rather than simply trying to plug budgetary holes, in terms of their resource allocation
and instructional strategy implementation. Additionally, as the existing research-based
school funding models are not built to address the small sizes of some of the school
districts in the sample and lack the necessary mechanisms to accommodate their unique
resource allocation needs, further research in the area of small districts would provide
policymakers and practitioners with needed information to determine these districts‘
place and configuration in public education.

166

REFERENCES
Alliance for Excellent Education (2010). Current Challenges and Opportunities in
Preparing Rural High School Students for Success in College and Careers: What
Federal Policymakers Need to Know. Washington, DC: Author, 2010. Retrieved
March 17, 2010, from http://www.ruraledu.org/search.php?kw=?California

Alspaugh, J. W. (2000). The effect of transition grade to high school, gender, and grade
level upon dropoutrates. American Secondary Education, 29 (1), 2-9.

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

Archibald, S., & Gallagher, H.A. (2002). A case study of professional development
expenditures at a restructured high school. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
10(29), 1-24.
Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3), 259-287
Bhatt, M. P., & Wraight, S. E. (2009). A summary of research and resources related to
state school funding formulas. Naperville, IL: Regional Educational Laboratory
Midwest at Learning Point Associates.
Blankstein, A.M. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student
achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Borman, G.D., & Boulayl,M. (Eds.).(2004). Summer learning: Research, policies, and
programs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Butler, J. (2002). Staff Development. School Improvement Research Series, 12.
Retrieved March 13, 2010 from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu12.html
California Department of Education. (2009). 2008-Accountability Progress Reporting.
Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/AcntRpt2009/2009GrowthSch.aspx
California Department of Education. (2009). Parent and guardian guide to California's
2008-2009 accountability progress reporting system. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/index.asp.
California Department of Education. (2010). DataQuest [Data file]. Retrieved March 17,
2010, from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
167

Chambers, J., Levin, J., & Delancey, D. (2007). Efficiency and adequacy in California
school finance: A professional judgment approach. Stanford, CA: Institute for
Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
Childress, S., Elmore, R. & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55-68.
Cooper, B. (1993, March). School-site cost allocation: Testing a micro-financial model in
23 districts in ten states. Paper presented at the meeting of the Annual Meeting of
the American Education Finance Association. Retrieved March 8, 2010 from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content storage
01/0000000b/80/26/57/6e.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (1999). Investing in teaching as a
learning profession: Policy problems and prospects. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Birman, B. F., Garet, M. S., & Yoon, K. S. (2002). How
do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of the
professional development that districts provide to teachers? Teachers College
Record, 104(7), 1265-1312.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002).
Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-
year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
DuFour, R. & Burnette, B. (2002). Pull out negativity by its roots. Journal of Staff
Development, 23, 1-5.
DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Indiana: National Educational
Service.
EdBrief. (2010). Budget crisis leads to dramatic rise in school districts on fiscal early
warning list. Retrieved from
http://www.educationmediagroup.com/budFin100325_warningList.php
Ed-Data. (2010). Glossary terms. Author. Retrieved April 17, 2010, from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/glossary.asp
EdSource. (2006). Similar schools, different results: Why do some schools do better?
Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
168

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

EdSource. (2009). Local revenues for schools: Limits and options in California.
Mountain View, CA: Author.

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

EdSource. (2010). School finance basics. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_basics.html

EdSource. (2010). Resource cards on California schools. Mountain View, CA: Author.

EdSource. (2010). Glossary Terms. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/1229.html

Education Trust. (2003, October 29). State funding gaps. Retrieved on March 7, 2010 at
http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/state+funding+gaps.htm

Elicker, J., & Mathur, S. (1997). What do they do all day? Comprehensive evaluation of a
full-day kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(4), 459-480. EJ 563
073.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved March 13, 2010, at
http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res11-02elmore.html
Evers, W. M., & Clopton, P. (2006). High-spending, low-performing school districts. In
E. Hanushek (Ed.), Courting failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges'
good intentions and harm our children (pp. 103-194). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.
Fashola, O. S. (1998). Review of extended-day and after school programs and their
effectiveness (Report No. 24). Washington, DC: Howard University: Center for
Research on the Education of Students Paced at Risk (Crespar).
Fermanich, M. L. (2002). School spending for professional development: A cross-case
analysis of seven schools in one urban district. The Elementary School Journal,
103(1), 27-50.
169

Fermanich, M., Mangan, M.T., Odden, A., Picus, L.O., Gross, B., and Rudo, Z. (2006).
Washington Learns: Successful District Study. Submitted to the Washington Learns
Steering Committee, Olympia, WA. Retrieved on Mar 2, 2010 at
http://washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/successfuldistreport9-11-06final_000.pdf
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action. California:
Corwin Press.
Fusaro, J. A. (1997). The effect of full-day kindergarten on student achievement: A meta-
analysis. Child Study Journal, 27(4), 269-277. EJ 561 697.
Gamoran, A., & Long, D. A. (2006). Equality of educational opportunity: A 40-year
retrospective. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University
of Wisconsin-Madison.
Glazer, E., Hannafin, M. J., & Song, L. (2005). Promoting technology integration through
collaborative apprenticeship. Educational Technology Research and Development,
53(4), 57-67.
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.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-
191.
Hanushek, E. A. (1996). The quest for equalized mediocrity: School finance reform
without consideration of school performance. In L. Picus & J. Wattenbarger (Eds.),
Where does the money go? Resource allocation in elementary and secondary
schools (pp. 20-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses :
solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America's public schools. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Hatami, H. (2006). Rules and resources: The evolving contact for school reform. In
PACE (Ed.), Crucial issues in California education 2006: Rekindling reform (pp. 1-
14). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
170

Howley, C. B. (2004). Small by design: Critiquing the urban salvation of ―small schools.‖
A paper in the symposium, ―School Structure: The Rural-Urban Divide‖, presented
at the annual meeting of the International Society for Educational Planning, October
9, 2004. Retrieved on March 6, 2010 from
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~howleyc/ISEP_2004_cbc.doc
Imazeki, J. (2008). Assessing the costs of adequacy in California public schools: A cost
function approach. Education Finance and Policy, 3(1), 90-108.

Jimerson, L. (2006). The Hobbit Effect: Why Small Works in Public Schools. Arlington,
VA: The Rural School and Community Trust.

Johnson, J. D., Howley, C. B., & Howley, A. A. (2002). Size, excellence, and equity. A
report on Arkansas schools and Districts. Athens, OH: Ohio University, College
of Education, Educational Studies Department. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 459 987)

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

Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (2001). Restructuring high schools for equity and excellence:
What works. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Linley, L. (1999). Multi-age classes and high ability students. Review of Educational
Research, 69 (2), 187-212.

Lipson, A. J., & Lavin, M. (1980). Political and legal responses to Proposition 13 in
California. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Loeb, S. (2007, August 6). Difficulties of estimating the cost of achieving education
standards (Working Paper 23). Stanford: School Finance Redesign Project.
Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom?
Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal
of Education, 106(4), 532-575.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: Qualitative approach. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
171

Miller, L., Roza, M., & Swartz, C. (2004). A cost allocation model for shared district
resources: A means for comparing spending across schools (CRPE Working Paper
2004-4). Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The condition of education: Glossary.
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March 6,
2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/glossary/
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: United States Government
Printing Office.
Odden, A. R. (2000). The costs of sustaining educational change through comprehensive
school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 433-438.

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

Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. J. (2009). Doubling student performance:... and finding the
resources to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
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. R., & Picus, L. O. (2008). School finance : A policy perspective (4th ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Aportela, A., Archibald, S. (2008). Funding
Schools Adequately in North Dakota: Resources to Double Student Performance.
North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.

Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Fermanich, M., Seder, R., Glenn, W., et al. (2005).
An evidence-based approach to recalibrating Wyoming's block grant school
funding formula. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.

Olsen, L. (2005, January 6). Financial evolution. Education Week, 24(17), 8-12.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

172

Perez, M., Parish, T., Anand, P., Speroni, C., Esra, P., Socias, M., et al. (2007). Schools,
resources, and efficiency. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Education
Policy and Practice, Stanford University.

Picus, L. O. (2006). Funding California's schools, Part I: Past, present, and future? In
PACE (Ed.), Crucial issues in California education 2006: Rekindling reform (pp.
15-26). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.

Picus, L. O., & Wattenbarger, J. L. (Eds.). (1996). Where does the money go? Resource
allocation in elementary and secondary education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

Policy Analysis for California Education. (2006). Crucial issues in California education
2006: Rekindling reform. Berkeley, CA: Author, University of California-
Berkeley.

Provasnik, S. et al., (2007). Status of Education in Rural America. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center on Education Statistics.

Raywid, M. A. (1999). Current literature on small schools. ERIC Digest. Charleston,
WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools (ED425049).

Rural and Community Trust (2003). Distance Learning Technologies: Giving Small
Schools Big Capabilities. 2003)

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.

Riew, J. (1986). Scale Economies, Capacity Utilization and School Cost: A Comparative
Analysis of Secondary and Elementary Schools. Journal of Education Finance,
11, 433-440.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements
in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584 (1971). (Serrano I)

Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal. 3d 728 (1976). (Serrano II)

Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal. 3d 25 (1977). (Serrano III)

173

Slavin, R. E. (2005). Evidence-based reform: Advancing the education of students at risk.
Washington, DC: Center for American Progress and the Institute for America's
Future.

Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
behind: Practical insights for school leaders. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on
science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.

Symonds, K.W. (2004). After the test: Closing the achievement gaps with data.
Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates and Bay Area School Reform
Collaborative.

The Rural and Community Trust (2006). Anything But Research-based: State Initiatives
to Consolidate Schools and Districts. Retrieved April 17, 2010, from
http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=2034

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

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

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Comprehensive school reform project. Author.
Retrieved April 30, 2010, from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/compreform/2pager.html

Walter, F. B., & Sweetland, S. R. (2003). School finance reform: an unresolved issue
across the nation. The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, 121(1),
143-150.

Wasley, Patricia A., et al., (2000). Small Schools: Great Strides, A Study of New Small
Schools in Chicago, The Bank Street College of Education.

Wood, R. C., Smith, S., Baker, B., Cooper, B., DiOrio, R., McLaughlin, C., et al. (2006).
State of Rhode Island Education Adequacy Study. Rhode Island: R. C. Wood &
Associates.

174

APPENDIX A – IRB APPROVAL

175

APPENDIX B – SITE PERMISSION LETTER
Dear Principal/Superintendent ___________,
Thank you for taking the time to consider my request for your participation in a study I
am conducting for my doctoral dissertation at the University of Southern California
(USC) with Dr. Lawrence O. Picus as my advisor. It is one of twelve around the state
centered on schools‘ resource allocation and their efforts to improve student achievement.
I am conducting a mixed methods study, using both qualitative and quantitative data
utilizing the Adequacy Model developed by Odden and Picus in addition to Odden's 10
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. Both the states of Wyoming and
Washington use the Evidence-based Adequacy model as their templates for funding the
respective state educational systems and the intent of the studies at USC is to determine
how California schools compare in their resource use.
For my specific focus, I am researching single-school K-8 districts in the Central Valley
who receive Title I funds. I would very much appreciate being able speak with you at
some point during the summer or the next school year (approximately August or
September) regarding your school/district‘s resource allocation and instructional
improvement strategies. Each school studied will remain completely anonymous with
pseudonyms used throughout the research rather than the actual school/district/person‘s
names as dictated by the strict confidentiality rules mandated by USC.
Currently, I am completing Chapters 1 -3 (Introduction, Literature Review, and
Methodology) of my dissertation with my qualifying exams on the work scheduled for
the middle of May. With a little luck and a lot of work, my qualifying exam should be
approved and I will then be allowed to collect my data. I anticipate it would be sometime
after this date that I would need to schedule a time to interview you. I do not expect the
interview to take more than a couple of hours total and will be sure to be as well prepared
and organized as possible to streamline the process as I know how valuable your time is.
I would be happy to break it into multiple sessions, if that is your preference. I will not
need to interview other staff members, observe lessons, etc.
Please let me know if you would be willing to participate in the study or if I might be
able to answer any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Nate Nelson
176

APPENDIX C – INFORMED CONSENT

[DATE]
UPIRB Chair
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB)
3601 Watt Way – GFS 306
Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695

RE: Dr. Lawrence O. Picus
Nathan Nelson
Resource Allocation and Instructional Improvement Strategies in Single-School
K-8 Title I Districts

Dear UPIRB Chair:

This letter is to convey that I have reviewed the proposed research study entitled
―Resource Allocation and Instructional Improvement Strategies in Rural Single-School
Elementary Districts‖ being conducted by Nathan Nelson from the University of
Southern California. I understand that research activities as described in the proposed
research study will occur at ___________. I give permission for the above investigator(s)
to conduct their study at this site. If you have any questions regarding this permission
letter, please contact me at _____________.

Sincerely,
[Name]
[PRINCIPAL/SUPERINTENDENT]
177

APPENDIX D – QUANTITATIVE 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 #
178

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)
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:
179

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:

180

Core academic teachers (General Education Self Contained) FTEs
Kindergarten (Indicate if Full day program)
Grade 1
Grade 2
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
181

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
ELL Class Teachers
Aides for ELL
Gifted Program Teachers
Gifted Program Aides
182

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
183

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) $
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 $
184

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
Description of Other Administrator:
185

Secretary
Clerical staff
Technology Coordinator/ I.T.
Security
Custodians
NOTES:

Elementary School Class Sizes
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4
Special Education
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8

186

APPENDIX E – 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 are paid to work less than 1.0 FTE with the school, yet are 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 provide 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.
187

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

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.
188

Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol School Sites
Following are open-ended questions intended to capture each school’s strategies for
improving student performance. Ask the questions in the order that they appear on this
protocol. Record the principal’s answers as s/he gives them and focus on getting the key
elements of the instructional improvement effort with less emphasis on the process
aspect.
I. Tell me the story of how your school improved student performance.
A. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy?

1. What has the content focus of your improvement process been?
(E.g. Reading, Math, Reading First, Math Helping Corps, etc.)
2. What curricula have you used during your instructional improvement
effort? (E.g. Open Court reading, Everyday Math, etc.)
 Is it aligned with state standards?
 How do you know it is aligned? (E.g. District recent review for
alignment)
3. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement effort?
 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?

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

189

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

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

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?
190

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).

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
191

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 be 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
192

M. State: ―WY‖ is automatically be entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

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
193

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.)
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.
194

Example:
Grade 1: Matthew Perry (0.5), Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston;
Grade 2: David Schwimmer (0.25), Courtney Cox (0.33), Matt LeBlanc

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.

195

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

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 a 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.
196

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.
N. Other Extra Help Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who
provide 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 do.
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.
197

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 provide students
with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum after school.
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 who
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.
198

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
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).
199

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.
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 development is, 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.)
200

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
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.

201

APPENDIX G – SCHOOL VISIT INTERVIEW DATES
School 1 Bach Elementary School November 30, 2010
School 2 Chopin Elementary School December 3, 2010
School 3 Liszt Elementary School November 30, 2010
School 4 Mozart Elementary School December 1, 2010
School 5 Schubert Elementary School December 3, 2010

202

APPENDIX H – CASE STUDY 1
Bach Elementary School
Background on the School and District
Bach Elementary is a rural single-school elementary K-6 school district located in
the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the Central Valley of California. The
school district was organized in 1874 and operates on a traditional schedule. As an
elementary district, it services 45 students and its students feed into a substantially larger
unified district eleven miles away to attend middle and high school.
Bach Elementary‘s student population is composed of three ethnicities with fifty-
nine percent (59%) of the student body classified as Native American, twenty-two
percent (22%) categorized as Hispanic or Latino, and White students making up the
remaining nineteen percent (19%). A graph representing the distribution of the school‘s
population is displayed below in Figure H.1. Additionally, fifty-four (54%) percent of
the students are categorized as Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) and the school
is in a unique position for being located in the California Central Valley in having no
students classified as English Learners (EL).

203

Figure H.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Bach Elementary School

The purpose of this case study is to examine the school‘s decisions surrounding
resource allocation and the implementation of instructional improvement strategies and
the extent to which the two have combined to increase student achievement.
Test Results/Achievement Gap
For the past five years, Bach Elementary has experienced a dramatic decline
overall in its student performance as measured by the school‘s score on the California
Academic Performance Index (API). As Figure H.2 displays below, in the 2005/2006
school year, Bach Elementary School‘s API score was 668 after which it decreased to
552 in the following year, increased to 585 the year after, and decreased to 550 in the
fourth year. The school‘s most recent API score was 530, producing a total decline of
158 points in the five year period.
204

Figure H.2: Bach Elementary School API

The school‘s performance as measured by the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
report shows a similar overall downward trend in Language Arts with only nineteen
percent (19%) of the student population scoring proficient or advanced, which is a
decrease of thirteen percent (13%) from the from the original level of thirty-two percent
(32%) from five years earlier. Additionally, the report which is displayed below in
Figure H.3 also includes the individual performance of the various significant subgroups
that compose the school‘s student body. As is displayed in the graph, the percentage of
each subgroup scoring proficient or advanced is significantly lower than it was five years
ago.
205

Figure H.3: Bach Elementary School Language Arts AYP (% of students proficient or
advanced)

Bach Elementary‘s performance as measured by the Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) report paints a very similar picture in Mathematics with the school having only
nineteen percent (19%) of the student population scoring proficient or advanced, a
decrease of thirteen percent (13%) from the from the original level of thirty-two percent
(32%) from five years earlier as displayed in Figure H.4. As was the case with language
arts, all subgroups declined and it is important to note that all had the same level of poor
performance and as a result there is no performance gap to speak of.
206

Figure H.4: Bach Elementary School Math AYP (% of students proficient or advanced)

Key Elements and Themes of the Instructional Improvement Process
The current principal/superintendent is in his fifth year as a part-time
administrator with the district after serving as the superintendent in a relatively high
performing small single school district in a neighboring community for twenty years. In
accepting the part-time position with Bach Elementary and emerging from his brief
retirement, the principal shared his desire to keep busy and also related that his main
charge upon being hired was to assist the district financially after years of
mismanagement, hinting that the board suspected the previous administrator of fraudulent
behavior. He claimed that he originally planned on staying only a couple of years until
the fiscal situation was stabilized, but the severity of the financial problems coupled with
the state budget cuts had prolonged his tenure. In utilizing the Ten Strategies for
207

Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) below as an organizing framework and
examining the degree of implementation of each strategy and how it relates to improving
student outcomes in the Bach Elementary School, it became clear that the financial
condition of the district was so grave that the superintendent spoke about school
improvement and instructional strategies more as afterthoughts than primary focuses.
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge
In addressing assessment data and the performance challenges facing the school
district, the principal did not express a great deal of concern or familiarity despite
significant decrease in the school‘s API and percentage of students scoring proficient as
measured by the AYP in English and Math. The principal stated that the most important
part of delivering a quality education and making improvement was ―letting teachers be
teachers‖ and that one of the main problems he sees facing all schools is that standards
based education has turned teachers into presenters of material rather than teachers of it.
Setting Ambitious Goals
In the discussion surrounding goals established at the school, the principal shared
that before the school year began, the teachers would get together and discuss what they
called ‗grade expectations‘ where the teachers at the various grade levels communicated
what they expected students to know when exiting a grade. Additionally, the principal
stated that the goal was that the minimum a student‘s skills would grow during the school
year would be a grade level and then if the student was still behind the teachers would
work to catch the child up.
208

Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program
The principal shared that the school always attempted to get the best curriculum
approved by the state, but quickly stressed that the curriculum didn‘t make the classroom
and that the teacher was the most important element to effective instruction. He
expanded this thought by saying that if a class had a good teacher, curriculum wasn‘t
even necessary, especially in a small school district. However, he did state that with the
curriculum that was used, such as Saxon for Mathematics, the school attempted to be
flexible yet rigorous with its implementation. For example, in Saxon Math the principal
shared that the school attempted to use the curriculum one grade level above where the
student actually was to provide a sufficient challenge.
Data-based Decision Making
Assessments at the school appear to be administered anywhere from twice a week
to every five weeks with the teachers evaluating the results and if necessary going back
over the material to address areas where they were unsuccessful initially. The principal
discusses these efforts with the teachers informally to check in on their progress and, if
necessary, provide any assistance they might require.
Ongoing Professional Development
Much of the work surrounding the assessment administration discussed above was
the result of a three day training session conducted by the county office of education two
years ago. According to the principal, this training provided suggestions and basic
pacing guidelines which the teachers have since adjusted and are still using today. Since
that intensive staff development, the principal mentioned that he tries to bring in
209

professional development when he can and that the school has one minimum day a month
during which he often schedules staff development which is typically provided by county
consultants.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
Out of necessity because of its small size, Bach Elementary is divided into three
combination classes: K-1, 2-3, and 4-6. According to the principal this format allows
maximum flexibility in terms of grouping students for instruction and one of his first
priorities in arriving was actually to attempt to get the teachers to move away from the
idea that a child needed to be locked into a particular grade. As a result, students in one
grade level are often mixed with students from another within a class and when
appropriate, students are moved into another physical class. The principal shared that
small class sizes make this easier where because none of the three classes has more than
15 students, there is plenty of space to accommodate kids moving between classes.
Providing Interventions for Struggling Students
With approximately sixty percent of its students being Native American children
that live on a reservation a few miles away, Bach Elementary School‘s principal was
pleased to relate that the affiliated tribe had setup an Education Center on the reservation
to provide homework assistance and other help to their students. However, aside from
the bus run to transport the students to the center after school, which would have occurred
regardless to bring the students home, the district does not commit any resources to the
effort with the funds being provided entirely by the Tribal Council.
210

On a related note, the principal shared that while the Education Center was a
positive development, he personally felt that the tribal council did not do enough to
encourage high academic achievement from reservation students. He related that the
families on the reservation received money based on their students attendance, but there
was no incentive for the students to work he believed most families looked at schooling
as a form of babysitting.
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership
Teachers meet together every two weeks according to the principal and review the
results of assessments or discuss discipline problems they are having with students in
class as well as soliciting advice regarding effective instructional strategies for a
particular lesson. As he is only on campus for a limited amount of time and also values
giving teachers maximum flexibility, the principal shared that he rarely attends these
meetings and as mentioned previously his interactions with the teachers are generally
one-on-one informal discussions. Additionally, the small size of the school naturally
requires the teachers to be self-sufficient yet the staff also feels very comfortable in
coming to him with ideas or concerns as everybody knows everybody else on the
campus.
Inspiring a Professional Organization
Aside from emphasizing that his teachers were all professionals that generally
knew what was best for each student and as a result, giving them the freedom to make
their own instructional decisions, the principal of Bach Elementary did not address items
research has proven inspire professional organizations.
211

Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues
As was the case with the lack of detail surrounding the school‘s attempts to
inspire a professional organization, the principal did not address the items surrounding
the cultivation of talent and other human capital issues such as recruitment and retention.
Evaluation of Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance
Table H.1 is a summary of the degree to which Bach Elementary has implemented
the 10 Steps to Double Student Performance.
Table H.1: Bach Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Increase Student
Performance
Instructional
Strategy
Degree of Implementation Notes
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Below
Basic
Far Below
Basic
Analyzing the
Data &
Understanding
the Performance
Challenge
█
The principal de-emphasized the importance
of high stakes test results and did not provide
a content focus or engagement strategy to
address the performance problems plaguing
the district.
Setting
Ambitious Goals

█
While teachers from multiple grade levels
met before school to discuss vertical
articulation and expectations, the principal
did not share or seem to have established a
schoolwide goal.
Implementing an
Effective
Curriculum &
Instructional
Program

█
Aside from adopting state approved
textbooks, the principal did not describe
efforts to effectively implement the
curriculum or improve instruction.
212

Table H.1, Continued
Data-Based
Decision Making

█
Assessments are delivered on a varying
schedule with the results only discussed
informally with the principal as the teachers
are largely left to their own judgment in terms
of what action is taken.
Ongoing
Professional
Development
█
While there is one minimum day scheduled
each month, there is no formal plan or regular
staff development planned.
Using Time
Efficiently &
Effectively

█
The school does its best to leverage the
benefits afforded by small class sizes and
grade combinations by leveling students.
Providing
Interventions for
Struggling
Students

█
The only intervention is an extended day
program that is not provided by the school nor
funded with any of its resources for Native
American students that live on a nearby
reservation.
Creating
Collaborative
Cultures &
Distributed
Leadership

█

Touting the benefits a small school provides
and the necessity for teachers to be largely
self- sufficient because of the limited support
resources available, the principal described a
very comfortable environment for
communication where staff members
ultimately make decisions together to get
things done.
Inspiring a
Professional
Organization
█
None of the elements described in the
research for this strategy were evident as the
principal discussed the school.
Addressing
Talent & Human
Capital Issues

█
None of the elements described in the
research for this strategy were evident as the
principal discussed the school.

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
This is one of two case studies where a table comparing the resources present in
the studied school and those specified by the Evidence Based Model using a prototypical
Elementary School of 432 students as a guide, is not utilized due to the extremely small
213

size of the studied school. Instead, the following guidelines have been developed to
apply the Evidence Based Model to small schools:
 Schools from with forty-nine or fewer students are resourced at 1 FTE assistant
principal plus 1 FTE teacher position for every seven students, with a minimum
of two FTE. For example, this formula would provide 2 FTE teaching positions
for a 1-7 student school, 3 FTE positions for a 14 student school, and 4 FTE
positions for the 21 student school, prorating the FTE count for schools with a
number of students that lay in between these figures (Odden, Picus & Goetz,
2005).
 The resources are flexible to allow a variety of combinations of staffing teachers,
aides, specialists and principals along with combined positions for secretarial,
maintenance, and other classified duties. In the case of classified staff, which are
typically compensated at a lower rate than certificated, the staff FTE resources
are allocated at the rate of a certificated FTE. For example, if certificated staff
were paid at an average rate of thirty dollars per hour, while a classified position
was paid at $15 per hour, a school could allocate two classified positions for
every 1 FTE generated by the formula.
 Standard resource formulas are used for schools with between 50 and 96 total
students, with the principal prorated from 1 FTE at an enrollment of 96 down to
.5 FTE for the 50 student elementary school.
214

With Bach Elementary having a current student enrollment of 45, according to the
guidelines above, it would generate the base 1 FTE Assistant Principal plus 6.5 additional
FTE for a total of 7.5 FTE; these FTE could be distributed across various job duties to
achieve the required coverage to operate the school. As described previously, in the case
of classified staff, depending on the average compensation for certificated and the rate for
a particular classified position, the school would generally end up with a greater than 1:1
ratio of classified staff members per allocated FTE in the model.
The actual resource status at Bach Elementary is significantly lower than the
EBM guidelines for school of its size. Without including benefits, the average hourly
compensation of certificated staff is $41 per hour while the average compensation of
classified is $14. The school has three full-time teachers for grades K-1, 2-3, and 4-6 in
addition to the principal who works a couple of hours each day on an irregular schedule,
which translates to approximately .25 FTE. Additionally, the school employs a full-time
secretary, a full-time Bus Driver/Maintenance person, and three instructional aides that
equate to almost 2.75 FTE; as a result, the total number of classified FTE is 4.75, which
equates to approximately 1.6 certificated FTE. The total number of FTE at the school to
compare to the model is 4.85, which leaves a gap of 2.65 FTE, a significant amount of
personnel for a school its size.
Another complicating factor in analyzing the resources at Bach Elementary and
comparing them to the guidelines provided by the EBM is the fact that along with being a
small school, Bach Elementary is a self-contained district as well. While little research
exists to determine the optimum staffing model in a central office as many of the
215

positions housed within are often funded by federal or special education funds, Odden,
Picus & Goetz (2008) conducted a number of professional judgment panels and focus
groups that have provided a recommended design for a central office to support a
prototypical district of 3,500 students. The model they propose divides positions into
three different categories of staffing: Administrative, Professional, and Clerical. These
groups consist of 1 Superintendent, 1 Assistant Superintendent, 1 Business Manager, 1
HR Manager, 1 Director of Special Education, 1 Director of Pupil Services, 1 Director of
Technology, 1 Psychologist, 1 Director of Maintenance/Operations, 1 Payroll Clerk, 1
AP Clerk, and 4 Secretaries.
In their research in North Dakota, Odden, Picus & Goetz (2008) extended the
calculations to smaller districts where in a North Dakota district of 2,000 students, the
model would provide 5.1 senior administrative and 5.14 secretarial positions, and half
that, or 2.6 senior administrative and 2.57 secretarial positions for a 1,000 student district.
Previously, in their work in Wyoming (Odden, Picus & Goetz, 2005), a similar
calculation was reached for districts with 500 or less students where their formula
generated 3 admin and 3 secretarial positions.
California, the state in which Bach Elementary is located, is surprisingly unique in
that while being the most populous state in the United States with many of the biggest
districts in the country, it features a large number of single school districts with student
enrollments substantially less than the models above. As a result, it is difficult to use
existing research to estimate the optimum number and distribution of central office staff
in a school district such as Bach Elementary. However, given the responsibilities that are
216

incumbent upon a district office to perform such as supervising curriculum and
instructional programs, implementing federal, state, and local reforms, as well as the
management of the budget and facilities, it is clear that at least some additional resources
are required for even the smallest districts. While many of these districts can and do
obtain a large amount of support from their county offices of education, additional
personnel at the district are still necessary to act as liaisons and coordinate these district
responsibilities. In the case of Bach Elementary, aside from the employment of a part-
time .25 FTE bookkeeper, no additional resources exist and it is evident the central office
component of the school district is another area where a significant gap exists between
the recommendations of the EBM and the actual district resource allocation.
Summary and Lessons Learned
Bach Elementary has experienced a dramatic decline in its performance as
measured on state tests. After examining these assessment results and current school
environment in greater detail, the following items are noteworthy:
 There is not a significant performance gap as all subgroups in the school perform
equally as poorly on state tests.
 No emphasis is placed on using data to guide instructional decisions.
 While the principal stressed the professionalism of the school‘s teachers and that
he generally only had informal discussions with them, this approach appears to
have resulted in a lack of focus and common goals for improvement.
217

 Opportunities for professional development exist with one minimum day
scheduled a month, however, there is not internal capacity to provide it or a
cohesive strategy to secure ongoing, meaningful staff development from a third-
party such as the county office of education.
 Bach Elementary attempts to use its small class sizes and multi-age classrooms to
their fullest advantage, regularly grouping students by ability level rather than
age.
 No resources are allocated to providing interventions for struggling students with
the only assistance being offered off-site on an Indian Reservation where many of
its students live and not being affiliated with the school or funded using any of its
resources.
Future Considerations
According to the principal, Bach Elementary is a school district that is in a fight to
survive after years of fiscal mismanagement. Rather than voicing concerns surrounding
the substantial decrease in performance the school has experienced on state tests over the
past five years, the principal‘s primary focus was on the school‘s overall enrollment and
how it related to the district‘s position on the schedule for the California Necessary Small
School Allowance an alternative mechanism of funding schools rather than the standard
revenue limit which provides additional funding to schools that are classified as such
because they cannot realize economies of scale (EdSource, 2010). This allowance
provides four different tiers of funding based on the number of students enrolled: 1 -
218

24.49 ADA generates $132,875; 24.5 – 48.49 ADA generates $265,750; 48.5 – 72.49
ADA generates $398,625; and 72.5 – 96.49 ADA generates $531,500 (California
Department of Education, 2009). As Bach Elementary has a current enrollment of 45
students they are in the top end of the second tier and generate $265,750 in total funding
under the allowance. The principal stated that it was essential for the district to recruit
just four additional students to continue as an independent entity though he was already
planning on meeting with the unified district to which his students matriculated, to
explore the logistics surrounding consolidation at the close of the current school year.
219

APPENDIX I – CASE STUDY 2
Chopin Elementary School
Background on the School and District
Chopin Elementary is a rural single-school elementary K-8 school district located
in the Central Valley of California. The school district was founded over eighty years
ago and operates on a traditional schedule, maintaining its profile as a single school
district that is coterminous with a larger unified school district in the area. It currently
services the predominantly agricultural based community in which it is located with an
enrollment of 430 students.
Chopin‘s student population is overwhelmingly of Hispanic or Latino descent,
with students of that ethnic group representing 90% of the school‘s total population. The
other significant student ethnicity is white students which comprise 9% of the school‘s
population; the remaining one percent is split between several other ethnic groups. A
graph representing the makeup of the school‘s population is displayed below in Figure
I.1. Additionally, seventy-five (75%) percent of the students are categorized as
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) and over forty-three (43%) percent are
classified as English Learners (EL).
220

Figure I.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Chopin Elementary School

The purpose of this case study is to examine the school‘s decisions surrounding
resource allocation and the implementation of instructional improvement strategies and
the extent to which the two have combined to increase student achievement.
Test Results/Achievement Gap
For the past five years, Chopin Elementary has experienced virtually no growth
overall in its student performance as measured by the school‘s score on the California
Academic Performance Index (API). As Figure I.2 displays below, in the 2005/2006
school year, Chopin Elementary‘s API score was 725 after which it decreased to a low of
709 and increased as high as 736. The school‘s most recent API score was 724, placing it
at approximately the same point as it stood five years earlier.
221

Figure I.2: Chopin Elementary School API

The school‘s performance as measured by the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
report shows a similar overall trend in Language Arts where approximately forty percent
(40%) of the student population scoring proficient or advanced, which is practically the
same percentage as five years earlier. Additionally, the report, which is displayed below
in Figure I.3 also includes the individual performance of the various significant
subgroups that makeup the school‘s student body. Interestingly, while all of the other
subgroups made some improvement over the five year period, the White student group
saw a significant decline, dropping from over sixty percent (60%) proficient to less than
fifty percent (50%) in the five years analyzed.
222

Figure I.3: Chopin Elementary School Language Arts AYP (% of students proficient or
advanced)

Chopin Elementary‘s performance as measured by the Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) report paints a more positive picture in Mathematics with the school realizing a
ten point increase over the five year period schoolwide as displayed in Figure I.4. Unlike
in Language Arts where the White subgroup saw a significant decline, every group‘s
scores increased in Mathematics. The Hispanic and SED groups posted increases of
more than fifteen (15%) percent with the English Learners and White groups showing
eleven percent (11%) and five percent (5%) gains respectively. Finally, while the White
student group did not see anywhere close to the gains of the other subgroups, there is still
a significant gap between their performance and that of the other groups in Mathematics.
223

Figure I.4: Chopin Elementary School Math AYP (% of students proficient or advanced)

Key Elements and Themes of the Instructional Improvement Process
The current principal/superintendent is in his first year at Chopin Elementary and
was brought in to replace the previous superintendent who had served in the position for
over ten years. With a tradition of administrators that are cultivated from within and
typically have extended tenures, the hiring of the current principal was a departure as he
worked in a larger outside district in the area for a number of years before accepting the
position at Chopin. While in a comparatively strong position fiscally, a lack of growth in
its overall academic performance coupled with a steadily decreasing State and Similar
Schools Ranking prompted the School Board to seek out an administrator with a
reputation as an instructional leader with the retirement of the previous principal.
As an administrator for the past twelve years in a larger neighboring district, the
current principal of Chopin fit this description, successfully leading both an elementary
224

and middle school to reverse years of stagnant growth and post significant gains in
student achievement across all student groups. In accepting the position, the principal
stated that Chopin Elementary appealed to his desire for a new challenge and that he also
truly believed had the resources and support necessary to build a high performing school
that would serve all students. In analyzing the principal and school‘s efforts in this
endeavor, this case study will utilize the Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance (Odden, 2009) as an organizing framework and evaluate the degree of
implementation of each strategy and how it relates to improving student outcomes.
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge
Before interviewing for the position, the principal shared that he reviewed the
available demographic and performance data for the school. He was surprised to learn
that the school was performing comparatively well in the area of Language Arts given its
demographic composition, where almost half of its students were classified as English
Learners and that its performance was comparable to other schools in the area that had
fewer English Learners. While noting that the performance was fairly stagnant
schoolwide and had seen significant decreases in the White subgroup, he saw
Mathematics as an area that was unacceptably low. Comparatively, Chopin
underperformed similar schools in the area by as much as twenty percent (20%) in terms
of the percentage of proficient or advanced students and the principal looked to this as
one of his major goals for improvement.
225

Setting Ambitious Goals
While raising the percentage of proficient students in Mathematics on the state
test was a general goal, in attempting to understand some of the reasons for the
performance gap in Math, the principal narrowed down much of the difference to the
school‘s poor performance in Algebra where only four percent (4%) of its students were
proficient or advanced. He identified a personnel issue where he found multiple subject
teachers struggling to teach Algebra and often watering down their lessons so they would
feel personally comfortable delivering the content. Additionally, he learned that
Mathematics was often the time that was shortened during the day whenever an event or
activity interfered. To combat this he mandated sixty minutes of uninterrupted Math
instruction every day.
As a result, the principal has stated that the school should have no problem
outperforming their growth target of six points and that the school is targeting an eighteen
point increase, three times as much as the state is suggesting. In the first year, he wants
to double the number of students scoring proficient or advanced in Algebra specifically.
Additionally, the principal has worked with teachers to identify five students in their
classes who are on the edge of a performance band, either at the high side of one or the
low side of another, to focus on to ensure they increase their performance. The identified
students sit down with both the teacher and principal and discuss the approach they will
take to achieve this goal.
226

Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program
While the district utilizes the state approved curriculum, using Houghton Mifflin
in English and McDougal Littell in Math and is generally satisfied with their content and
the breadth of standards covered, they are working through issues related to pacing. The
principal found that a large number of staff were still teaching to the textbook, working
methodically from beginning to end. In working with various grade levels, they quickly
identified a number of problems with this approach where a number of the most heavily
emphasized standards on the CST would not be covered until after the test was already
administered. Consequently, they worked to develop a modified pacing guide to better
mesh with the testing calendar, creating a series of posters that cover every standard that
they teach and when a teacher addresses a particular standard in a lesson, they put a
check mark next to it to indicate it was covered. Then at each trimester, they will
examine their coverage and make adjustments where necessary.
Along with identifying the essential standards and modifying pacing, the principal
has also utilized technology to ensure that all of the resources and content that is made
available in the curriculum is accessible to teachers and students. For example, a large
amount of the new language arts Houghton Mifflin adoption was exclusively available on
DVD. Unfortunately, not all of the primary classrooms were equipped with the necessary
equipment to display the media and so the principal worked with the School Board who
approved the installation of a document camera, screen, and projector hooked to a
computer in each classroom so that the curriculum and other content would be available.
227

Data-based Decision Making
This is perhaps the instructional strategy that the new principal is most passionate
about and has expended the most effort to implement. He stated that when he arrived it
was clear that the teachers did not know how to actually use data. Most teachers were not
aware that the school was entering their third year of program improvement and while
they had all been given the CST scores of their students, no real analysis had occurred
that would impact their instruction. With this reality, the principal immediately set about
working to change the staff‘s mindset to one in which data was the driver of all decisions.
Beginning almost a week before school started, the principal conducted a number
of staff development meetings dedicated to examining the CST data to identify potential
concerns across grade levels, pacing, and individual student challenges. Moreover, he
identified and communicated the names of all of the school‘s English Learners to each
teacher so they would be aware of their needs and could provide additional assistance.
Once school began, he emphasized a major overhaul of the school‘s Benchmark Tests
was in order and worked with teachers to redesign the assessments as well as increase the
frequency of their administration. Instead of every 12 weeks, the Benchmarks are
delivered every six, with the principal analyzing reports in Edusoft after their
administration and sharing the results with teachers individually. To demonstrate how
carefully he examines the results, the principal selects two or three students from every
class that appear to be struggling and personally asks their teachers what they are
planning to do to address their needs.
228

Ongoing Professional Development
After working in a larger district for years, the principal spoke about the difficulty
he had already encountered in providing meaningful staff development in a small school
district. Rather than being able to leverage the expertise or resources in another school or
take advantage of services provided by the district office, the principal stated that he
immediately learned that he would need to lean on the County Office of Education
(COE). A number of the professional development opportunities he has sent his staff to
attend are one-day workshops offered by the county. Additionally, there are several
educational consultants that work out of the COE and provide site-based training in areas
such as integrating technology into the classroom.
The principal also established several other contracts with outside professional
development providers such as Dennis Parker who comes in bi-monthly to train staff in
his Strategic Schooling Model as well as DataWORKS who have conducted several
trainings on Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI). While the district is a member of the
Small School District Consortium in the county, he has yet to take advantage of any of
the training opportunities they provide and stated that they have been redundant to this
point such as their basic introduction of Dennis Parker‘s model. The principal has also
worked with the superintendent of the high school district to which Chopin Elementary is
a feeder to address the Algebra performance problem specifically and now has his eighth
grade Algebra teachers included in the high school department meetings, collaboration,
and professional development opportunities.
229

Finally, the principal expressed an appreciation for the fact that the contract
provided for an early release day each week that allowed time for staff collaboration as
well as professional development activities he orchestrated school wide.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
As stated previously, the principal immediately made changes in mandating an
uninterrupted sixty minutes of instruction in Mathematics each day. He also stressed that
the school was in a fortunate position for its size and location in having a full time music
teacher which enabled the school to use the time in which students were in their music
class (which occurred twice a week) to have teachers work collaboratively. Additionally,
while the seventh and eighth grade classes are self-contained as in all of the other grades,
the teachers do deploy for math to enable students of similar skills levels to be grouped
according to ability. This enables the teachers to enact more differentiated instruction
and is organized so that struggling students are kept in the smallest group possible to
receive increased assistance.
Providing Interventions for Struggling Students
A new effort this year is the introduction of lunchtime interventions where
students who do not score above a seventy percent (70%) on weekly focus standard
assessments are sent to teachers who are paid during their lunch to conduct targeted
interventions. These students are required to attend interventions for three days a week
during the two week period after the standard was originally taught. The principal noted
he often walks into classrooms during lunch where the teacher has a sandwich in one
hand and a dry-erase marker in the other as they work. Afterward, the students are not
230

re-assessed after the intervention period ends, instead they continue to work with the rest
of their class to minimize the number of assessments and not adversely impact pacing.
The principal did lament that beyond the lunchtime interventions, the school was
handicapped by the budget and the high number of students that required bussing to get
home from school, and as a result it was not feasible to provide formal after school
interventions. There are informal interventions that occur with teachers staying on their
own time and contacting parents to arrange transportation for struggling students.
This particular school was unique among the schools interviewed in the sample in
that it was only one of two sites to run a summer school program the previous summer.
All of the other sites had eliminated their summer school offering, but the principal stated
that Chopin Elementary worked very hard to keep their program as it serviced a number
of students that were struggling in the core academic areas yet also provided a
recreational and cultural learning opportunity with a performing arts component.
However, he did indicate that with the continued state economic crisis, it was possible the
only summer school the district would be able to offer was through the Migrant program
this year.
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership
While the principal stated that it appeared there was a serious lack of
understanding and emphasis on using data to drive instruction when he first arrived and
that he had to dominate a number of early discussions on the topic and other subjects, he
also understood that he would not be able to sustain the approach. He quickly identified
231

several teachers who appeared to be interested and willing to take leadership roles in the
improvement process.
The issue of assessments was particularly contentious initially with many teachers
stating that their students were unable to perform some of the activities recommended in
their professional development such as graphing their progress on tests and understanding
what the results mean. Surprisingly, the principal had his young kindergarten teachers
with less than five years of teaching experience take a lead role in modeling many of
these instructional strategies. Given that their students were the youngest and needed the
most help to understand and perform the different activities, yet were ultimately capable,
the principal saw most of the opposition fade away and in the end believed the entire
school‘s expectations for student performance and ability were recalibrated.
Inspiring a Professional Organization
While intensely focused on using data to drive the decisions made in the
classroom and school, the principal stated he is also aware that much of the challenge is
ensuring that the data is analyzed through the lens of the latest research and
methodologies. As a result, he constantly works to disseminate this information,
oftentimes modeling effective teaching techniques such as the use of think-pair-share,
partner talking, or individual whiteboards. He initiated a ―Data Team‖ who were the first
to implement and eventually trained all staff in creating a ―Data Wall‖ to make each
class‘s goals and progress transparent to the entire school community.
Each Monday is an early dismissal day to allow time for additional collaboration.
While orchestrating schoolwide staff development and discussions for two of the
232

Mondays each month, he allows each grade level to collaborate independently for the
other two early release days, noting that a great deal of leadership emerges in these
smaller meetings. However, he does regularly join in these discussions and also requires
that minutes of the collaboration time be submitted to ensure that the time is being used
in a professional and effective manner.
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues
Given that this is his first year in the position, the principal noted that he hasn‘t
yet had the burden/opportunity to recruit new teaching or classified staff to this point. On
that note, he did state that the recruitment of high quality teachers was absolutely
essential to creating a high performing school district and that there were a number of
teachers who he was already looking forward to their retirement. Most of his comments,
however, related to the teaching staff were overwhelmingly positive, especially those he
deemed to be the newer teachers. It was this group‘s skills and enthusiasm that he stated
he really wanted to leverage and cultivate. He mentioned a number of them were
working on their administrative credentials and said he wanted to do everything he could
to provide them with the flexibility and support to pursue that goal. He did express
frustration related to working in a small school district in that it was difficult to provide
formal opportunities for growth and that many of the most ambitious and talented
teachers often were forced to move to larger school districts because there were not
administrative opportunities in small districts. To attempt to combat that he was working
to develop a ―Leadership Team‖ and assign various duties for projects such as the
233

training for implementing a new version of Accelerated Reader to teachers that wanted
additional experience and responsibility.
Evaluation of Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance
Table I.I is a summary of the degree to which Chopin Elementary has
implemented the 10 Steps to Double Student Performance.
Table I.1: Chopin Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Increase Student
Performance
Instructional
Strategy
Degree of Implementation Notes
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Below
Basic
Far Below
Basic
Analyzing the
Data &
Understanding
the Performance
Challenge
█
New principal‘s emphasis on data and
familiarity with software program and
statistical processes to analyze it provide a
good foundation. Clear vision to remedy one
aspect of performance problem.
Setting
Ambitious Goals

█
Early focus on improving performance in
Math generally and Algebra specifically
comes mainly from principal. Not clear that
entire staff has bought in and agrees.
Implementing an
Effective
Curriculum &
Instructional
Program

█
New benchmarks and weekly focus
assessments coupled with redesigned pacing
that identifies and effectively orders essential
standards for optimum delivery is significant.
While the first trimester‘s results are in, it
will be telling to see how instruction is
modified to respond to the data.
Data-Based
Decision
Making

█

Classroom focused displays and analysis of
data with data walls. Schoolwide reports run
through Edusoft identify trends at grades
levels, in individual classes, and with
individual students. Meetings to analyze and
act on data are common.
234

Table I.1, Continued
Ongoing
Professional
Development
█
Limited resources dedicated to ongoing and
pervasive professional development.
However principal is innovative in leveraging
the resources available at districts to which
school feeds into.
While he also led a five day in-service over
the summer, it was a one-time training only.
Using Time
Efficiently &
Effectively

█
Newly guaranteed uninterrupted instructional
time for English AND Math. Good use of
specialist teacher/class (Music) to enable
collaboration and interventions for core
teachers.
Providing
Interventions for
Struggling
Students

█
While newly introduced lunch interventions
are a step in the right direction and the
maintenance of summer school is important,
limited funding and the prevalence of students
who require bussing, restricts the school‘s
ability to offer after school interventions.
Creating
Collaborative
Cultures &
Distributed
Leadership

█

School appears to be focused on data and
analysis, making decisions on various
strategies that should be pursued in a
communal fashion with many teachers taking
a leadership position.
Inspiring a
Professional
Organization

█

Principal is well versed in the latest
instructional strategies, modeling them well,
and appears to have created an environment
that resembles PLCs with teachers taking
leadership positions on various items.
Addressing
Talent & Human
Capital Issues

█
No formal teacher or administrative training
programs. No recruitment or retention
strategy. While made with good intentions
incentives to assist teachers and prospective
administrators are minimal.

235

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
The school size of Chopin Elementary compares almost perfectly to the
prototypical elementary school detailed in the Evidence-Based Model, where Chopin has
430 students and the prototype has 432. As Chopin is a K-8 school, it was treated as an
elementary school and resourced accordingly based on the elementary prototype. Class
sizes at Chopin, especially in K-3 are significantly higher than those called for in the
Evidence-Based Model. Most of the other school elements, with the exception of
Instructional Aides, which are not funded in the Evidence Based Model, are implemented
at significantly lower levels in Chopin Elementary compared to the Prototypical
Elementary School of the EBM.
Table I.2: Chopin Elementary Resource Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
School
Current Resource
Status
Difference
between school
and EBM
Prototype
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-8; 430 Essentially the
same size as the
prototype in the
EBM.
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K,1 : 27
2-5: 22
6-8: 25
Significantly
higher class sizes
in K-3.
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180, includes 2 days
for PD

Principal secured
one-time funding for
5 additional training
days on his arrival.
9 percent less days
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day
kindergarten
No difference
236

Table I.2, Continued
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal No difference
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0
FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary &
1.0 FTE ATT Clerk
No difference
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 18 FTE core
teachers
6.0 Less FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 1 FTE Music
Teacher
3.8 Less FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 1 Curriculum
Administrator
1.2 Less FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
323 Students of
Poverty
0 FTE
3.2 Less FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
185 EL Students
0 FTE
1.85 Less FTE
Non-Instructional Support
for EL Students
0.0 FTE .2 FTE 0.2 FTE Greater
with the part time
assignment of a
testing clerk
Extended Day 1.8 FTE .45 FTE for Lunch
tutoring
1.35 Less FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 2 FTE .2 Greater FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
1.80 FTE TOTAL
1.0 FTE RSP
County provided
teacher;
.50 FTE RSP
County provided
aide;
.20 FTE
Psychologist;
.1 FTE Speech
Therapist
1.2 Less FTE
237

Table I.2, Continued
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
None at this school
site.

Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$0 162 days @
$100/day=$17,100
$17,100 Less
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
323 Student of
Poverty

0.0 FTE
3.23 Less FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.5 FTE Instructional aides
on time cards for
supervision, etc.
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 10.0 FTE 10.0 FTE More
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE Library
Aide
Same FTE, but not
certificated.
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $1,350
Small gate
component of
summer school
$10,750
$9,400 Less
Technology $250 per pupil $0
Nothing is budgeted
specifically in the
general fund; instead
categorical money is
usually used to fund
technology
purchases. Estimate
of over $50,000 a
year.
$108,000
$58,000 Less

Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $44,381 $60,200
$15,819 Less
Student Activities $200 per pupil $56,400 $86,000
$29,600 Less
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$40,000 $43,000
$3,000 Less

238

Another factor to consider in analyzing the resources at Chopin Elementary and
comparing them to the guidelines provided by the EBM is the fact that the school is a
self-contained district as well. While little research exists to determine the optimum
staffing model in a central office as many of the positions housed within are often funded
by federal or special education funds, Odden, Picus & Goetz (2008) conducted a number
of professional judgment panels and focus groups that have provided a recommended
design for a central office to support a prototypical district of 3,500 students. The model
they propose divides positions into three different categories of staffing: Administrative,
Professional, and Clerical. These groups consist of 1 Superintendent, 1 Assistant
Superintendent, 1 Business Manager, 1 HR Manager, 1 Director of Special Education, 1
Director of Pupil Services, 1 Director of Technology, 1 Psychologist, 1 Director of
Maintenance/Operations, 1 Payroll Clerk, 1 AP Clerk, and 4 Secretaries.
In their research in North Dakota, Odden, Picus & Goetz (2008) extended the
calculations to smaller districts where in a North Dakota district of 2,000 students, the
model would provide 5.1 senior administrative and 5.14 secretarial positions, and half
that, or 2.6 senior administrative and 2.57 secretarial positions for a 1,000 student district.
Previously, in their work in Wyoming (Odden, Picus & Goetz, 2005), a similar
calculation was reached for districts with 500 or less students where their formula
generated 3 admin and 3 secretarial positions.
With Chopin Elementary meeting the criteria of the last group and only having an
additional 1.5 Administrative FTE with the employment of a full-time business manager
and a half time technology director, it is clear that the central office component of the
239

school district is another area where a significant gap exists between the
recommendations of the EBM and the actual district resource allocation.
Summary and Lessons Learned
Over the last five years Chopin Elementary has not realized any sustained overall
progress as measured by the school‘s performance on state tests. However, after
examining the assessment results and current school environment in greater detail the
following items stand out:
 Most subgroups actually saw improvement in both ELA and Math, with only the
White subgroup posting a decline. As a result the principal has established
ambitious goals for improvement schoolwide as he believes significant
improvement to be highly attainable.
 The principal highlighted the school‘s comparatively low scores in Mathematics
and has made improvement efforts in this content area a focus.
 Chopin Elementary is in the early stages of using data to drive instructional
decisions. Most of the push currently comes from the principal who is an expert
in analyzing data
 It remains to be seen whether the school can continue its current momentum in
implementing and improving its instructional delivery and curriculum beyond the
adjustments its teachers have made to their sequencing and pacing.
240

Future Considerations
While the principal noted that he is optimistic that the school will radically
improve its performance in the coming years, he did indicate that a significant amount of
works remains to be done to pave the way. He expressed concern about the state budget
and was especially worried about the prospect of mid-year cuts. Additionally, he
believes the schools intervention efforts to help struggling students are not good enough
and is exploring partnering with the county based after school program, ―Choices‖, to
provide transportation and some supervisory staffing. Providing meaningful and
sustained professional development is also an area of concern for the principal as he
currently feels isolated and overly dependent on the county office of education. This
feeling of dependence on the county extends beyond PD and also to services that the
school relies on the county to provide such as the RSP teacher, psychologist, and speech
therapist- he emphasized that the district needed to find the resources to provide or at
least supplement many of these services independently.
241

APPENDIX J – CASE STUDY 3
Liszt Elementary School
Background on the School and District
Liszt Elementary is a rural single-school elementary K-8 school district located in
the Central Valley of California. The school district was founded in 1868 and operates
on a traditional schedule. As an elementary district, it services 86 students though only
approximately thirty live in the district‘s boundaries, with the rest being interdistrict
transfers from the predominantly agricultural based surrounding communities due to the
school‘s reputation as a small, safe campus with comparatively high academic
achievement.
Liszt Elementary‘s student population is fairly evenly balanced between two
ethnicities with forty-three percent (43%) of the student body classified as White and
fifty-four percent (54%) categorized as Hispanic or Latino. A graph representing the
distribution of the school‘s population is displayed below in Figure J.1. Additionally,
sixty-three (63%) percent of the students are categorized as Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged (SED) and thirty-four (34%) percent are classified as English Learners
(EL).
242

Figure J.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Liszt Elementary School

The purpose of this case study is to examine the school‘s decisions surrounding
resource allocation and the implementation of instructional improvement strategies and
the extent to which the two have combined to increase student achievement.
Test Results/Achievement Gap
For the past five years, Liszt Elementary has experienced fairly consistent growth
overall in its student performance as measured by the school‘s score on the California
Academic Performance Index (API). As Figure J.2 displays below, in the 2005/2006
school year, Liszt Elementary‘s API score was 736 after which it increased slightly to
739 and then increased dramatically to 762. The following year was the only decline in
the five year period, with the school‘s API score falling slightly to 754. The school‘s
most recent API score was 777, giving the school a total growth of 41 points in the five
year period.
243

Figure J.2: Liszt Elementary School API

The school‘s performance as measured by the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
report shows less of an improvement in Language Arts than the API increase with
approximately forty-eight percent (48%) of the student population scoring proficient or
advanced, which represents an increase of approximately ten percent over the five year
period. Additionally, the report which is displayed below in Figure J.3 also includes the
individual performance of the various significant subgroups that makeup the school‘s
student body. Interestingly, while all of the other subgroups made significant
improvement over the five year period, the White student group saw almost no growth,
registering a .7% increase in the five years analyzed.
244

Figure J.3: Liszt Elementary School Language Arts AYP (% of students proficient or
advanced)

Liszt Elementary‘s performance as measured by the Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) report paints an even more positive picture in Mathematics with the school
realizing an 18 point increase over the five year period schoolwide as displayed in Figure
J.4. Unlike in Language Arts where the White subgroup saw virtually no growth, every
group‘s scores increased in Mathematics. The Hispanic and SED groups posted increases
just short of thirty (30%) percent with the English Learners and White groups showing
thirty-four percent (34%) and four percent (4%) gains respectively. Finally, it is
important to note that the achievement gap between the White student group and the
other subgroups has been eliminated in mathematics as this year the Hispanic group had a
larger percentage of students that were proficient or advanced than the White subgroup.
However, for whatever reason the White student group did see a significant decline from
the previous year‘s performance in mathematics and given that the number of students
245

enrolled is fairly small, it is easier to have substantial variations across the different
groups from one year to the next.
Figure J.4: Liszt Elementary School Math AYP (% of students proficient or advanced)

Key Elements and Themes of the Instructional Improvement Process
The current principal/superintendent is in her fifth year at Liszt Elementary and is
also the teacher of the 15 eighth grade students at the site. Before serving in her current
capacity, she began her teaching career at the site as a 6-7 combination class teacher and
taught in that position for twelve years. Her predecessor‘s tenure lasted over ten years
and the school has enjoyed a reputation of safety, stability, small size, and comparatively
good academic performance given its challenging student demographics.
While struggling with the rest of California public education institutions with the
state budget cuts and funding reductions the last several years, Liszt Elementary is in
246

fairly good financial condition. The principal has made several adjustments to staffing
levels and the school has worked to become more efficient in their attempts to save
money. Additionally, the school is financed under the California Necessary Small School
Allowance, an alternative mechanism of funding schools rather than the standard revenue
limit which provides additional funding to schools that are classified as such because they
cannot realize economies of scale (EdSource, 2010). This allowance provides four
different tiers of funding based on the number of students enrolled: 1 - 24.49 ADA
generates $132,875; 24.5 – 48.49 ADA generates $265,750; 48.5 – 72.49 ADA generates
$398,625; and 72.5 – 96.49 ADA generates $531,500 (California Department of
Education, 2009). As Liszt Elementary has a current enrollment of 86 students they are
in the top end of the fourth tier and generate $531,500 in total funding each year under
the allowance while also receiving supplementary state and federal categorical funds.
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge
Being with the school as a teacher and principal for seventeen years, the principal
stated that she was very familiar with the challenges facing the school as a whole and in a
majority of cases, the struggles of teachers and individual students. She claimed this was
one of the advantages of working in a very small school in that in a lot of ways, it
functioned as an extended family and that it was actually feasible to know the name and
story of every student.
The personal touch, however, did not automatically mean that the school staff
understood all of the layers of the academic challenges facing its students and the
principal shared that until the last couple of years she felt they often were making
247

instructional decisions based on instinct rather than data. She has attempted to change
that by implementing schoolwide pacing guides, weekly standards tests, the computer
programs STAR Reading and Math, and benchmarks delivered each trimester. Except
for the data generated by STAR Reading and Math, the results are all scored by hand and
then transferred into a master binder to track progress and a spreadsheet that is shared
with all teachers so that they may perform their own analyses.
Setting Ambitious Goals
Another element the principal believed was lacking during much of her tenure
with the district was the establishment of a schoolwide goal for improvement. She shared
that previously there was a sort of separation, with the primary grade teachers often
meeting as a group and then the teachers for 6
th
through 8
th
grade coming together with
the intermediate 4-5

teacher floating between the two. As a result, she claimed there was
not a consistent focus or approach and she believed the school was not as efficient or
high-achieving because of the division. Now as part of the first staff development day
occurring prior to the start of school, the principal assembles the staff and they review the
results of the CST together, extending their analysis down to individual students while
also working to identify grade and school level trends. From this meeting the staff
establishes their goals for the year and agrees on the frequency and method they will use
to assess and evaluate their progress in meeting them.
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program
Following the analysis of assessment results from the prior year‘s CST, the
principal shared that attention shifts to evaluating the curriculum and the strategies
248

employed in its delivery. While she shared that more time is invested in this area
following the adoption of a new curriculum such as in the previous year where the school
replaced Saxon with McGraw Hill for its K-6 math curriculum, she always liked to
address the subject in the first staff meeting and informally in her discussions with staff
throughout the year. She stated that one of the most challenging and time consuming
aspects of this process was identifying gaps in terms of the standards that were covered
by the curriculum in addition to adjusting the sequencing and pacing of the material.
However, she claimed this process was central to the school‘s improvement and had
allowed the school to identify additional resources such as EdHelper.com to bridge gaps
in coverage and supplement the curriculum when necessary.
She also highlighted that Liszt Elementary had experienced significant growth in
the performance of all of the school‘s lower performing subgroups in both English and
Math. She credited much of the work the staff took in familiarizing themselves with the
curriculum, implementing graphic organizers, and assembling portfolios of student work
for the improvement.
Data-based Decision Making
As described previously, the school now critically analyzes the results of the CST
at the school, classroom, and student level and uses the data to shape the instructional
strategies planned for the coming year. The principal has also implemented weekly
standards tests which are scored and entered into a spreadsheet for review and analysis by
all staff. Finally, beginning last year, the principal made contact with the unified school
district to which its students matriculate to attend high school and discussed utilizing the
249

benchmarks they have spent the last several years developing. Along with gaining access
to the actual test documents, she has also contracted with the unified district to have the
testing materials printed and delivered along with obtaining the district‘s pacing guides
for each subject. The principal did state that she wished she had the larger district‘s
resources for analysis of the benchmark results and that she would love to have the
money to purchase and Assessment Management System such as Edusoft or Data
Director.
Ongoing Professional Development
As the benchmarks are aligned with the other district‘s pacing, the principal
shared that Liszt Elementary has used the opportunity to revisit their own pacing and
make adjustments where necessary. To understand some of the reasoning for the
sequencing, the principal has sent all of her teachers at one time or another to participate
in the unified district‘s curriculum council meetings along with that district‘s work with
WestEd in benchmark creation and analysis. She stated that she feels this has been
highly beneficial and the partnership has been a cost effective way of leveraging the
investments and expertise made by the district to which it sends it students for high
school.
Along with taking advantage of the shared professional development
opportunities extended by the unified district, the principal shared that she also tried to
send her staff to as many county offered staff developments and often also brought in one
of their consultants to work with the entire school on their three staff development days.
An additional source of professional development was speakers such as Dennis Parker
250

brought in by the Small School Association of Districts in the county. In her closing
comments on the topic, however, the principal did state that funding was always a
concern in facilitating staff development along with a lack of dedicated time as the school
did not have any early release time for collaboration and PD built into the schedule.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
As the school does not have any instructional facilitators and all of their
certificated staff members, including the principal, are classroom teachers, the need to
use time efficiently is critical according to the principal. In the meetings at the beginning
of this year, for example, at the principal‘s suggestion the staff developed a new schedule
incorporating two 90 minute blocks of uninterrupted instruction for language arts and
math. Additionally, the school uses its small class sizes and multi-age combinations to
group its students according to their ability level when assigning teachers at the
beginning of the year to maximize whole group instructional time. The principal also
shared that the school also attempts to implement looping strategies whenever possible so
that students are assigned to teachers for two consecutive years which allows the teachers
to better recognize their needs and by extension, minimizes the time dedicated to
classroom management and organization that is tied to becoming familiar with students.
Providing Interventions for Struggling Students
Interventions are a practice that the principal stated the school needed to improve
and claimed that they were one instructional area where the school‘s small size actually
made the effort more difficult. With no teachers dedicated to managing the process, the
interventions the school attempts to implement take place for the most part within the
251

classroom. The principal shared that both primary classes have full-time instructional
aides which allows the teacher to divide the class into groups when appropriate for small
group instruction. In the primary classes the aides also work with the teachers to
administer in-class, pseudo pullouts for students that are struggling.
In grades 4-8 there is only one aide and she is shared between the 4-5 and 6-7
combination classes, working in each classroom for three hours each to conduct
interventions for struggling students under the teachers‘ direction. The eighth grade class
does not have any aides allocated though is adjacent to the school‘s only computer lab
and the teacher (who again, is also the principal) uses a variety of computer programs to
attempt to provide diagnostics and interventions to all of her students.
The principal stated that interventions were the area she felt was impacted most
by the state budget cuts where the school was forced to reduce the number of aides it
employed by 1.5 FTE and also has been unable to offer a summer school program for the
past two years. While the principal shared there was some migrant money allocated for
summer school, she claimed that the school determined it was not sufficient to provide a
summer school and was instead used to develop and print summer packets that were sent
home with children.
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership
When discussing her efforts to promote a collaborative culture and distributed
leadership, the principal gave most of the credit to the school‘s small size and the
professionalism of her staff. She emphasized that unlike providing interventions, she felt
the school‘s size helped immensely in creating a collaborative culture with strong
252

leadership from teachers in a variety of areas. She did share, however, that many of the
teachers often expressed being exhausted and wished for more support resources as they
felt they were stretched too thinly and wearing too many hats.
Inspiring a Professional Organization
In relating her work to promote a professional organization, the principal stressed
that while she also sometimes felt the pressure of being pulled in a number of different
directions without enough time in the day, she believed that the split-nature of her
position gave her more credibility with her staff in discussing instructional improvement
strategies. As she spent most of her time as a classroom teacher, she said that the staff
expressed an appreciation that they knew that she understood their challenges and that
her decisions were made with their best interest. As a result, she was pleased to share
that most of her suggestions surrounding the implementation of instructional strategies,
professional development, or various articles and research she found helpful, were well
received by her staff. Additionally, she claimed the ‗peer‘ portion of her relationship
with the staff also enabled them to feel more comfortable in approaching her with
concerns or ideas for improvement.
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues
In discussions with the principal it was difficult to determine that the site had
placed much emphasis on addressing this improvement strategy. Given the school‘s
small size and limited schedule for formal staff collaboration, the principal‘s efforts to
form partnerships with outside entities such as the unified school district its students go to
253

attend high school, seems to provide the best example of creatively cultivating internal
human capital by offering opportunities for growth.
Evaluation of Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance
Table J.I is a summary of the degree to which Liszt Elementary has implemented
the 10 Steps to Double Student Performance.
Table J.1: Liszt Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Increase Student
Performance
Instructional
Strategy
Degree of Implementation Notes
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Below
Basic
Far Below
Basic
Analyzing the
Data &
Understanding
the Performance
Challenge
█
Principal has successfully communicated the
challenges facing the entire school and the
staff is united in addressing the issues.
Setting
Ambitious Goals

█
While a common vision now exists across
the entire school along with goals for
improvement, the principal did not appear to
have set particularly ambitious targets or
seem to make an attempt to communicate the
goals to students and parents.
Implementing an
Effective
Curriculum &
Instructional
Program

█
All teachers are well versed in analyzing the
curriculum‘s coverage and gaps along with
locating providing supplementary material
when necessary.
254

Table J.1, Continued
Data-Based
Decision Making

█
While lacking some of the resources to
implement an advanced Assessment
Management System, the school stores the
results of its assessments and makes them
electronically available to teachers for further
analysis and discussion to drive instructional
decisions.
Ongoing
Professional
Development

█
The schedule does not provide a defined time
for ongoing regular staff development
although the principal has implemented
creative solutions to leverage resources and
expertise found in surrounding larger districts.
Using Time
Efficiently &
Effectively

█
Liszt Elementary uses its small size to
implement leveling strategies in forming
combination multi-grade classes.
Additionally, the school uses looping to
maximize instructional time.
Providing
Interventions for
Struggling
Students

█
There is a heavy dependence on instructional
aides for interventions which only occur
within class as there is no funding or staffing
for after school interventions. Additionally,
budget cuts have prevented the district from
offering remediation during summer school
for the past two years.
Creating
Collaborative
Cultures &
Distributed
Leadership

█

Liszt Elementary‘s principal has used the
small school environment to create a
collaborative culture where teachers are
comfortable participating in decisions and
assuming leadership positions when needed.
Inspiring a
Professional
Organization
█

As the principal is also a full-time classroom
teacher, she has used this in establishing a
positive relationship with the staff to enable
the dissemination of best practices and
direction on effective instructional strategies.
Addressing
Talent & Human
Capital Issues

█
The school lacks many of the resources
necessary to address human capital issues to
the fullest extent with most of the attention
going to providing opportunities for
professional growth through staff
development.

255

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
This is one of two case studies where the guidelines in a table comparing the
resources present in the studied school and those specified by the Evidence Based Model
using a prototypical Elementary School of 432 students as a guide, is slightly modified
due to the small size of the studied school. This school has a sufficient number of
students to utilize the prototypical table for most of the elements, but the following
guidelines also apply and have been developed to employ the Evidence Based Model on
small schools:
 Schools from with forty-nine or fewer students are resourced at 1 FTE assistant
principal plus 1 FTE teacher position for every seven students, with a minimum
of two FTE. For example, this formula would provide 2 FTE teaching positions
for a 1-7 student school, 3 FTE positions for a 14 student school, and 4 FTE
positions for the 21 student school, prorating the FTE count for schools with a
number of students that lay in between these figures (Odden, Picus & Goetz,
2005).
 The resources are flexible to allow a variety of combinations of staffing teachers,
aides, specialists and principals along with combined positions for secretarial,
maintenance, and other classified duties. In the case of classified staff, which are
typically compensated at a lower rate than certificated, the staff FTE resources
are allocated at the rate of a certificated FTE. For example, if certificated staff
were paid at an average rate of thirty dollars per hour, while a classified position
256

was paid at $15 per hour, a school could allocate two classified positions for
every 1 FTE generated by the formula.
 Standard resource formulas are used for schools with between 50 and 96 total
students, with the principal prorated from 1 FTE at an enrollment of 96 down to
.5 FTE for the 50 student elementary school. K-5 schools with this number of
students are also staffed with a minimum of six teachers. A K-8 school would be
staffed with a minimum of nine teachers.
With Liszt Elementary having a current student enrollment of 86 with 31 primary
students and 53 intermediate and middle school aged pupils, according to the guidelines
above, it would generate a base of a .9 FTE Principal plus 4.5 core teachers, however,
given the minimum imposed for small schools under 100 with 9 grade levels, the total
number of FTEs for teachers would be 9.0.
With the exceptions presented above, Table J.2 compares Liszt Elementary with
the prototypical elementary school detailed in the Evidence-Based Model. Class sizes at
Liszt, compare very favorably to those called for in the Evidence-Based Model with only
the K-1 combination class having greater than the number allocated by the model. Most
of the other school elements, with the exception of Instructional Aides which are not
funded in the Evidence Based Model, are implemented at significantly lower levels in
Liszt Elementary compared to the Prototypical Elementary School of the EBM.

257

Table J.2: Liszt Elementary Resource Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
School
Current Resource
Status
School Based on
Prototypical
Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-8; 86
63% SED; 54
34% EL; 29
Approximately
20% of the size of
the prototype
referenced by the
EBM.
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-1: 17
2-3: 14
4-5: 23
6-7: 15
8: 15
All of the classes
except eighth grade
are combinations
split between two
grade levels.
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180, includes 3 day
for PD.
9 percent less days
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day
kindergarten
No difference
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 0.2 FTE principal 0.9 FTE Principal
0.7 less FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0
FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary .2 FTE Clerical
.2 FTE Less
Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 4.8 FTE Core
Teachers
4.8 FTE calculated
compared to
prototypical, but
minimum of 9.0
FTE using
guidelines above.

4.2 FTE Less
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 0 FTE specialist
teachers
.96 FTE
.96 Less FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 0 FTE .44 FTE
.44 Less FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
0.0 FTE .54 FTE
.54 Less FTE
258

Table J.2, Continued
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
0.0 FTE .29 FTE
.29 Less FTE
Non-Instructional Support
for EL Students
0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.0 FTE .36 FTE
.36 Less FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0.0 FTE .36 FTE
.36 Less FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
County RSP
Teacher,
psychologist, speech
pathologist on call
.6 Additional FTE
Teacher positions
.6 FTE Less
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
None at this school N/A
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$0 162 days @
$90/day=$3,888
$3,888 Less
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
0 FTE 54 FTE
.54 Less FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 1.5 FTE .4 FTE
1.1 Greater FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 2.75 FTE 2.75 Greater FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 0.1 FTE Library
Media Assistant
.20 FTE
.10 Less FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $0
There are no GATE
students at the
school.
$2,150
Technology $250 per pupil $1700
For STAR Reading
and Math
$21,500
259

Table J.2, Continued
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $7,000 $12,040
$5,040 Less
Student Activities $200 per pupil $3,440 $17,200
$13,800
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$1,500 $8,600
$7100 Less

Another factor in analyzing the resources at Liszt Elementary and comparing
them to the guidelines provided by the EBM is the fact that along with being a small
school, Liszt Elementary is a self-contained district as well. While little research exists to
determine the optimum staffing model in a central office as many of the positions housed
within are often funded by federal or special education funds, Odden, Picus & Goetz
(2008) conducted a number of professional judgment panels and focus groups that have
provided a recommended design for a central office to support a prototypical district of
3,500 students. The model they propose divides positions into three different categories
of staffing: Administrative, Professional, and Clerical. These groups consist of 1
Superintendent, 1 Assistant Superintendent, 1 Business Manager, 1 HR Manager, 1
Director of Special Education, 1 Director of Pupil Services, 1 Director of Technology, 1
Psychologist, 1 Director of Maintenance/Operations, 1 Payroll Clerk, 1 AP Clerk, and 4
Secretaries.
In their research in North Dakota, Odden, Picus & Goetz (2008) extended the
calculations to smaller districts where in a North Dakota district of 2,000 students, the
260

model would provide 5.1 senior administrative and 5.14 secretarial positions, and half
that, or 2.6 senior administrative and 2.57 secretarial positions for a 1,000 student district.
Previously, in their work in Wyoming (Odden, Picus & Goetz, 2005), a similar
calculation was reached for districts with 500 or less students where their formula
generated 3 admin and 3 secretarial positions.
California, the state in which Liszt Elementary is located, is surprisingly unique in
that while being the most populous state in the United States with many of the biggest
districts in the country, it features a large number of single school districts with student
enrollments substantially less than the models above. As a result, it is difficult to use
existing research to estimate the optimum number and distribution of central office staff
in a school district such as Liszt Elementary. However, given the responsibilities that are
incumbent upon a district office to perform such as supervising curriculum and
instructional programs, implementing federal, state, and local reforms, as well as the
management of the budget and facilities, it is clear that at least some additional resources
are required for even the smallest districts. While many of these districts can and do
obtain a large amount of support from their county offices of education, additional
personnel at the district are still necessary to act as liaisons and coordinate these district
responsibilities. In the case of Liszt Elementary, the only other resource that exists to
support these efforts is a part-time 0.5 FTE business manager and it is evident the central
office component of the school district is another area where a significant gap exists
between the recommendations of the EBM and the actual district resource allocation.
261

Summary and Lessons Learned
Liszt Elementary has experienced consistent improvement in performance on
state tests under the leadership of the current principal who expressed that she believes
the school will continue the pattern of growth and shortly reach 800 on their API. In
examining their recent assessment results and the current school environment and
resource allocation in greater detail, the following items emerge as points of interest:
 In the most recent year, the achievement gap as illustrated by the school‘s
performance on the CST has virtually been eliminated with slight declines by the
White subgroup and substantial growth by the Hispanic, EL, and SED group.
 The principal has taken an innovative approach in partnering with a larger
neighboring district so that her school can benefit from the other district‘s
investments and professional development in the areas of standards based
education and assessments.
 Liszt Elementary School‘s small size is both a hindrance and a help in making it
difficult to secure the resources to provide intensive interventions for struggling
students yet assisting in attempts to efficiently use instructional time through the
use of combination classes and leveling as well as helping to create a
collaborative and professional environment.
 While the principal would appreciate having more time to dedicate to her
administrative duties, she also believed that her role as a full-time teacher gave
her credibility with the staff in her efforts as the site‘s instructional leader.
262

Future Considerations
While Liszt Elementary has shown steady improvement over the last five years in
its performance on the CST, to move to the next level in its analysis of data, the principal
would like the resources to develop additional formative assessments that are better
aligned to the rigor and content of their benchmarks. She also expressed hope that at
some point, the school could implement a regularly scheduled early release day for
students to allow for more ongoing and intensive staff development. An expansion of the
school‘s access to technology would also be welcome as the 13 computer lab that they
currently have is almost always used to capacity and the principal stressed there were a
number of extremely powerful software applications that she would like to implement to
provide an additional form of intervention and source of data. On a related note, she
expressed a strong desire for resources to implement expanded interventions before or
after school and to also be able to restore some form of summer school as she believed it
was critical for groups such as EL and SED students, that traditionally had struggled.
263

APPENDIX K – CASE STUDY 4
Mozart Elementary School
Background on the School and District
Mozart Elementary is a rural single-school elementary K-8 school district located
in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the Central Valley of California. The
school district was founded over one hundred years ago and operates on a traditional
schedule, encompassing over 960 square miles. As an elementary district, its 346
students eventually move to a larger unified district one town over to attend high school.
Mozart Elementary‘s student population is overwhelmingly of White descent,
with students of that ethnic group representing eighty (82%) of the school‘s total
population. The other significant student ethnicities are Hispanic or Latino students
which comprise thirteen percent (13%) of the school‘s population as well as Native
American students which represent three percent (3%); the remaining two percent (2%) is
split between several other ethnic groups. A graph representing the makeup of the
school‘s population is displayed below in Figure K.1. Additionally, twenty-seven percent
(27%) of the students are categorized as Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) and
the school is in a unique position being located in the California Central Valley and
having no students classified as English Learners (EL).

264

Figure K.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Mozart Elementary School

The purpose of this case study is to examine the school‘s decisions surrounding
resource allocation and the implementation of instructional improvement strategies and
the extent to which the two have combined to increase student achievement.
Test Results/Achievement Gap
Over the last five years, Mozart Elementary has experienced uneven growth
overall in its student performance as measured by its score on the California Academic
Performance Index (API). As Figure K.2 displays below, in the 2005/2006 school year,
Mozart Elementary‘s API score was 781 after which it decreased to a low of 768 before
rising slightly to 770 in the following year and then jumping dramatically to 805 in the
year after. The school‘s most recent API score was 813 a more modest increase than the
previous year‘s growth, but still a significant gain compared to its starting point of 781 in
2005/2006.
265

Figure K.2: Mozart Elementary School API

The school‘s performance as measured by the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
report shows a less significant gain in the overall trend in Language Arts where
approximately forty percent (57%) of the student population scored proficient or
advanced on the latest test, which is less than a three percent (3%) increase over the level
from five years earlier. Additionally, the report which is displayed below in Figure K.3
also includes the individual performance of the various significant subgroups that
makeup the school‘s student body. All subgroups made slight improvement over the five
years and the achievement gap was very close to being closed between the Hispanic and
White subgroups. However, a significant achievement gap remains between the
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) subgroups and the other groups with the
difference in the percentage of proficient and advanced students as high as seventeen
percent (17%).
266

Figure K.3: Mozart Elementary School Language Arts AYP (% of students proficient or
advanced)

Mozart Elementary‘s performance as measured by the Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) report provides a much more impressive example of the school‘s gains in
Mathematics with the school realizing a seven point increase over the five year period
schoolwide as displayed in Figure K.4. While the White subgroup reported the lowest
gain with a four percent (4%) increase and the SED group‘s increase was close to that
with a rise of seven percent (7%), the Hispanic subgroup saw a twenty percent (20%)
increase. More impressively, the Hispanic students actually erased the pre-existing
achievement gap and created a new one of their own by outscoring all of the other
subgroups on the most recent test by increasing their percentage of proficient or advanced
students to 62%. However, as in the case of Language Arts, a significant achievement
gap remains between the Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) subgroup and the
267

other groups with the difference in the percentage of proficient and advanced students as
high as seventeen percent (17%).
Figure K.4: Mozart Elementary School Math AYP (% of students proficient or advanced)

Key Elements and Themes of the Instructional Improvement Process
The current principal/superintendent is in her seventh year in the position at
Mozart Elementary and her path to the position followed a non-traditional and unique
route that according to her, still affects the site dynamics today. She originally began in
the district in a part-time position in the maintenance department and then increased her
hours and began to drive a bus route for the school. From there she moved into a position
in the classroom as an instructional aide while continuing as a bus driver. Over a period
of years she worked to earn her degree and then her credential and eventually moved into
the classroom as a teacher at the school. Finally, she completed her administrative
credential and served as a pseudo vice principal for several years until the prior
268

superintendent‘s retirement, after which she overcame a split board to become the
principal/superintendent.
In analyzing the principal‘s struggles over the last several years to assert herself in
the position and improve the school‘s performance, this case study will utilize the Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden, 2009) as an organizing framework
and to evaluate the degree of implementation of each strategy and how it relates to
improving student outcomes.
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge
Given the school‘s high performance compared to most of the other elementary
schools in the county, the principal indicated that one of the greatest challenges she faced
in her attempts to improve performance was overcoming the sense of complacency that
was embedded in the school culture. For years she stated that the school has been
considered one of the best schools in the county with real estate agents touting the
school‘s performance and reputation to prospective buyers and many families attempting
to transfer their students into the district and driving from miles away each day so that
they could attend . However, she was candid about the fact that because of its
demographics with the school having a fairly low percentage of Socioeconomically and
Disadvantaged Students (SED) and no English Learners, the school should be performing
at a much higher level as evidenced by its Similar School Rankings of 1‘s and 2‘s over
the past five years.
269

Setting Ambitious Goals
With the knowledge that the school was performing at a lower level than it should
have, the principal has spent the last several years attempting to communicate that fact to
her staff and create a sense of urgency to correct the situation. She claimed that she had a
very difficult time her first several years of the effort and that she could sense that most
teachers were satisfied with the status quo and believed their performance to be quite
good given the school‘s reputation and comparatively high scores in the area.
According to the principal, an unexpected breakthrough occurred during her
fourth year where a new seventh grade math teacher created a lot of controversy and was
ultimately let go by the board. The decision was quite divisive and left many teachers
with a bad taste in their mouths, prompting three long-time teachers to retire (she did
acknowledge that they may have retired anyway as they had been considering doing so
for several years), which allowed her to recruit a surprising number of new teachers and
restructure the school. After a year of growing pains, she believes this has begun to bear
fruit with two consecutive years of significant gains in the school‘s API score and a shift
in the school‘s culture. She related that where Mozart Elementary had always prided
itself at holding its students to a higher standard by requiring a 95% rather than a 90% for
an ‗A‘ and a 85% rather than an 80% for a ‗B‘, and so on, its teachers were now doing
the same thing as they set goals for performance on the CSTs.
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program
As an example of the effort the school has undertaken to thoroughly implement a
comprehensive curricular and instructional program, the principal cited their work with
270

Saxon Math. According to her, a number of the schools in the area have shared they have
not been satisfied with the Saxon Math curriculum and were looking to replace it as soon
as possible. Conversely, she related that Mozart Elementary had a lot of success with
Saxon in grades K-6 and that the teachers appreciated how well it spiraled. She shared
that the school had made a significant investment in adjusting the curriculum between
third and fourth grade as it was not originally standards based and left the students behind
by the time they prepared to take Algebra. Additionally, she stressed that the school was
always looking to supplement the curriculum to fill gaps and utilized interventions such
as Read Naturally and Rewards. The district also uses Accelerated Math to allow
students who are in awkward gaps in the math curriculum to work at an appropriate
instructional level after working through diagnostic tests.
Data-based Decision Making
One of the primary areas of frustration Mozart Elementary‘s principal shared was
the school‘s lack of an Assessment Data System such as Edusoft or Data Director. She
described a very labor intensive and manual process of taking the scores from the CST
and having teachers record them on a series of cards that follow the students from year to
year. Teachers chart the student‘s progress on the state tests on the cards and meet with
the principal and one another to review the data. However, the principal is not happy
with the process as it does not take into account assessments beyond the state tests and as
stated previously is a lengthy process that produces information that is difficult to access.
The principal much prefers the reports she generates off of the AIMSweb system
which is a progress monitoring and RTI solution used by the district to assess its
271

students‘ progress in reading and language arts. Accelerated Math produces similar
reports which she creates regularly and meets with the involved teachers to review. All
of these programs allow student performance data to be disaggregated and better enable
the site to identify trends and areas that need improvement at the student, class, grade, or
school level.
In moving beyond discussing the school‘s lack of a system for general data
analysis, the principal acknowledged that the district was behind in that it did not
currently have a set of district benchmarks for the core subjects at each grade level.
While the school uses formative assessments extensively as well as the tests that are
included with the curriculum, the principal stated that she was struggling to maintain a
balance between giving teachers the freedom to administer their own assessments on their
own schedule and implementing an assessment model that allowed all stakeholders to
continually review and act on the data generated to make instructional decisions.
Ongoing Professional Development
One of the areas the principal shared she felt needed the most attention in the
school was professional development. She stated that in budget considerations, PD was
often one of the first items cut and in fact the school had reduced the three professional
development days that were traditionally schedule to one after negotiations with the
teachers‘ union for the current year. She further lamented the difficulties she had in
planning effective professional development within this limited time given the school did
not have an early release schedule to allow for ongoing PD. And in a refrain echoed by
most of the other principals within the study‘s sample, she stated that being a single
272

school district made it difficult to provide high quality professional development due to a
lack of internal capacity and resources upon which to draw. In not having a central
district office to lean on, she shared that she relied on the county office of education for a
significant amount of professional development and sent teachers to their workshops as
much as possible; however she was aware that this type of training was not as effective as
ongoing focused regular staff development.
Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
An effort the principal shared she was particularly proud of was working with
teachers to reconfigure the sixth through eighth grades into a four period day with
seventy five minutes of uninterrupted instruction in each period. She claimed this
configuration allowed the teachers to work through a lesson with the entire class and then
break students into smaller groups or, when appropriate, provide one-to-one instruction.
She also claimed she was proud of how her teachers responded to the need to
establish several multi-grade classes. While she indicated she was not personally in favor
of combination classes and generally only implemented them as a last resort, she did
relate that the configuration allowed for a natural leveling and that the school had
achieved surprisingly good results over the years with the practice. Finally, she shared
that the school was fortunate to have a full-time music instructor which allowed
additional time for collaboration or interventions when students were scheduled to attend
his class.
273

Providing Interventions for Struggling Students
Interventions for struggling students at Mozart Elementary have become more of
a challenge this year with the budget, fluctuating enrollment and the associated demands
of classroom reduction. The past several years, the school has been able to hire one
teacher that has been devoted entirely to working with students and managing the various
interventions across all grade levels. However, this year, that teacher was pulled back
into the classroom part time as part of one of the combination classes and now only
works on interventions for half of the day. As a result, the school which has always
depended on instructional aides in its intervention efforts has been forced to utilize them
to an even greater degree than before. While the principal expressed her preference in
using certificated teachers in this endeavor, she did note that two of the four instructional
aides actually had their teaching credentials and that the school was in a fortunate
position to benefit from their desire to only work a part-time schedule. Additionally, she
shared that with the reduction to a half time position of one teacher, the school was trying
to be more efficient and utilize its existing technology resources and software to assist in
providing diagnostic tests and information on how students were progressing.
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership
Relating her experiences leading Mozart Elementary the first couple of years, the
principal actually stated that she has backed away from a number of her early efforts to
establish a distributed leadership model in the school. In describing her career‘s
progression where ultimately she became the supervisor to teachers who had previously
had her in their classrooms as an instructional aide, the principal stated that she faced an
274

enormous amount of skepticism and resistance from a number of these teachers. She
claimed that her initial attempts win these teachers over were ultimately unsuccessful and
that their involvement in committees or meetings generally led to them questioning her
leadership and attempting to usurp her authority. Consequently, she took a firmer
position in her approach and marginalized many of the dissenting teachers by reshaping
committees and slowly bringing teachers in that understood and shared her vision and
goals for the school. With the enthusiasm and support of these new staff members, she is
beginning to revisit her approach and stated her desire to see a more collaborative culture
emerge at the school.
Inspiring a Professional Organization
Mozart Elementary School‘s principal stated that with all of the difficulties and
energy she has expended in establishing herself as an instructional leader at the school
site, a significant amount of her time is also spent addressing the logistical issues and
daily problems that arise in a small school. In understanding the demands of a range of
positions, having personally worked in a number of them, she emphasized that she is
always ready and willing to step back in and get her hands dirty if need be. For example,
she shared that one of her bus drivers had called in sick the day prior and as a result she
ended up driving the bus route herself. While a financial benefit to the district in not
having to locate and pay a substitute driver, the principal wondered aloud whether these
kinds of actions serve to undermine her position with the staff, but at the same time stated
that the jobs had to be done from time to time. The principal did not share her approach
to inspiring a professional organization through the dissemination of research or best
275

practices and appeared to equate her performance of any job that needed to be done with
the fulfillment of her professional duty to do what was best for the organization.
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues
This final area of improvement strategies was one in which the principal shared
that she felt both constrained and empowered as a small single school district. Rather
than attract potential teaching recruits with a comparatively higher salary, she shared that
she often took pictures of the school‘s physical location with the backdrop of the Sierra
Nevada Mountains. Her discussions would center on the school‘s small overall size and
comparatively small classes and she emphasized that many of the discipline problems and
challenges related to poverty and language barriers were much less of an issue at Mozart
than other districts, yet the school still provided an abundance of challenges and rewards.
The same conversation and approach occurs with existing teachers whom she tries
to be as flexible with as possible in hiring part time staff to provide supervision before
school, during recess, lunch, and after school as a small perk while also increasing the
likelihood that teachers will use the time to conduct informal interventions and provide
assistance to struggling students. Additionally, the principal has a number of small
stipends at her disposal to reward teachers who take on additional responsibility.
Evaluation of Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance
Table K.1 is a summary of the degree to which Mozart Elementary has
implemented the 10 Steps to Double Student Performance.

276

Table K.1: Mozart Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Increase
Student Performance
Instructional
Strategy
Degree of Implementation Notes
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Below
Basic
Far Below
Basic
Analyzing the
Data &
Understanding
the Performance
Challenge
█
The principal understands the school can
perform at a higher level given its
demographics but does not seem to have a
clear plan for improvement moving forward.
Setting
Ambitious Goals

█
Aside from attacking the sense of
complacency and noting that the school had
high standards for its students there appears
to be little in the way of specific goals
relating to student performance objectives.
Implementing an
Effective
Curriculum &
Instructional
Program
█
The school appears to have a good
understanding of the strengths and
weaknesses of their curriculum and has
demonstrated its ability to make adjustments,
when required.
Data-Based
Decision
Making

█
Mozart Elementary is well behind other
schools in implementing district benchmarks
and CFA‘s. Additionally, while the school is
beginning to use the results of several
software programs, much of their data
analysis is infrequent and incomplete, with
the results difficult to access.
Ongoing
Professional
Development
█
Heavy reliance on the county office of
education for PD. Lack of time (no early
release) and internal capacity to schedule
ongoing professional development.
Using Time
Efficiently &
Effectively

█

Work in upper grades to design four period
day. Effective use of combination classes for
ability grouping and leveling. Use of music
teacher to provide opportunities for
collaboration and interventions.
277

Table K.1, Continued
Providing
Interventions for
Struggling
Students

█
Loss of full-time teacher dedicated to
managing interventions. Rely heavily on
instructional aides (2 of which have their
credentials).
Use of software programs to provide some of
the data and diagnostic testing to drive
interventions.
Creating
Collaborative
Cultures &
Distributed
Leadership

█

Recent progress in the area with the
introduction of new staff, but still a fractured
organization which does not seem to have
many people stepping up to assume leadership
positions.
Inspiring a
Professional
Organization

█
Principal appears to take great pride in her
career path where she served in many
capacities within the school before becoming
its administrator. As a result, fills in at these
positions when required which raises
questions surrounding her use of time and the
staff‘s perceptions of her actions.
Addressing
Talent & Human
Capital Issues

█
Leveraging the school‘s location and
demographics in attempting to recruit new
teachers. However, also note that the
district‘s size and limited resources are a
problem in this area.

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
The school size of Mozart Elementary is approximately eighty percent (80%) of
the size described for the prototypical elementary school detailed in the Evidence-Based
Model, where Mozart has 346 students and the prototype has 432. Class sizes at Mozart,
are larger than those called for in the Evidence-Based Model yet when compared to other
schools in the study, are fairly small. It is important to note that the school leverages
multi-grade classrooms extensively and features three combination classes. Most of the
other school elements, with the exception of Instructional Aides, which are not funded in
278

the Evidence Based Model, are implemented at significantly lower levels in Mozart
Elementary compared to the Prototypical Elementary School of the EBM.
Table K.2: Mozart Elementary Resource Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
School
Current Resource
Status
School Based on
Prototype and
Difference
Between School &
EBM Prototype
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-8; 346
27% SED; 93
0% EL; 0
Approximately
80% of the size of
the prototype
referenced by the
EBM.
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 17
1-3: 21
4-5: 29
6-8: 28
A number of the
classes are split
between two grade
levels. 1-2, 2-3, and
a 5-6.
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180, typically
includes 3 days for
PD which has been
reduced to 1 with the
current budget.
9 percent less days
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day
kindergarten
No difference
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal &
$3000 stipend for
AP to fill in when
principal off-site.
1.0 FTE Principal
.15 AP
.15 Less AP
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0
FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary

.80 Less Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 16.0 FTE 19.2 FTE
3.2 Less FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 1.0 FTE Music
Teacher
3.8 FTE
2.8 Less FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 0 1.75 FTE
1.75 Less FTE
279

Table K.2, Continued
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
0.0 FTE 0.9 FTE
0.9 Less FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
0.0 FTE 0 EL Students
Non-Instructional Support
for EL Students
0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 0 EL Students
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.0 FTE 1.4 FTE
1.4 Less FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0.0 FTE 1.4 FTE
1.4 Less FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
2.20 FTE TOTAL
1.0 FTE RSP
County provided
teacher;
.5 FTE RSP County
Aide
.30 FTE
Psychologist;
.40 FTE Speech
Therapist
2.4 FTE

0.2 Less FTE with
not all professional
certificated
positions (Aide)
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
None at this school N/A
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$0 are allocated for
substitutes
162 days @
$95/day=$14,535
$14,535 Less
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
.20 FTE Family
Service Worker;
.10 FTE Nurse
.93 FTE
.63 Less FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 1.75 FTE .15 More FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 4.0 FTE 4.0 More FTE
280

Table K.2, Continued
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE .6 FTE Library
Media Assistant

Stipend for teacher
to assist w/
technology

.4 FTE Less
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $0
School has no
GATE program
$8,650
Technology $250 per pupil $31,400 $86,500
$55,100 Less
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $27,743 $48,400
$20,657 Less

Student Activities $200 per pupil $9000
Mainly 7
th
grade
science field trip.
$69,200
$60,200 Less
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$0
There is currently a
freeze on all
conferences and
travel requests.
$34,600

Another factor to consider in analyzing the resources at Mozart Elementary and
comparing them to the guidelines provided by the EBM is the fact that the school is a
self-contained district as well. While little research exists to determine the optimum
staffing model in a central office as many of the positions housed within are often funded
by federal or special education funds, Odden, Picus & Goetz (2008) conducted a number
of professional judgment panels and focus groups that have provided a recommended
design for a central office to support a prototypical district of 3,500 students. The model
they propose divides positions into three different categories of staffing: Administrative,
281

Professional, and Clerical. These groups consist of 1 Superintendent, 1 Assistant
Superintendent, 1 Business Manager, 1 HR Manager, 1 Director of Special Education, 1
Director of Pupil Services, 1 Director of Technology, 1 Psychologist, 1 Director of
Maintenance/Operations, 1 Payroll Clerk, 1 AP Clerk, and 4 Secretaries.
In their research in North Dakota, Odden, Picus & Goetz (2008) extended the
calculations to smaller districts where in a North Dakota district of 2,000 students, the
model would provide 5.1 senior administrative and 5.14 secretarial positions, and half
that, or 2.6 senior administrative and 2.57 secretarial positions for a 1,000 student district.
Previously, in their work in Wyoming (Odden, Picus & Goetz, 2005), a similar
calculation was reached for districts with 500 or less students where their formula
generated 3 admin and 3 secretarial positions.
With Mozart Elementary meeting the criteria of the last group and only having an
additional 1.0 Administrative FTE with the employment of a full-time business manager,
it is clear that the central office component of the school district is another area where a
significant gap exists between the recommendations of the EBM and the actual district
resource allocation.
Summary and Lessons Learned
Mozart Elementary has experienced two years of positive growth after three years
of declines and according to its principal, is well positioned to continue on its current
trajectory. However, after examining the assessment results and current school
environment in greater detail, the following items stand out:
282

 The school is significantly underperforming in both language arts and math given
its demographic composition where there are few students classified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged and no EL students.
 Mozart Elementary is significantly behind other schools in implementing district
benchmarks and CFA‘s and as a result is limited in its capacity to make
instructional decisions based on current assessment data beyond that collected
from a number of disparate software applications.
 The size of the school and fact that it is the only school in the district make it
extremely dependent on the county office of education for a variety of services
such as Special Education and professional development, a fact that frustrates the
principal and has brought her to believe ultimately negatively affects the
performance of her site. However, she did not present any solutions or
suggestions to remedy the situation.
 The non-traditional career path of the principal and the relationships she
established with a number of the teaching staff over the years has created an
unhealthy environment that adversely impacts her efforts as an instructional
leader and the school‘s implementation of instructional strategies. Additionally,
the principal‘s continued performance of a wide range of jobs, some of which she
has held previously such as a bus driver, appears to perpetuate the problems and
contributes to a sense of unprofessionalism in the organization.
283

Future Considerations
While the school has seen two years of positive increases in its performance on
the CSTs, with a current score over 800, and the principal believes that the school‘s
culture is shifting and increasingly implementing the latest effective improvement
strategies, it remains to be seen if she can overcome the perception by some staff that she
is not an effective instructional leader. To combat this issue specifically the principal
noted that her first priority, should the budget improve, would be to hire an instructional
coach as she believes many of these staff members would be more likely to adjust their
teaching and incorporate the latest instructional strategies if they were received the
direction from someone other than herself.
284

APPENDIX L – CASE STUDY 5
Schubert Elementary School
Background on the School and District
Schubert Elementary is a single-school elementary K-8 school district located in
the Southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley in California. The school district was
founded in the 1942 and operates on a traditional schedule, servicing a 24 square mile
attendance area in a largely farming and dairy community with an enrollment of 749
students. A majority of the students that live in the attendance area are bussed in yet the
school also features a high percentage (44%) of inter-district transfers due to the school‘s
reputation for academic excellence. Those students‘ parents are responsible for providing
transportation.
Schubert‘s student population is largely comprised of two ethnicities with sixty
percent (60%) of the student body classified as White and thirty-six percent (36%) of
Hispanic or Latino descent; the remaining one percent is split between several other
ethnic groups. A graph representing the makeup of the school‘s population is displayed
below in Figure L.1. Additionally, forty-four (44%) percent of the students are
categorized as Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) and over twenty-two (22%)
percent are classified as English Learners (EL) with nineteen percent (19%) of these
students speaking Spanish as their primary language.

285

Figure L.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Schubert Elementary School

The purpose of this case study is to examine the school‘s decisions surrounding
resource allocation and the implementation of instructional improvement strategies and
the extent to which the two have combined to increase student achievement.
Test Results/Achievement Gap
For the past five years, Schubert Elementary has experienced consistent growth
overall in its student performance as measured by the school‘s score on the California
Academic Performance Index (API). As Figure L.2 displays below, in the 2005/2006
school year, Schubert Elementary School‘s API score was 765 after which it increased to
770 in the following year, 791 the year after, and 817 in the fourth year. The school‘s
most recent API score was 845, producing an impressive total increase of 80 points in the
five year period.
286

Figure L.2: Schubert Elementary School API

The school‘s performance as measured by the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
report shows a similar overall trend in Language Arts with approximately sixty-five
percent (65%) of the student population scoring proficient or advanced, which is an
increase of almost twenty percent (20%) from the from the original value of forty-six
percent (46%) from five years earlier. Additionally, the report which is displayed below
in Figure L.3 also includes the individual performance of the various significant
subgroups that compose the school‘s student body. While each subgroup made
approximately the same overall improvement of twenty percent (20%)over the five year
period, there is still a significant achievement gap between the percentage of proficient
and advanced White students vs. the other subgroups.
287

Figure L.3: Schubert Elementary School Language Arts AYP (% of students proficient or
advanced)

Schubert Elementary‘s performance as measured by the Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) report paints a remarkably similar picture in Mathematics with the school
realizing approximately a twenty point increase, from forty-seven percent (47%) to sixty-
seven percent (67%) proficient or advanced, over the five year period schoolwide as
displayed in Figure L.4. As in language arts, while each subgroup made approximately
the same overall improvement of twenty percent (20%) over the five year period, there is
still a significant achievement gap between the percentage of proficient and advanced
White students vs. the other subgroups.
288

Figure L.4: Schubert Elementary School Math AYP (% of students proficient or
advanced)

Key Elements and Themes of the Instructional Improvement Process
Schubert Elementary has experienced significant enrollment growth over the past
decade, transitioning from a school of less than 300 students to its current size of 750.
Along the way it has moved aggressively to expand its facilities and staff to
accommodate the influx of new students. Additionally, the school has worked to enhance
the quality of its instruction and find the optimum mix of resources to increase
achievement for all students.
The current principal has been at the school for sixteen years, as a teacher for the
first eight and then as a half time assistant principal for four year before assuming the
full-time principal‘s position. While the largest single school district in the sites sampled,
289

the school is also unique in that it is the only one to feature both a principal and
superintendent as separate, discrete positions. It is also the only site with an assistant
principal, although it is only a half-time position. Another distinction when comparing
Schubert Elementary to the other schools in the sample is the site is the only one with an
early childhood program which is managed by the school‘s foundation, also a unique trait
among the schools studied. These unique resources and their effect on student
achievement will be analyzed in this case study utilizing the Ten Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance (Odden, 2009) as an organizing framework to evaluate the degree
of implementation of each strategy and how it relates to improving student outcomes.
Analyzing the Data and Understanding the Performance Challenge
After being a part of Schubert Elementary as a teacher for many years before
beginning in administration, the current principal expressed that she was very familiar
with the school‘s strengths and weaknesses entering her position as principal. She stated
the school had experienced a period of such dramatic growth in terms of enrollment that
for a time it felt as if most of their attention was devoted to staying ahead of the
increasing number of students by preparing facilities and staffing and she believed they
did not devote as much energy and attention as they should have to improving
instruction. The principal shared that in analyzing their test results that it was clear a
number of school‘s subgroups, specifically the SED, Hispanic, and EL students, were not
being serviced adequately and a large performance gap existed in both language arts and
math. However, the principal claimed that this challenge was met with enthusiasm from
290

all members of the school community and that the entire campus was united and focused
on achieving their goals.
Setting Ambitious Goals
It was this commitment to achieving schoolwide growth that the principal
highlighted often in her description of the school‘s improvement efforts. On the day of
the interview all staff, including the principal, were wearing t-shirts emblazoned with the
number ‗867‘, which was the goal the school had set for its API this year. This score, if
the school is able to achieve it, represents a twenty-two point increase, an ambitious
target for growth in a single year. However, the principal shared the school has
experienced a great deal of success in establishing bold yet attainable goals, having set a
target of 835 (a goal that represented an 18 point gain) the year prior and achieving a
score of 845. In addition, aside from the t-shirts displaying the school‘s goal, the
principal related that Schubert Elementary did everything it could to celebrate past
success on the state tests as well as achievements that occurred during the year.
According to the principal, students regularly receive recognition, awards, and have their
pictures taken when performing well on exams or other activities and were guided to take
all tests seriously without becoming intimidated by them. She believed this approach laid
a solid foundation for continued success on high stakes tests.
Implementing an Effective Curriculum & Instructional Program
One of the most intense areas of focus in financial resources and time is the
school‘s initiative to train all of its teachers in the effective implementation of the various
curriculums the school has adopted. As an example, the principal shared that the site
291

recently adopted Houghton Mifflin as its new math curriculum and has had to work
through a number of issues to assist its teachers in successfully incorporating it in their
classes. One of the major reasons for the intense transition according the principal was
that the adoption seemed to be more aligned to the common core standards, which she
asserts is a good thing for the future, but a short-term hardship. However, she stated that
after only on year, the staff was coming around to appreciate the curriculum‘s more
involved problem solving and writing in the area of math. She believes that this was
achieved through a series of trainings on identifying the essential standards and adjusting
pacing that the school organized, but also through the natural collaboration between
teachers that the site fosters. Finally, she also pointed to several informational sessions
and updates in the school newsletter on the implementation and challenges associated
with the new curriculum that the site used to communicate with and reassure parents.
In terms of the implementation of instructional strategies, the principal stated she
is very active in monitoring the progress in this area. She conducts regular walkthroughs
and provides feedback to teachers regarding the strategies that she observed or is
expecting to see. She did stress that she regularly sees the implementation of a variety of
strategies and the staff generally have the freedom and confidence to determine which
approach, such as homogenous or heterogeneous grouping works best for them or in
conjunction with a specific activity.
Data-based Decision Making
Given the large size of the school and the technical resources available, the
principal shared that surprisingly the site did not yet have an Assessment Management
292

System such as Edusoft of Data Director. However, while that has made data collection
and analysis more difficult and oftentimes a tedious process, the principal believes her
staff to be experts in collecting and utilizing data to drive instruction. For the past ten
years, the site has implemented assessment binders in which teachers store all of the
results from their assessments and turn them into the principal at the end of every
trimester for review. The data are examined by an assessment committee composed of
the administration and select teachers with the resulting student progress results
transferred to a spreadsheet to enable additional analysis. Additionally, the school uses
Reading Inventory which keeps a running record for reading progress for every student,
Discovery Education a computer based application focused on Math, and also
Renaissance Learning‘s Star Math and Star Reading. Each of these programs generates a
set of reports that are charted manually in the assessment binders and then transferred
into electronic form using an Excel spreadsheet.
The principal shared that the site is also constantly working at refining its internal
assessments, referencing the school‘s benchmarks in language arts and math. These tests
are a mixture of teacher created questions, CST release items, as well as questions pulled
from their adopted curriculum. Currently the school‘s assessments in math are strong and
the language arts benchmarks in the lower grades are the primary focus. In referencing
the need again for an Assessment Management System, the principal stressed that this
development was extremely time consuming and that while she was passionate about
conducting an item analysis to determine the validity of the questions on the benchmark,
293

it oftentimes was tempting to consider glossing over that piece given the time
commitment that was required.
Ongoing Professional Development
In addition to three days devoted entirely to staff development during the year,
according to the principal, Schubert Elementary is structured to embed a great deal of
professional development during each school week. Schubert‘s strategy has been to pare
down the breadth of training topics and has attempted to link each professional
development activity to the goals established in their school site plan, all of which are
strongly tied to mastery of the essential standards. Activities and their effectiveness are
also regularly reviewed and revisited such as the school‘s trainings in Step Up to Writing
where AVID came in subsequently to evaluate the implementation of many of the
elements embedded in the original training while also providing supplementary writing
strategies.
Additionally, as it is consistently a subgroup that has not met the growth targets,
much of the school‘s professional development is focused on strategies to best service
English Learners. Staff development surrounding test preparation, tools to identify
‗bubble students‘ and the instructional strategies that are most effective to move these
students past the intermediate performance levels have been a fixture and the principal
credited the County Office of Education for providing a significant amount of assistance
in this area.
294

Using Time Efficiently and Effectively
Schubert Elementary has implemented ninety minutes of uninterrupted
instructional time for the first time this year and the principal claimed the practice has
already been extremely helpful. For example, the school has a reading lab which it pulls
students into for additional interventions every day for a period of thirty to fifty minutes.
This was obviously cutting into teacher directed language arts instruction and between
the reading lab and interventions targeting English Learners as well as regular computer
pullouts, teachers were having students shuffled in and out frequently. Teachers have
commented that they really appreciate the uninterrupted instructional time where all
students are together with no distractions.
The school has also used teachers in the upper grades and the electives it offers to
free up a number of teachers to assume additional duties in the afternoon when those
electives are offered. For example, the part-time Vice Principal is an administrator in the
morning and teaches elective courses in the afternoon while the school‘s part-time
counselor teaches sixth grade core classes in the morning and then rather than teaching
electives, provides counseling in the afternoon.
Providing Interventions for Struggling Students
While Schubert Elementary has implemented a number of services to assist
struggling students found in many other schools such as the reading pullouts discussed
previously, its foundation has allowed it to provide a new range of interventions. The site
features a before-school and after-school option and that is staffed and managed
underneath the umbrella of the foundation and offers homework help that is coordinated
295

with the classroom teachers. Tutoring is also available during these times with a lunch
option where participating students are released from their classes five minutes early to
move through the cafeteria or retrieve their lunch quickly and avoid any bottlenecks that
could cut into their instructional time.
Perhaps most impressively, the school‘s foundation had recently purchased a
house, dubbed ‗The Villa‘, in a residential community that is the home to most of the
school‘s low-income students. This home is staffed with four employees, who will soon
be joined by additional volunteers, from Monday through Thursday, 3:15 to 5:00 PM and
currently provides students access to computers and assistance with homework. The
home was purchased as a more cost effective and innovative solution to the problem of
transportation being unavailable to students participating in after school interventions. A
large percentage of these students are from the SED group and the principal is anxious to
see the results for the 20-30 students who are already walking to and from their homes to
‗The Villa‘ for help.
Creating Collaborative Cultures and Distributed Leadership
In describing the culture of the school and the administration‘s efforts to promote
an environment of distributed leadership, the principal was quick to tout the benefits that
a single school district provided in this arena. She spoke about it naturally eliminating
the artificial vertical hierarchies and barriers to communication in that everyone from the
newest teacher to the superintendent was in the same location and generally always
available to provide guidance or to listen to concerns.
296

The principal also emphasized that when the administration asked teachers for
their input on a particular matter, that they did so with every intention of actually utilizing
their ideas. She expressed that she believed that a number of schools actually manipulate
teachers to believe they are being included in decisions and that she thought her teachers
would catch on very quickly if they attempted the same behavior. More importantly, she
stated that she relied on her teachers to provide the expertise that would often be attached
to a position such as the Director of Curriculum at the district level in a larger school
district. She emphasized again that the fact that Schubert is a small single school district
helped create the collaborative culture and distributed leadership out of necessity in a
very organic fashion.
Inspiring a Professional Organization
In speaking about creating a professional organization Schubert‘s principal shared
that she was extremely proud of how vital and assertive the school site council had
become. Beginning with helping to construct the school site plan, the principal stated
there is an extremely rich and diverse set of experiences and expertise from all of its
members. Linking back to the collaborative culture and distributed leadership, the site
council has taken ownership of the critical evaluation of performance goals and is active
in holding the school accountable to them. According to the principal, they are also
hungry to discuss and implement the latest instructional strategies and trends and a
portion of each monthly meeting is dedicated to such a topic, which the principal or
superintendent typically brings to the table. This is frequently the first venue for
297

information that eventually is taken to the whole staff and often finds its way into the
classroom.
Addressing Talent and Human Capital Issues
Unlike many of the other schools in the sample, Schubert Elementary appeared to
have implemented a number of the items recommended by Odden (2009) as effective
tools to cultivate internal talent and best address a variety of human capital issues.
Beginning with their hiring and recruiting process where the school had worked to
establish contacts with several of the nearby education schools within the universities in
the area, Schubert had a very refined interview process incorporating practical displays of
an applicant‘s skills and methodology through activities such as teaching demonstrations.
Additionally, the principal shared that the school had a pipeline through which she could
personally attest, after having moved through it, where teachers that were interested in
administration and leadership roles could begin to learn and assume additional
responsibility. A number of stipends are available that the principal uses to delegate
responsibility such as the school‘s special projects director. Serving as the principal of
summer school is another option for staff to get a taste of the requirements of
administration and the approach has served the district well in training and retaining
highly qualified teachers and administrators.
Evaluation of Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Double Student Performance
Table L.I is a summary of the degree to which Schubert Elementary has
implemented the 10 Steps to Double Student Performance.
298

Table L.1: Schubert Elementary Implementation of the Ten Strategies to Increase
Student Performance
Instructional
Strategy
Degree of Implementation Notes
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Below
Basic
Far Below
Basic
Analyzing the
Data &
Understanding
the Performance
Challenge
█
While the site has been examining and
utilizing data to drive instructional decisions
for years, by the principal‘s own
acknowledgement, additional tools are
necessary to allow the site to move to the
next level and disaggregate data to determine
the effectiveness of programs or various
needs of students.
Setting
Ambitious Goals

█

As evidenced by the t-shirts staff members
were wearing at the time of the interview,
Schubert is very familiar with setting
ambitious, yet attainable goals.
Implementing an
Effective
Curriculum &
Instructional
Program

█

The staff and administration at Schubert
spend a significant amount of time and
resources to become familiar with and
experts delivering adopted curriculum. They
are also skilled at communicating its
strengths and weaknesses to all stakeholders.
Data-Based
Decision
Making

█
As discussed in the section regarding
analyzing data, the school is well-versed in
the use of data to drive instructional
decisions, however it lacks some of the tools
necessary to collect, aggregate, store, and if
necessary, disaggregate data.
Ongoing
Professional
Development

█
The school has a coherent focus to
professional development goals and their
approach to delivering it effectively.
According to the principal, while there are
built-in days dedicated to the activity in the
schedule, the ongoing piece could be
strengthened through the addition of
coaches/facilitators.
299

Table L.1, Continued
Using Time
Efficiently &
Effectively

█
Practical use of upper grade teachers and
electives to free up teachers to perform other
duties, giving them experience, and
benefitting the school in avoiding dedicated
positions while still getting the work done.
Providing
Interventions for
Struggling
Students

█

Schubert features a wide variety of
intervention opportunities from pullouts
during the day, tutoring before and after
school or during lunch, and even the addition
of a home located in a low-income
community to provide services for SED
students.
Creating
Collaborative
Cultures &
Distributed
Leadership

█

Principal touted the benefit that a small
district has in almost being forced to create a
collaborative culture and promote distributed
leadership out of necessity.
Inspiring a
Professional
Organization █

Schubert features a strong school site council
that provides a platform for the introduction
of the latest research and instructional
strategies as well as a formal check and
accountability.
Addressing
Talent & Human
Capital Issues

█

The school has a well-defined and practical
recruitment and interview process.
Additionally it provides opportunities for
aspiring administrators yet there does not
seem to be a major focus on opportunities for
teachers to grow professionally if they are not
interested in administration.

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
The school size of Schubert Elementary is almost 1.75 times the size of the
prototypical school featured in the in the Evidence-Based Model, where Schubert has 749
students and the prototype has 432. Class sizes at Schubert are substantially higher in K-
3 than those called for in the Evidence-Based Model, however, in grades 4-8 they are
approximately the same. Most of the other school elements, with the exception of
300

Instructional Aides which are not funded in the Evidence Based Model, are implemented
at significantly lower levels in Schubert Elementary compared to the Prototypical
Elementary School of the EBM.
Table L.2: Schubert Elementary Resource Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
School
Current Resource
Status
School Based on
Prototype and
Difference
Between School &
EBM
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-8; 749 Students
44% SED; 330
22% EL; 165
Approximately
1.75 times larger
than EBM
prototype.
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 21
(first year they have
taken penalty on
CSR)
4-8: 25
One of the classes
is split between
two grade levels: 5-
6.
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180, includes 3 days
of PD
9 percent less days
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day
kindergarten
No difference
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal &
0.5 FTE Asst.
principal
1.0 FTE Principal
0.5 FTE Asst.
principal
No difference
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0
FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary
.75 FTE Clerical
Attendance aide
2.0 FTE
.25 Less FTE
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 31 FTE core
teachers
41.6 FTE
10.5 Less FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 1 FTE specialist
music
8.3 FTE
7.3 Less FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 0 FTE
Lead Teacher
stipend
3.8 FTE
3.8 Less FTE
301

Table L.2, Continued
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
0 FTE
Time Cards for
aides, but voluntary
and irregular
3.3 FTE

3.3 Less FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
0 FTE
EL coordinator, but
regular classroom
teacher w/ stipend.
1.65 FTE

1.65 FTE Less
Non-Instructional Support
for EL Students
0.0 FTE 0 FTE 0.0 FTE
No Difference
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.1 FTE
3.1 FTE Less
Summer School 1.8 FTE 3.0 FTE 3.1 FTE
No Difference
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
1.30 FTE TOTAL
1.0 FTE RSP teacher
provided by the
school;
.20 FTE
Psychologist;
.10 FTE Speech
Therapist
5.2 FTE
3.9 Less FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
0 at the site N/A
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$5,890 162 days @
$95/day=$27,360
$21,470 Less
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
.75 FTE Health
Aide;
3.3 FTE

2.55 Less FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.5 FTE

3.5 Less FTE
302

Table L.2, Continued
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 20.0 FTE 20.0 more FTEs
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE Library
Media Assistant (2
*.50 FTE)
0.75 FTE Computer
Tech
1.75 FTE
No difference
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $7,850 $18,725
$10,875 Less
Technology $250 per pupil $38,828 $187,250
$148,422 Less
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $45,089 $104,860
$59,770 Less
Student Activities $200 per pupil $17,980 $149,800
$131,820 Less
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$63,480 $74,900
$11,420 Less

Another factor to consider in analyzing the resources at Schubert Elementary and
comparing them to the guidelines provided by the EBM is the fact that the school is a
self-contained district as well. While little research exists to determine the optimum
staffing model in a central office as many of the positions housed within are often funded
by federal or special education funds, Odden, Picus & Goetz (2008) conducted a number
of professional judgment panels and focus groups that have provided a recommended
design for a central office to support a prototypical district of 3,500 students. The model
they propose divides positions into three different categories of staffing: Administrative,
Professional, and Clerical. These groups consist of 1 Superintendent, 1 Assistant
Superintendent, 1 Business Manager, 1 HR Manager, 1 Director of Special Education, 1
303

Director of Pupil Services, 1 Director of Technology, 1 Psychologist, 1 Director of
Maintenance/Operations, 1 Payroll Clerk, 1 AP Clerk, and 4 Secretaries.
In their research in North Dakota, Odden, Picus & Goetz (2008) extended the
calculations to smaller districts where in a North Dakota district of 2,000 students, the
model would provide 5.1 senior administrative and 5.14 secretarial positions, and half
that, or 2.6 senior administrative and 2.57 secretarial positions for a 1,000 student district.
Previously, in their work in Wyoming (Odden, Picus & Goetz, 2005), a similar
calculation was reached for districts with 500 or less students where their formula
generated 3 admin and 3 secretarial positions.
With Schubert Elementary meeting the criteria of the last group and only having
an additional 2.0 FTE with the employment of a full-time bookkeeper and a combination
Title I/Technology director, it is clear that the central office component of the school
district is another area where a significant gap exists between the recommendations of the
EBM and the actual district resource allocation.
Summary and Lessons Learned
Schubert Elementary has achieved consistent and significant growth in each of the
past five years as measured by the school‘s performance on state tests. However, after
examining the assessment results and current school environment in greater detail the
following items stand out:
 The school functions as a cohesive group in establishing, evaluating, and more
often than not, exceeding ambitious performance goals.
304

 While all subgroups realized approximately the same level of improvement in
both ELA and Math, a significant gap still exists between the White students and
the SED, Hispanic, and EL students.
 The school‘s culture is well aligned in the use of data to drive instructional
decisions and the principal believes this synergy will continue as the school adds
capacity with an Assessment Management System.
 Professional development efforts are focused and linked to school improvement
goals though more collaboration time is needed according to the principal.
 Innovative solutions to problems such as providing interventions while
minimizing transportation costs have been enabled through strong leadership and
the additional resources and flexibility provided by the school‘s foundation.
Future Considerations
While the principal is optimistic that the school will attain its latest goals for API,
she is still concerned about the performance gap that exists and wants to do whatever she
can to eliminate it. The foundation has helped this effort significantly by infusing
additional resources at a time when the state budget has cut funding in many areas.
However, the school has not escaped the reductions entirely, losing a reading teacher that
also served as a sort of curriculum coach, and the principal shared that she was sorely
missed this year and that a priority if the fiscal climate improved was to restore the
position. The principal also stated that the site needed additional resources to continue to
update its technology and along with the implementation of the Assessment Management
305

System, also wanted to expand the use of software programs such as Lexia Reading and
Rosetta Stone for elective foreign language options. Finally, as the school continues to
combat the fiscal challenges gripping the entire state, the principal is particularly
concerned about the loss of the summer school program as she feels it is a critical
remediation tool for the school‘s struggling students.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Although much of the press and research surrounding K-12 education focuses on the challenges surrounding large urban school districts, rural schools face many of the same issues and often have an even more difficult time marshaling the resources and expertise necessary to realize genuine instructional improvement (NSBA, 2007). With the current economic crisis and the significant number of California school districts that are failing to meet the goals outlined by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the efficient use of resources to drive instruction is more important than ever to small districts who may find themselves facing the threat of consolidation if their performance does not meet expectations. In small rural districts, financial concerns such as declining enrollment and outdated infrastructure combine with instructional issues such as professional development and teacher recruitment and retention to challenge performance.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Educational resources 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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Resource use and instructional improvement strategies at the school-site level: case studies from ten southern California elementary schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation practices in relation to identified school reform strategies

PDF

Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Two-way bilingual education in a post-1998 California elementary school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Nelson, Nathan (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2011-05

Publication Date 04/13/2011

Defense Date 02/02/2011

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

Tag California school finance,educational adequacy,evidence-based model,instructional strategies,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation,rural districts,Rural schools,small districts,Small schools

Place Name California (states), Central Valley (region), 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 nlnelson@usc.edu,nnelson@springvillewireless.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3741

Unique identifier UC1187096

Identifier etd-Nelson-4329 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-452989 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3741 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Nelson-4329.pdf

Dmrecord 452989

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Nelson, Nathan

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