Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Toward school improvement and fiscal equity: examining educational adequacy in a Southern California school district
(USC Thesis Other)
Toward school improvement and fiscal equity: examining educational adequacy in a Southern California school district
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
TOWARD SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AND FISCAL EQUITY: EXAMINING
EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY IN A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
by
Erin L. Lahr
_______________________________________________________________
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
August 2010
Copyright 2010 Erin L. Lahr
ii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to Erin’s parents, Jo Glasgow and John
Richardson, and her husband, John Lahr, and children, Justin, Jeffrey, and Jonathan,
who have sacrificed much. All their combined love and support have been
inspirational and made this endeavor possible.
iii
Acknowledgments
Dr. Lawrence Picus, Committee Chair
Dr. Dominic Brewer, Committee Member
Dr. John Nelson, Committee Member
Dr. Laurie Love, Professor and Mentor
Colleagues of Dr. Lawrence Picus’ 2010 Thematic Dissertation Group
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication……………………………………………………………………….. ...ii
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………. ...iii
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………….. ...v
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………… ...vi
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………....vii
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study…………………………………………….. ...1
Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………...17
Chapter 3: Methodology………………………………………………………...45
Chapter 4: The Findings………………………………………………………...54
Chapter 5: Discussion………………………………………………………... ...99
References……………………………………………………………………......109
Appendices
Appendix A: Data Collection Protocol……………………………….. ...114
Appendix B: Data Collection Codebook………………………………...125
Appendix C: Qualitative Data Collection Protocol……………………...137
Appendix D: Principal Letter…………………………………………. ...140
Appendix E: Pre-Visit Documents……………………………………....142
Appendix F: Case Study Format………………………………………...144
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Current Expenditures Per Student in Fall Enrollment in Public…... ...30
Elementary and Secondary Schools, Percentage Distribution
of Current Expenditures, and Percent Change of Current
Expenditures, by Function and Object: School Years 1989–90
through 2005–06
Table 2: Evidence-based Model Recommendations for Prototypical………....36
Schools
Table 3: Evidence-based Model Staffing Resources Data Collection……… ...51
Protocol
Table 4: 2009 National School Lunch Program Enrollment and Five………...56
Year Growth in STAR Performance of State, County, District
and School
Table 5: Five Year District and Subgroup Adequate Yearly Progress………...57
Comparison by Subject
Table 6: 2009 Five Year GEUSD Title III Performance…………………… ...58
Table 7: Five Year GES and Subgroup Adequate Yearly Progress…………...60
Comparison by Subject
Table 8: Comparison of GES Actual Resource Use to Evidence Based…… ...65
Model
Table 9: Five Year AES and Subgroup Adequate Yearly Progress……….....108
Comparison by Subject
Table 10: Comparison of AES Actual Resource Use to Evidence Based……....72
Model
Table 11: Five Year MES and Subgroup Adequate Yearly Progress…………...75
Comparison by Subject
Table 12: Comparison of MES Actual Resource Use to Evidence Based……...80
Model
Table 13: Comparison of CGES Actual Resource Use to Evidence Based….....86
Model
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: 2008-09 Revenues for K-12 Education……………………………....23
Figure 2: Five Year Adequate Yearly Progress Comparison: Annual………. ...82
School-wide and District-wide Percent Proficient on CSTs
in English Language Arts and Mathematics Subject
vii
Abstract
A purposeful sample of four schools within one Southern California district
with approximately 80% poverty and 60% English learners documented the practices
of successful schools in allocating resources toward student achievement. These
schools, all of which had poverty rates above 50% demonstrated growth of around
20% in their AYP scores over the past five years. Data collection protocols were
adapted from previous resource allocation studies in Wyoming, Washington and
Arkansas (Picus, et al., 2008). Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected
utilizing the Evidence-based Model and open-ended interview protocols as a basis
for documenting resource allocation practices and instructional strategies of
successful schools.
Current funding levels and allocations demonstrate that resources for GEUSD
schools are inadequate or not at levels recommended by the Evidence-based Model
complicating efforts to achieve an adequate education for all students. Primary
elements of resource use at level less than the model suggests include: (1) class size;
(2) instructional and administrative staffing; and (3) professional development.
Despite these fiscal challenges, GEUSD has implemented a school improvement
process employing many action steps found in the literature, which have lead to
substantially improved student achievement. All four schools have implemented to
some degree all of the 10 steps that Odden and Archibald (2009) assert are necessary
for improving student performance.
viii
A comparison of school and district practices to the Evidence-based Model
and best practices identified in the literature revealed implications for educational
leaders. The findings are paraphrased into six key areas that school leaders should
allocate resources toward for improved student success: (1) assessment of the
performance problems and setting goals; (2) changing the curriculum and setting a
new instructional vision; (3) measuring and monitoring progress; (4) collaborative
culture and professional development based on research and promising practices; (5)
core and supplemental intervention instructional time and programs; and (6)
widespread and distributed leadership.
1
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study
Educational leaders, policy makers, and researchers have long sought to
understand how to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for students in
the United States. As federal, state, and local concerns for equity and performance in
education grew, so did funding levels for instruction and oversight. A maturing
country struggled to improve the quality of life and education for its citizens and
keep pace with educational, scientific, and economic advancements throughout the
globe. Battles in the states and supreme courts combined with defeats in global
markets drew attention to what many viewed as the root of the problem, the failing
educational system. This pervasive view was highlighted in an open letter to the
American people by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, which
referred to the educational system as having produced “a rising tide of mediocrity”
that threatened the very future of the United States (NCEE, 1983). While attempts to
reform education have been underway for decades, the problem of poor performance
for many students throughout the country still exists today. Results from the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicate that gains were made
in closing America’s mathematics and reading achievement gaps in 2007, however
the achievement gap still exists (Vanneman, A. Hamilton, L., Baldwin-Anderson, J.,
& Rahman, T., 2009). Furthermore, as compared to other countries, United States’
performance in mathematics and science is below average on the Program for
International Student Assessment (PISA) (NCES, 2009).
2
The precedent setting case Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka,
Kansas (1954), which overturned the prevailing Plessey v. Ferguson (1896) decision
of “separate but equal,” drew national attention in the courts toward equality in
education. This focus on providing equal education for all students grew into a
national movement, the civil rights era of the 1950s and 1960s, calling for equal
rights for many societal groups.
In addition, the federal government has formed commissions on education
charged with evaluating the state of affairs and making recommendations for
improvement over the past sixty years. Since this time, the role of the federal
government with regard to education has increased. Tracing federal involvement, the
Truman Report (1947), and the establishment of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s
(1956) Commission on Education and President John F. Kennedy’s (1960) Task
Force on Education are early examples of the call for educational reform. The 1957
launch of the Soviet Union’s satellite, Sputnik, sparked debate over the need for
educational improvements in mathematics and science (NCEE, 1983). The
development of engineers capable of competing in the global space race was sought.
Significant debate and reform efforts continued for several decades and President
Ronald Reagan’s NCEE issued a report titled, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for
Educational Reform (1983), which highlighted weaknesses in the educational system
and processes that set the stage for further and widespread reform. President George
H. W. Bush and William J. Clinton continued presidential attention and reform
3
efforts, which grew into the high stakes accountability era of today with the GOALS
2000: Educate America Act (1994) and the No Child Left Behind Act (2001).
Although the Constitution sets the primary responsibility of K-12 education
with the states, the federal government has played an important role in funding
education (DOE, 2005). Sizeable federal funding for education began with passage
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965. ESEA provides
funds for school programs for low-income families; instructional resources,
materials, and services; professional development for teachers; state resources; and
research. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2003), federal
spending under ESEA increased from approximately $1 billion in 1966 to $17.4
billion in 2001. As federal resources focused on education and grew, allocation
decisions were fueled with a push for equity (Brimley & Garfield, 2002).
The ESEA was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001(NCLB) and federal dollars and accountability continued to rapidly increase.
NCLB came about through greater public awareness and interest in educational
reform seeking better results for the nation’s youth. NCLB brought greater
accountability, a focus on research-based instruction, and parental options in the
name of increasing student performance and closing the achievement gap. Federal
spending for NCLB grew from the $17.4 billion under ESEA to $25.3 billion by
2006 (DOE, 2005).
The recent economic crisis, both national and global, led President Barrack
Obama to sign the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) in an attempt
4
to jumpstart the economy, create and save millions of jobs, and invest in the future so
this country can survive in the twenty-first century (DOE, 2009). According to
Butler (2009), the stimulus package associated with the ARRA will provide an
economic boost for education worth over $100 billion (p. 21). Details of the
approximate $115 billion ARRA commitment for K-12 education (out of a total
stimulus package of $787 billion) breakdown to 3 key areas: (1) $13 billion for Title
I; (2) $12.2 billion for Special Education; (3) $53.6 billion for state aid for schools
referred to as “state stabilization funds” (EdWeek, 2009). In light of the declining
economy, major corporate failures, and budget cuts at the state level, the federal
stimulus funds have been designed to assist states in addressing budget shortfalls,
where education budgets make up a large portion of total budgets. For example,
California is expected to receive about half of the recently approved $11.6 education
funding cuts (Butler, 2009).
Key legislation and recent economic events in California have shaped a
complex landscape where local control of education has diminished and resource
availability has been impacted. Three main legislative acts that have shaped
California’s school finance system include the Serrano v. Priest decision (1977),
Proposition 13 (1978), and Proposition 98 (1988) (EdSource, 2000). First, the
Serrano v. Priest decision declared California’s school funding system to be
inequitable and ordered funding changes to bring about equalization in per pupil
expenditures for all districts. Second, Proposition 13 amended the state constitution,
which limited property taxation to 1% of the assessed value and to 2% annual
5
increases with a new two-third voter approval requirement. Third, the main provision
of Proposition 98 guaranteed a minimum funding level for schools. In addition,
understanding the current fiscal crisis facing California is necessary as significant
budget cuts are critically impacting schools throughout the State.
The result is a state-controlled, economically dependent system that
determines how much tax revenue will go to its schools and limits schools’ ability to
increase revenues at the local level. School districts in California receive both
general and categorical funds that must be allocated to individual school sites
according to state and federal guidelines. In addition to the General Fund, schools
districts may also qualify for federal Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEIA), Program Improvement, and other Title funds. Unique to
California, over one hundred categorical funds may provide additional resources to
schools, yet the major sources of categorical funding include: Economic Impact Aid
and Limited English Proficient (EIA-LEP) funds and incentive programs such as
Class Size Reduction (CSR) for grades K-3 and grade 9.
California faces a critical time with their largest budget deficit in history of
$26 billion, where the governor has issued IOUs and issues in education continue to
mount (Associated Press, 2009). Currently, California serves 6.8 million students,
where 50.6% of enrollment is on Free/Reduced-price Meals, 24.7% is English
Learner, 10.8% is Special Education (ages 0-22), and 8.4% is Gifted and Talented
(EdSource, 2009( Card 27)). Such diversity adds to the complex landscape of
education. With near 100 categorical programs, diverse learner needs and less
6
money, will California’s Academic Performance Index (API) scores continue to rise?
How will California make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) given the increasing
demands of NCLB and the tougher economic climate?
To further demonstrate the economic landscape, recent budget cuts of $12
billion for the 2008-2009 fiscal year and an additional $5.5 billion for 2009-2010
have significantly impacted school finances (CDE, 2009). California now has 108
districts on an early warning list that signals that a district is at risk for not meeting
their financial obligations (CDE, 2009). According to the California Department of
Education, 19 districts received negative certification status and 89 received
qualified certifications as reported on the Second Interim Status Report for the 2008-
2009 fiscal year. This is an increase from the 5 negative and 19 qualified
certifications of the previous year. The governor and legislators agreed on a budget
July 20, 2009, which will hurt all facets of society and education (LA Times, 2009).
Class sizes are increasing. Thirty-thousand teachers and staff have been laid off to
date and more lay-offs are projected by August 15, 2009. Summer school has been
eliminated throughout the state and course offerings are diminishing. Although the
ARRA will supply California with needed relief at about $3 billion for K-12
education, cuts to education in order to help the economy and balance the budget far
exceed the support. California faces a major economic crisis projected to last for
years (CDE, 2009).
Understanding that the growth in educational spending overtime has not
resulted in significant gains in student achievement raises questions of how resources
7
have been employed overtime. Examining resource use patterns to determine
strengths and weaknesses regarding allocation decisions may help schools develop
fiscal efficiency and instructional strategies that have the potential of dramatically
improving student performance.
Currently the United States spends a total of $450 billion on elementary and
secondary education with the highest state expenditures in California at $53 billion
(NCES, 2008). In 2005, the United States expenditures on elementary and secondary
education reported the highest per pupil expenditures of $9,800 as compared with
other Group of Eight (G-8) countries, who report educational and economic data to
the NCES (Miller, Malley, & Owen, 2009). Although per pupil expenditures have
risen to record highs, California consistently falls short of national averages with per
pupil spending in 2005-06 at $8,486 with the national average at $9,100 (Ed-Data,
2008). While the United States has consistently increased spending on education and
spends more on education than ever before, researchers have sought understand how
education dollars are spent and to wonder why there have not been corresponding
substantial increases in student achievement (Hanushek and Rivkin; 1997, Odden,
Monk, Nakib & Picus; 1995, Picus & Fazal; 1996).
In examining resource use patterns, Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) and the
others found that new dollars primarily went to (1) salaries for instruction of non-
core subjects such as electives, smaller class sizes, and other services; (2) special
education services; and (3) teacher salaries in general. Odden and Picus (2008)
highlight that very little of the new dollars were spent on core instruction and assert
8
that a smaller portion of total educational dollars have been spent on core instruction.
Odden, Archibald, Fermanich and Gross (2003) demonstrate the need for improved
fiscal reporting that goes beyond district-level reporting by expenditure function to
tracking expenditures at the school-level. The goal was to improve school-level
reporting so that analysis of the data could lead to improving use of educational
dollars to impact student achievement.
As school finance discussions moved from equal funding levels to equitable
funding targeting improved student achievement, improvements in fiscal reporting
aided such analysis. With improved knowledge of how dollars are spent and what the
dollars buy, schools and districts can begin to employ resources more productively
(Odden & Archibald, 2000). Improved productivity is the central focus of
educational adequacy and may provide insight for schools in greatly improving the
use of educational dollars.
Educational adequacy, or sufficient per pupil funding for schools and districts
to execute plans and strategies in order to help students reach high levels of
performance, offers promise for schools in improving student outcomes and fiscal
efficiency for schools and districts (Odden, 2003). Educational reform conversations
have long debated this issue of whether money matters in education when it comes to
improving student performance (Burbridge, 2008). The United States spends more
on education today than ever before, yet are they spending wisely (DOE; 2009, CDE;
2009)? How much money is needed to meet educational goals and how much is
enough? Can the United States better use resources to raise productivity without
9
continuing to raise expenses? While debate exists over answers to these questions,
most agree that school and district restructuring must accompany funding increases
to result in dramatic increases in student achievement (Burbridge, 2008).
Odden and Picus (2008) frame the prime school finance problem facing
education today as one of productivity. To this end, the researchers have utilized the
concept of educational adequacy to help determine the appropriate amount and use
of allocations needed to achieve the desired performance. Given a state’s
performance standards and assessment system, a method for determining costs of
education is necessary in ascertaining adequacy. The remaining issue of utilizing
resources effectively and efficiently necessitates methods for measuring costs. Four
major methods of determining costs of education that have been utilized include the
successful district approach, the cost function approach, the professional judgment
approach, and the expert judgment or evidence-based approach (Odden; 2003,
Rebell; 2007). While methods for costing out education have improved over time,
Rebell (2007) asserts that there is little research documenting evidence-based studies
and warns about claims of research-based evidence that may be limited,
inconclusive, and non-transferable to other contexts. Rebell and others highlight the
need for more studies in this area.
Additionally, the problem of improving student performance not only
requires fiscal efficiency, but also instructional effectiveness. Research-based school
improvement strategies have taken center stage in educational arenas as NCLB and
state accountability systems demand improved student performance. In this context
10
of high-stakes accountability and school reform, schools and districts have been
forced to examine practices and change their strategies in order to produce better
results and close achievement gaps. Successful schools have changed curriculum and
instruction, employed research-based strategies, set high expectations for student
learning and implemented data-informed decision making (Blankenstein; 2004,
Cotton; 1989, Fillmore & Snow; 2000, Johnson; 2002, Marzano; 2003, Tilly; 2006).
Successful schools and districts have also developed a better understanding of
leadership factors, the change process, and professional development that are
required for implementation of the improvement strategies (Danielson; 2006,
Elmore; 2003, Fullan; 2007, Marzano, Waters, & McNulty; 2005). Hence, efficient
resource use, educational adequacy, and research-based instructional strategies must
be explored in tandem if schools and districts are to make substantial improvements
to current educational realities.
Statement of the Problem
United States student achievement lags in comparison to other countries
(TIMMS, 2007). For a country that has consistently allocated a majority of their
fiscal resources, roughly 60% per year and substantial compared to other nations,
one would hope to reap better results with such investment. The problem is two-fold,
both a technical and economic one. How can US educators improve instruction to get
better results from their students and how can educational leaders effectively and
efficiently utilize fiscal resources to achieve the desired results?
11
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this evaluative study is to add to the research base of resource
allocation patterns of Southern California elementary schools in order to link
resource allocation with improved student outcomes. Exploring related issues is also
germane in understanding and improving educational outcomes and the associated
adequate funding levels. Issues include some predetermined by the researcher and
some will emerge through the fieldwork. The focus of this study is to document
school-level expenditures; instructional vision and improvement strategies; and
uncover themes and patterns that relate to instructional improvement. Resource
allocation and use data will be compared to the Evidence-based Model to determine
if adequacy in funding is achieved. How resource allocation decisions are made and
factors that affect the decision-making process are also of interest. In addition, new
questions based on the findings may emerge.
As part of thematic graduate studies at USC Rossier School of Education
under the direction of Lawrence O. Picus, the following research questions were
jointly developed (2009):
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at
the school level;
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan;
3. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to recent
changes in California and federal education budgets and flow of dollars;
12
and
4. How are the school-level, resource-use patterns aligned with or different
from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-based Model?
These research questions will guide the inquiry into school-level resource allocation
decisions and the connection of those decisions to school planning and improvement
processes. Several school finance adequacy studies by graduate students in the 2010
thematic group, including the study herein, will explore these research questions
utilizing purposeful samples of various school populations in order to add to the
Southern California research base.
Importance of the Study
Given the current economic realities and impacted budgets due to the global
and state financial crises of late, schools and districts will need to utilize resources
more efficiently. Also, in the high-stakes accountability era of NCLB and 2014
rapidly approaching where all students must score proficient on state tests, schools
and districts must also find ways to improve their instruction strategies that will
result in substantial gains in student achievement. This study will add to the research
base by documenting success stories where fiscal efficiency and student productivity
has risen significantly. School and district leaders, as well as policy makers, may
gain insight from the findings of this study for future resource allocation and school
improvement plans.
13
Summary of Methodology
Both quantitative and qualitative methods will be used to collect data for
descriptive case studies of six public elementary (traditional and charter) schools. A
case study approach utilizing the Evidence-based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as
the basis for comparison will help document how school resource allocation
decisions and instructional strategies compare to research-based practices. Through
the collection and analysis of multiple types of data, gathered from interviews with
school administrators and review of school documents and artifacts, case study
findings and results may link effective resource allocation and instructional strategies
to improving student performance.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
As the sample size of six schools in this study is small and only within Los
Angeles County, the results are not generalizable beyond Southern California
schools with similar demographics. Perhaps the results will not be generalizable to
even similar schools. Also, the data collected for this study are not longitudinal. The
data are limited to expenditures and resource allocations in the 2009-10 school year
only. Furthermore, the information gathered from administrator interviews is limited
only to sample school administrators. District administrators, teachers and other
personnel at the school site will not be included. Although the limitations and
delimitations of the study exist, this study will contribute to the body of literature on
school resource allocation and use of the Evidence-based Model and implications for
leadership practice will be illuminated. This study assumes that the qualitative data,
14
including interviews with school and district administrators regarding school
improvement and resource allocation, reflect truthful and accurate information.
Definition of Terms
1. Adequacy: An approach to school funding that begins with the premise that the
amount of funding schools receive should be based on some estimate of the cost
of achieving the state's educational goals. This approach attempts to answer two
questions: How much money would be enough to achieve those goals and where
would it be best spent (EdSource, 2009).
2. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA): Public Law
111-5, which is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United
States Congress in February 2009. The Act of Congress was based largely on
proposals made by President Barack Obama and was intended to provide
stimulus to the U.S. economy in the wake of the recent economic downturn
(United States Department of Education, 2009).
3. Evidence-based Model: The Evidence-based Model is a system of prototypical
schools of certain sizes at each level that recommends a set of resources for
school-wide instructional improvement strategies designed to maximize student
achievement. Adjustments are made to the model as school sizes scale up or
down.
4. No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB): A federal law holding K-12 schools
accountable for student achievement results, allows for more choices for parents,
15
gives greater local control and flexibility, and emphasizes scientifically-based
research practices (United States Department of Education, 2009).
5. Academic Performance Index (API): “Single number, ranging from a low of 200
to a high of 1000, that reflects a school’s, a local educational agency’s (LEA’s),
or a subgroup’s performance level, based on the results of statewide testing”
(California Department of Education, 2009).
6. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A state's measure of progress toward the goal
of 100 percent of students achieving to state academic standards in at least
reading/language arts and math, which sets the minimum level of proficiency that
the state, its school districts, and schools must achieve each year on annual tests
and related academic indicators (United States Department of Education, 2009).
7. Core Instruction: Instruction in the core subjects of mathematics, science,
language arts, social science and foreign language.
8. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): Reauthorization of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2002 is the main federal law affecting education from
kindergarten through high school. ESEA is built on four principles:
accountability for results, more choices for parents, greater local control and
flexibility, and an emphasis on doing what works based on scientific research.
9. Early Warning System: A system designed to alert California school districts in
danger of failing to meet their financial obligations (ACSA, 2009).
10. Group of Eight (G-8) Countries: A comparison group of eight countries with
similar economic development as the United States that report to the National
16
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for international projects on education,
economics, and related policy issues. G-8 countries include Canada, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the
United States (Miller, Malley, & Owen, 2009).
11. Negative Certification: A negative certification is assigned when a district will be
unable to meet its financial obligations for the remainder of the current year or
for the subsequent fiscal year (ACSA, 2009).
12. Qualified Certification: A qualified certification is assigned when the district
may not meet its financial obligations for the current or two subsequent fiscal
years (ACSA, 2009).
13. Instructional strategies: A schools vision and instructional plan for producing
student achievement.
14. Intended curriculum: Content specified by the state, district or school to be
addressed in a particular course or at a particular grade level (Marzano, 2003, p.
23).
15. Implemented curriculum: Content delivered by the teacher (Marzano, 2003, p.
23).
16. Attained curriculum: Content learned by the students (Marzano, 2003, p. 23).
17
Chapter 2: Literature Review
In an era of standards-based reform, the lack of sufficient improvements in
student performance throughout the nation coupled with increasing dollars spent on
education has led policymakers and educational leaders to implement a range of
initiatives and refine practices designed to link resource use to improving student
achievement (Odden, 2003). Understanding how to improve student performance,
while maximizing effective use of resources, requires the examination of several key
topics. Critical research which supports this study includes the areas of school
finance and policy along with the area of school improvement strategies. Areas of
school finance to be addressed include the history of school funding and policy,
resource use and practices, and the shift from fiscal equity to adequacy. Educational
adequacy can be defined as sufficient per pupil funding for schools and districts to
execute plans and strategies in order to help students reach high levels of
performance (Odden, 2003). Schools benefit from student performance expectations,
measuring performance, and determining costs of meeting the expectations.
Furthermore, a model of a prototypical school system that could achieve desired
student outcomes, while maximizing use of resources, is introduced. The Evidence-
based Model employs research-based components at the school-level that are needed
to achieve adequacy. Germane factors to be explored within school improvement
literature include instructional improvement; instructional leadership; the educational
change process; and professional development.
18
This review will first examine issues in school finance both nationally and
specific to California to set the context of this study. Second, educational resource
use over time and efforts to track expenditures at the school level will be reviewed to
understand the growth in educational spending and what money has been spent on.
Third, as attention on educational adequacy grew for educational and political
leaders in attempts to determine if educational dollars are spent effectively and
efficiently, literature on this topic will highlight concepts, needs, and debate
surrounding adequacy. An Evidence-based Model to track resource use will be
examined and subsequently used as a data collection tool in this study. The fourth
section will focus on instructional improvement strategies, educational leadership
and the need for professional development.
School Finance
The Nation
The Constitution sets the primary responsibility of K-12 education with the
states, yet the federal government has played an important role in funding education
(DOE, 2005). Sizeable federal funding for education began with passage of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965. ESEA provides funds for
school programs for low-income families; instructional resources, materials, and
services; professional development for teachers; state resources; and research.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2003), federal spending
under ESEA increased from approximately $1 billion in 1966 to $17.4 billion in
2001.
19
Increased attention on education and the call for reform efforts brought the
high stakes accountability era of today. From the GOALS 2000: Educate America
Act (1994) and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) the finance focus
shifted from equity to adequacy and federal resources focused on education
continued to grow. The ESEA was reauthorized as the NCLB and brought greater
accountability, a focus on research-based instruction, and parental options in the
name of increasing student performance and closing the achievement gap. Federal
spending for NCLB grew from the $17.4 billion under ESEA to $25.3 billion by
2006 (DOE, 2005).
In addition to federal funding, states provide schools with the major source of
education funding. States allocate school funding primarily from property taxes
(Brimley & Garfield, 2002). Much of the school finance discussion during the
twentieth century centered on bringing about equality in funding as disparities
among districts existed, because of the uneven revenues based on varying assessed
property values. School finance texts and researchers discuss how a push for equity
arose and highlight the inequities that existed throughout the country, especially for
school districts in communities with lower property values and little commercial
property (Brimley & Garfield; 2002, Kozol: 1991, Odden & Picus; 2008). States
created funding formulas to offset differences in tax revenues, however, school
revenues and expenditures continued to vary widely (Odden & Picus, 2008). By the
1990s the focus moved from not only equity, but also to adequacy. How much
funding is needed to help all students achieve at high levels?
20
Furthermore, the recent economic crisis, both national and global, led
President Barrack Obama to sign the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act
(ARRA) in an attempt to jumpstart the economy, create and save millions of jobs,
and invest in the future so this country can survive in the twenty-first century (DOE,
2009). Important for education, the stimulus package associated with the ARRA will
provide an economic boost for education worth over $100 billion (Butler, 2009).
Education Week (2009) details the $115 billion breakdown (out of a total stimulus
package of $787 billion) of 3 key, K-12 pieces of the ARRA at: (1) $13 billion for
Title I; (2) $12.2 billion for Special Education; (3) $53.6 billion for state aid for
schools referred to as “state stabilization funds” (EdWeek, 2009). In light of the
declining economy, major corporate failures, and budget cuts at the state level, the
federal stimulus funds have been designed to assist states in addressing budget
shortfalls, where education budgets make up a large portion of total budgets. For
example, California is expected to receive $23 billion in total stimulus funds, which
is only about half of the recently approved State education budget cuts (Butler,
2009).
California School Finance
Looking specifically at school finance in California, a chronology of key
legislation and recent events will help provide context for understanding resource
availability and how local control of education has diminished. Three main
legislative acts that have shaped California’s school finance system include the
Serrano v. Priest decision (1977), Proposition 13 (1978), and Proposition 98 (1988)
21
(EdSource, 2000). First, the Serrano v. Priest decision declared California’s school
funding system to be inequitable and ordered funding changes to bring about
equalization in per pupil expenditures for all districts. Second, Proposition 13
amended the state constitution, which limited property taxation to 1% of the assessed
value and to 2% annual increases with a new two-third voter approval requirement.
Third, the main provision of Proposition 98 guaranteed a minimum funding level for
schools. In addition, understanding the current fiscal crisis facing California is
necessary as significant budget cuts are critically impacting schools throughout the
State.
The Serrano v. Priest court case declared that a property tax based school
finance system was unconstitutional because it did not provide students with equal
protection under the law (EdSource, 2000). School districts with high property
values were able to raise greater revenues than districts with low property values.
Neighborhoods with little commercial property and lower property values had to set
higher tax rates in order to raise needed revenues. Revenue limits established in 1972
based on a school district’s prior spending levels had the effect of creating further
funding disparities throughout the state. California courts sought to equalize revenue
limits within a $100 band for general purpose funds, yet categorical programs
expanded and were exempt from such limits. As a result, inequities continued to
exist from district to district. In addition, categorical funding grew for federal
programs as well, such as bilingual and special education.
22
Proposition 13 aimed to resolve disparities in property tax revenues by
capping rates at 1% for assessed home values and annual increases in assessed value
thereafter to 2% (EdSource, 2000). Proposition 13 further established a two-thirds
voter approval requirement for establishing a uniform dollar per parcel tax.
However, limiting property taxation reduced revenue sources from about two-thirds
of school budgets to one-third. Hence, local control of funding sources throughout
the state was greatly reduced. The significant effect from the passage of Proposition
13 is that it eliminated voter control for raising revenues through property taxation at
the local level.
As education in California depended on the state budget, uncertainty loomed
from year to year regarding how much funding schools would receive. The economy
fluctuated from periods of state funding reserves to deficits (EdSource, 2000). Public
interest in improving and stabilizing funding continued and Proposition 98 was
enacted in 1988 to help districts keep pace with enrollment and per capita income
levels. Proposition 98 guarantees a minimum amount of funding for school districts
and community colleges through a “three test” funding formula. Revenue sources
come from state and local income, sales, corporate, capital gains and property tax
dollars. Additionally, allocation decisions under Proposition 98 are based on changes
in enrollment, per capita income, and state tax revenue projections. In periods of
economic growth Proposition 98 funding levels increase, however in declining
economies Proposition 98 funds can be reduced. In fact, the legislature can suspend
Proposition 98 funds by a two-thirds vote of both houses and the governor’s
23
approval. Suspending Proposition 98 funds has happened only once since passage
and was not favored. Proposition 98 supplies schools with an average 80% of their
funds annually, yet the decline in state revenue has led to reduced Proposition 98
allocations for schools and districts. According to EdSoure, Proposition 98 funds
have dropped under the state average by over 8% (2009). Figure 1 depicts total
sources for K-12 education based on the 2008-08 budget and highlights the major
revenue sources.
Figure 1: 2008-09 Revenues for K-12 Education
(Source EdSource, 2009)
24
While Proposition 98 aims to improve and stabilize funding for California
schools, funding from the state still varies from district to district, is dependent on
the statewide economy, and the state’s school finance system remains complex.
California’s school finance system has been shaped by the Serrano decision
and the key legislation discussed previously. The result is a state-controlled,
economically dependent system that determines how much tax revenue will go to its
schools and limits schools’ ability to increase revenues at the local level. School
districts in California receive both general and categorical funds that must be
allocated to individual school sites according to state and federal guidelines. In
addition to the General Fund, schools districts may also qualify for federal
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), Program
Improvement, and other Title funds. Unique to California, over one hundred
categorical funds may provide additional resources to schools, yet the major sources
of categorical funding include: Economic Impact Aid and Limited English Proficient
(EIA-LEP) funds and incentive programs such as Class Size Reduction (CSR) for
grades K-3 and grade 9.
Additionally, California faces a critical time with their largest budget deficit
in history of $26 billion, where the governor has issued IOUs and issues in education
continue to mount (Associated Press, 2009). Currently, California serves 6.8 million
students, where 50.6% of enrollment is on Free/Reduced-price Meals, 24.7% is
English Learner, 10.8% is Special Education (ages 0-22), and 8.4% is Gifted and
Talented (EdSource, 2009 (Card 27)). Such diversity adds to the complex landscape
25
of education. With near 100 categorical programs, diverse learner needs and less
money, will California’s Academic Performance Index (API) scores continue to rise?
How will California make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) given the increasing
demands of NCLB and the tougher economic climate?
To further demonstrate the economic landscape, recent budget cuts of $12
billion for the 2008-2009 fiscal year and an additional $5.5 billion for 2009-2010
have significantly impacted school finances (CDE, 2009). California now has 108
districts on an early warning list that signals that a district is at risk for not meeting
their financial obligations (CDE, 2009). According to the California Department of
Education, 19 districts received negative certification status and 89 received
qualified certifications as reported on the Second Interim Status Report for the 2008-
2009 fiscal year. This is up from the 5 negative and 19 qualified certifications of the
previous year. The governor and legislators agreed on a budget July 20, 2009, which
will hurt all facets of society and education (LA Times, 2009). Class sizes are
increasing. Thirty-thousand teachers and staff have been laid off so far this year
more lay-offs are projected by August 15, 2009. Summer school has been eliminated
throughout the state and course offerings are diminishing. Although the ARRA will
supply California with needed relief at about $3 billion for K-12 education, cuts to
education in order to help the economy and balance the budget far exceed the
support. California faces a major economic crisis projected to last for years (CDE,
2009). Attention to fiscal responsibility is greatly needed at this time and the
26
following discussion of resource use and educational adequacy will provide a lens
for greatly improving the use of educational dollars.
Resource Use
Currently the United States spends a total of $450 billion on elementary and
secondary education with the highest state expenditures in California at $53 billion
(NCES, 2008). While the United States has consistently increased spending on
education and spends more on education than ever before, researchers have sought
understand how education dollars are spent (Hanushek and Rivkin; 1997, Odden,
Monk, Nakib & Picus; 1995, Picus & Fazal; 1996). A discussion of finance research
tracing resource use in general, resource use following school reform, resource use at
the school level, and reallocating resources will summarize what has been learned
and pave the way for understanding how to link resource levels and use to student
achievement.
Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) trace school spending from 1890 to 1990 and
document that per pupil expenditures have steadily increased by approximately 3.5
percent per year. Since 1990, expenditures have continued to rise. According to the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), per pupil expenditures increased by
31% in constant 2007-08 dollars from the school years 1989-90 through 2005-06
(NCES, 2009). In 2005, the United States expenditures on elementary and secondary
education reported the highest per pupil expenditures of $9,800 as compared with
other Group of Eight (G-8) countries, who report educational and economic data to
the NCES (Miller, Malley, & Owen, 2009). Although per pupil expenditures have
27
risen to record highs, California consistently falls short of national averages with per
pupil spending in 2005-06 at $8,486 with the national average at $9,100 (Ed-Data,
2008). Odden and Picus (2008) point out that the substantial increase in resources
overtime have lead researchers to wonder why there have not been corresponding
substantial increases in student achievement.
Researchers wanted to find out how the new dollars were being utilized, if
use patterns changed over time, and if the uses were effective (Odden & Picus,
2008). The research documents that much of the expenditures were reported by
educational functions, including instruction, instructional support, administration,
student support, operation and maintenance, transportation, food services, and other.
According to the NCES (2009) expenditures by function rose mostly after 1997-1998
and about 61% was spent on instruction in 2005-06. Expenditures on other functions
included approximately 8% on administration, 13% on student support, 10% on
operation and maintenance, 4% on transportation and 4% on food services.
In Odden and Picus’ (2008) text, review of expenditure patterns indicate that
the percent spending by function remained fairly stable overtime as displayed in
Table 1 and that further examination within functions was needed. The researchers
review several major studies (Firestone, Goertz, Nagle & Smelkinson, 1994;
Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997; Kirst, 1977; Lankford & Wyckoff, 1995) which similarly
conclude that changes to resource use occurred within the instruction function.
Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) and the others found that new dollars primarily went to
(1) salaries for instruction of non-core subjects such as electives, smaller class sizes,
28
and other services; (2) special education services; and (3) teacher salaries in general.
Odden and Picus (2008) highlight that very little of the new dollars were spent on
core instruction and assert that a smaller portion of total educational dollars have
been spent on core instruction.
Odden, Archibald, Fermanich and Gross (2003) review the need for
improved fiscal reporting that goes beyond district-level reporting by expenditure
function to tracking expenditures at the school-level. The researchers demonstrated
that scarce data was available indicating how schools allocated resources. The goal
was to improve school-level reporting so that analysis of the data could lead to
improving use of educational dollars to impact student achievement. Odden, et al.
(2003) proposed a new school expenditure reporting structure in order to improve
fiscal reporting at the school-level, the unit or department level, and at the element
level. Such expenditure elements included core academic teachers; specialist and
elective teachers; extra help; professional development; other non-classroom
instructional staff; instructional materials and equipments; student support;
administration; and operations and maintenance. Utilizing a school-level reporting
structure by element may help explain the variations in expenditures across schools
and helped discern instructional strategies employed through resource use.
Furthermore, while many districts were emphasizing professional development, little
was known about how much was being spent for professional development and on
what (Odden, Archibald, Fermanich & Gallagher, 2002). Odden, et al. (2002)
developed a framework for reporting expenditures on professional development that
29
includes elements of teacher time; training and coaching; administration; materials,
equipment and facilities; travel and transportation; and tuition and conference fees.
Odden and Archibald (2000) offer recommendations for schools in
reallocating resources which include: (1) developing processes for analyzing school-
level data that are aligned with the needs of the needs of the students and the
capabilities of the teachers; (2) developing formulas to determine budgets and costs
of educational strategies; (3) combining of categorical monies to fund school-wide
educational strategies; (4) reallocating district resources to fund ongoing professional
development for teachers; (5) working with teacher unions to increase flexibility in
collective bargaining agreements; (6) developing accountability systems that provide
rewards and sanctions based on student outcomes.
As the emphasis shifted from equal funding to equitable funding,
improvements in fiscal reporting aided financial analysis. With improved knowledge
of how dollars are spent, schools and districts can begin to employ resources more
productively (Odden & Archibald, 2000). Improved productivity is the central focus
of educational adequacy.
30
Table 1: Current Expenditures Per Student in Fall Enrollment in Public Elementary
and Secondary Schools, Percentage Distribution of Current Expenditures, and
Percent Change of Current Expenditures, by Function and Object: School Years
1989–90 through 2005–06
Expenditures
[In constant 2007–08
dollars]
Percentage distribution
of current expenditures Percent change
Type and object
1989–90
1997–98
2005–06
1989–90
1997–98
2005–06
1989–90 to
1997–98
1997–98 to
2005–06
1989–90 to
2005–06
Current expenditures
Instruction 4,670 5,009 5,939 60 62 61 7 19 27
Salaries 3,469 3,641 4,049 45 45 42 5 11 17
Employee benefits 851 926 1,279 11 11 13 9 38 50
Purchased services 105 138 219 1 2 2 31 59 108
Supplies 176 232 277 2 3 3 32 19 58
Tuition and other 68 72 116 1 1 1 5 62 69
Administration 672 625 741 9 8 8 -7 18 10
Salaries 444 427 477 6 5 5 -4 12 8
Employee benefits 118 111 154 2 1 2 -5 38 31
Purchased services 67 61 78 1 1 1 -10 29 16
Supplies 15 14 15 # # # -7 12 4
Tuition and other 29 13 16 # # # -54 23 -43
Student and support staff
1
866 994 1,294 11 12 13 15 30 49
Salaries 565 628 767 7 8 8 11 22 36
Employee benefits 151 163 243 2 2 3 8 49 62
Purchased services 73 117 182 1 1 2 61 56 150
Supplies 50 56 68 1 1 1 11 22 36
Tuition and other 28 29 34 # # # 6 15 22
Operation and maintenance 833 793 960 11 10 10 -5 21 15
Transportation 330 325 409 4 4 4 -1 26 24
Food services 334 332 374 4 4 4 0 12 12
Enterprise operations
2
35 22 22 # # # -38 1 -38
(Source, NCES, Table A-34, 2009)
31
Educational Adequacy
Educational adequacy can be defined as sufficient per pupil funding for
schools and districts to execute plans and strategies in order to help students reach
high levels of performance (Odden, 2003). Four essential components are necessary
in order to determine adequacy: (1) a state’s curriculum standards; (2) a state’s
testing system and proficiency levels; (3) a state’s standards for meeting the needs of
all diverse learners under the federal NCLB; and (4) sufficient funding to help
students reach the desired performance levels (Odden & Picus, 2008). Schools have
to understand what levels of student performance are expected, have a way to
measure performance, and have a way to estimate the targeted costs of meeting the
expectations.
Educational reform conversations have long debated this issue of whether
money matters in education when it comes to improving student performance
(Burbridge, 2008). The United States spends more on education today than ever
before, yet are they spending wisely (DOE; 2009, CDE; 2009)? How much money is
needed to meet educational goals and how much is enough? Can the United States
better use resources to raise productivity without continuing to raise expenses?
Burbridge (2008) highlights several studies that have analyzed both sides of this
issue (Hanushek; 1989, Laine, Greenwald, & Hedges; 1994, Card & Kruger; 1992,
Dee; 2000, Verstegen; 1994, Ferguson & Ladd; 1996, Fernandez & Rogerson; 1996
in Burbridge, 2008). The author summarizes Hanushek’s prominent view that school
financial resources had little to do with the differences in educational outcomes and
32
that the differences were mostly due to socioeconomic factors, such as family
income, parental education and family size. Hanushek (1994, in Odden & Picus,
2008) asserted that that schools and districts need to determine how to improve
student performance with the current high levels of educational resources. Hanushek
argued that large increases in educational spending were not accompanied by large
increases in test scores and that the issue is how to increase student productivity
without such drastic increases in funding. In contrast, proponents found that money
does make a difference in improving student performance (Burbridge, 2008). For
example, Verstegen found that revenues were associated with higher test scores on
the National Assessment Educational Progress. Ferguson and Ladd argued that
restructuring must accompany funding increases to result in dramatic increases in
student achievement.
Additionally, Odden and Picus (2008) frame the prime school finance
problem facing education today as one of productivity. To this end, the researchers
have utilized the concept of educational adequacy to help determine the appropriate
amount and use of allocations needed to achieve the desired performance. Given a
state’s performance standards and assessment system, a method for determining
costs of education is necessary in ascertaining adequacy. The remaining issue of
utilizing resources effectively and efficiently necessitates methods for measuring
costs. Four major methods of determining costs of education found in the literature
include the successful district approach, the cost function approach, the professional
judgment approach, and the expert judgment or evidence-based approach (Odden;
33
2003, Rebell; 2007). Rebell (2007) describes the judicial impetus among states and
numerous studies of “costing-out” education that attempt to identify sufficient
funding for providing adequate education.
The successful school district approach was developed in response to the
Ohio Supreme Court decision in Rudolph v. State, which ordered adequacy for its
students (Rebell, 2007). The successful school district approach, used by as many as
ten states, attempts to identify school districts that are meeting the state standards
and use their average per pupil expenditures as a reasonable estimate of the costs of
an adequate education. Statistical modeling based on resource inputs, student test
data, and other specific outcome measures creates funding formulas to determine
adequacy costs. Strength of this method is its ability to link spending to performance
levels. In contrast, criticism of the approach includes that fact that early studies
using the model did not control for student characteristics such as socioeconomic
disadvantages, learning disabilities, and English learners. More recent studies have
added additional resources above base expenditure levels to account for the differing
student characteristics. A further criticism of this approach lies in defining standards
for success. Differences in definitions of success lead to significant variations in the
amount of resources required for adequacy.
The cost function approach utilizes a complex statistical analysis of average
per pupil expenditures, student and district characteristics, and target performance
levels to determine appropriate funding levels (Odden, 2003). The cost function
approach requires extensive statewide data which can be cumbersome to collect,
34
disaggregate and analyze. A recent adequacy case in Texas, West Orange-Cove
School District v. Neely, set adequacy standards for this approach when both the
plaintiffs and defendants presented cost function studies (Rebell, 2007). Although
Texas found the methods used in Rechovsky and Imazeki’s study for the plaintiff
link spending to performance levels, they found wide variations in identifying
outcome standards and hence recommendations resulted in a wide range of funding
levels. Many states do not employ the cost function approach due to the complexity
of the model and lack of sufficient data required regarding levels of student
achievement disaggregated by subgroups.
According to Odden (2003), the successful school district approach and the
cost function approach are not the most effective methods of measuring costs
because the two methods do not specify the educational strategies required to reach
the desired performance levels. The following two approaches address both linking
spending to performance as well as identify strategies needed to meet the associated
performance levels.
The professional judgment approach, expanding upon the resource cost
model developed in the 1980s, works to identify the costs of goods and services
required to provide all students with a quality education (Rebell, 2007). In 1995, the
Wyoming Supreme Court ordered the state to calculate the costs of a “basket of
goods and services” associated with providing a “proper” education to all students.
Guthrie et al. (1997) called upon a panel of experienced educators to developed
models that would deliver the goods and services required for the elementary, middle
35
and high school levels as well as for special needs students. Once the inputs are
identified, costs associated with the inputs are determined and appropriate funding
levels can be determined. The professional judgment approach can be useful as it
accounts for variations in student characteristics and school demographics. Another
advantage of this approach is the utilization of collective expert judgments from
qualified professionals in determining what is needed in reaching the desired
performance levels. However, a shortcoming of this approach is that in utilizing
expert judgments the recommendations are more subjective than a statistical method
that could link inputs to outputs (Odden: 2003, Rebel; 2007).
The fourth approach is the evidence-based approach which also identifies a
“set of ingredients” that are required to deliver a high quality education (Odden,
2003). This approach utilizes school reform research and best practices to determine
instructional strategies needed to ensure the desired educational outcomes. Costs
associated with the instructional strategies are then identified in order to determine
appropriate funding levels. Odden and Picus et al. (2005) developed the Evidence-
based Model which has been used to help achieve adequacy in Arkansas, Kentucky,
and Wyoming. The model specifies research-based ingredients including preschool
programs, full day kindergarten, elementary schools with 300-600 students, middle
and high schools with 600-900 students, class sizes of 15 students in kindergarten
through third grades, class sizes of 25 students in fourth through twelfth grade,
collaborative professional development, extra strategies for special needs students,
family outreach, and technology (Rebell, 2007).
36
The Evidence-based Model recommends a set of resources for prototypical
schools at each school level as specified in Table 2 adjustments are made to the
model as school sizes scale up or down.
Table 2: Evidence-based Model Recommendations for Prototypical Schools
School Element Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools
School Characteristics
School Configuration K-5 6-8 9-12
Class Size
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
6-8: 25 9-12: 25
Full-day Kindergarten Yes N/A N/A
Number of teacher
work days
200, including 10 days
for intensive training
200, including 10 days
for intensive training
200, including 10
days for intensive
training
% Disabled 12% 12% 12%
% Poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
50% 50% 50%
% English Learner 10% 10% 10%
% Minority 30% 30% 30%
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 24 18 24
2. Specialist Teachers 20% more: 4.8 20% more: 3.6 33% more: 8.0
3. Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 2.25 3
4. Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100
poverty students: 2.16
One for every 100
poverty students: 2.25
One for every 100
poverty students: 3
5. Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students: .43
An additional 1.0
teacher for every 100
EL students: .45
An additional 1.0
teacher for every
100 EL students:
.60
6. Extended Day 1.8 1.875 2.5
7. Summer School 1.8 1.875 2.5
37
Table 2, Continued
School Characteristics
8. Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3
professional teacher
positions
Additional 3
professional teacher
positions
Additional 4
professional teacher
positions
9. Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
100% state
reimbursement
minus federal funds
10. Teachers for gifted
students
$25 per student $25 per student $25 per student
11. Vocational
Education
N/A N/A No extra cost
12. Substitutes 5% of lines 1-9 5% of lines 1-9 5% of lines 1-9
13. Pupil support staff
1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
1 for every 100
poverty students plus
1.0 guidance per 250
students: 3.25 total
1 for every 100
poverty students
plus 1.0 guidance
per 250 students:
5.4 total
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 2.0 3.0
15. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 1.0
1.0 Librarian
1.0 Library Tech
16. Principal 1 1 1
17. School Site
Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary and
3.0 Clerical
18. Professional
Development
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators, Planning
and prep time, 10
summer days
Additional: $100 per
pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators,
Planning and prep
time, 10 summer
days
Additional: $100
per pupil for other
PD expenses -
trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc.
19. Technology $250 per pupil $250 per pupil $250 per pupil
20. Instructional
Materials
$140 per pupil $140 per pupil $175 per pupil
21. Student Activities $200 per pupil $200 per pupil $250 per pupil
(Source Odden & Picus, 2008, Table 4.5)
38
Verstegen (2007) notes that the Evidence-based Model is useful in
documenting costs of resources at the school-level. Further benefits of the evidence-
based approach are that the model utilizes research-based instructional strategies
found in the literature and attempts to link costs to desired student performance
levels (Odden, 2003). However, Rebell (2007) summarizes criticisms that caution
against claims of research-based evidence that may be limited, inconclusive, and
non-transferable to other contexts. Furthermore, Baker (2005) highlights several
theoretical assumptions that make site and district specific cost analyses difficult to
generate recommendations from, which may not transfer across educational settings.
Baker’s assumptions include: (1) Costs for adequate education varies by schools and
districts; (2) Marginal costs vary by school and district size and needs of differing
student populations; (3) Marginal costs vary by what schools and districts have to
pay for resources; (4) Interaction between the cost variables of size, need, and
resource expenses; and (5) Costs vary as desired student performance levels vary.
While benefits and challenges of utilizing the Evidence-based Model exist, it is
important to note that schools that have employed the model, have benefited from
substantial gains in student performance on state assessments (Odden, Picus, Goetz,
Mangan, & Fermanich, 2006; Odden & Archibald, 2009).
School Improvement
Research-based school improvement strategies have taken center stage in
educational arenas such as NCLB and state accountability systems demand improved
student performance. In this context of high-stakes accountability and school reform,
39
schools and districts have been forced to examine practices and change their
strategies in order to produce better results and close achievement gaps. Successful
schools have changed curriculum and instruction, employed research-based
strategies, set high expectations for student learning and implemented data-informed
decision making (Blankenstein; 2004, Cotton; 1989, Fillmore & Snow; 2000,
Johnson; 2002, Marzano; 2003, Tilly; 2006). Successful schools and districts have
also developed better understanding of leadership factors, the change process, and
professional development that are required for implementation of the improvement
strategies (Danielson; 2006, Elmore; 2003, Fullan; 2007, Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty; 2005).
Improving Performance
Marzano (2003) synthesizes and prioritizes research on school-level factors
that influence student achievement, which include implementing a guaranteed and
viable curriculum, setting challenging goals and providing effective feedback, and
collegiality and professionalism. Marzano asserts that research points to a
guaranteed and viable curriculum as the most important factor in improving
performance. Marzano discusses the importance of providing opportunities to learn
along with sufficient time to learn the essential content. The author’s research
examined differences in intended curriculum, implemented curriculum, and attained
curriculum that presented a common dilemma throughout the nation. Marzano cites
Hirsch’s (1996) assertion that educators erroneously assume that the intended
curriculum as specified by a state’s content standards is the curriculum that is
40
implemented in schools. If content is not covered as intended, students do not have
an opportunity to attain the curriculum. A further curriculum dilemma found in
Marzano’s synthesis highlighted that American schools have more content to cover
than time in the school day allowed for as compared to other countries. These
findings led Marzano to conclude that schools need to: (1) identify essential content;
(2) ensure time to teach the content; (3) sequence and organize the content so that
students can access the content; (4) ensure that teachers teach the essential content;
(5) protect instructional time. Additionally, Marzano highlights actions that schools
can take in improving learning opportunities for students, which include
implementing assessment systems that provide timely and specific feedback on
student performance; set school-wide challenging goals; and establish specific
learning goals for individual students.
In setting challenging goals, Cotton’s (1989) review of research on student
expectations and outcomes reveals that teacher expectations play an important role in
students’ attitudes and achievement. Cotton identifies promising practices that
promote high expectations, which include: setting achievement goals at desired
levels; developing policies and practices that protect instructional time, emphasize
the importance of reading, and emphasize the importance of achievement; modeling
high expectations with taking responsibility for student outcomes; and creating
positive learning environments. Moreover, Cotton cites Good (1987) in a caution that
using prior achievement data can work to establish ceilings in which students are not
expected to progress beyond. Furthermore, several factors that lead to development
41
of low expectations for students, which impede student learning and create self-
fulfilling prophecy effects, can place schools at-risk for developing low expectations
without careful attention and plans in setting high expectations. According to Cotton
primary factors include, low socioeconomic status, students of color, English
language learners, negative comments and interactions of teachers, and tracking in
ability groups. DuFour, et al. (2006) stress the importance of collaborative teams in
establishing learning goals, determining if the learning goals have been met, and
determining what to do if the learning goals are not met. Setting challenging and
attainable school-wide goals rather than performance goals that aim for gains over
previous performance will ensure communication of high expectations. Was
previous performance acceptable? If performance levels were low and new goals are
set accordingly, the resulting expectations will be low (Cotton, 1989).
Change Process
Johnson (2002) asserts that understanding five stages in the change process
are important steps in implementing data-driven decision making for improved
performance. Stage one includes having teachers involved with the leadership team
in attempts to build consensus, communication, and effective application around data
collection and analysis. Johnson identifies the second step in the change process as
dispelling the myth of low-income, students of color being incapable of high
performance. Stage three involves establishing a culture of inquiry, where the school
assesses where they are, why, and what needs to change. From there, schools need
to create a vision and plan for the school (stage four) and implement the plan and
42
monitor progress (stage five). Teachers will need access to multiple sources of data
and professional development related to data analysis and data-driven decision
making for the purposes of informing instruction.
Fullan (2007) reviews the change process in three broad stages that are not
linear, yet are interdependent and continuous: initiation; implementation; and
institutionalization. Numerous concerns that arise with each stage require attention
and add to the difficulty of enacting sustainable change. Fullan discusses that
successful implementation of innovations require new materials, new instructional
approaches, and perhaps new attitudes and beliefs. Organizations must gain
understanding of the innovation which takes time to develop and must be related to
the larger purpose or mission. Current thinking suggests that it takes about two to
four years for change to occur, however time depends on the degree and number of
innovations being implemented simultaneously.
Further research on change discusses concerns of the process of change itself
and the problems associated with enacting large-scale educational change. Fullan
cites Datnow and Stringfield (2000) who document that sustainable change occurs
when individuals or systems act interdependently rather than in isolation. Similarly,
Elmore (2002) asserts that, “practice and values change in concert” (p. 18).
Moreover, the Southwest Educational Development Lab (SEDL) (Hord, 2007)
concluded, from research efforts of the Leadership for Change Project that seeks
improvement for at-risk students, that new knowledge, understanding, skill, and
behaviors at all levels will is required. SEDL’s report highlights the complexities
43
involved with acquiring new knowledge, skills, understanding and behaviors of
supporting individual’s needs while new practices develop. The research displays the
need for leadership in recognizing needed change, planning for, and guiding the
change process.
Leadership
Marzano’s (2005) synthesis of scholarly literature during the school
effectiveness movement of the 1970s concluded that leadership was an important
characteristic of effective schools. Marzano further asserts that over the last two
decades instructional leadership has been the focus among educators. Review of the
changing roles, various approaches, and necessary behaviors of instructional leaders
point to a more complex time in a changing world. Marzano cites Smith and
Andrews’ (1989) assertion that the roles of instructional leaders are no longer strictly
management roles, but are resource providers, instructional resources,
communicators, and visibly present. The instructional leader of today must not only
ensure that teachers have materials, equipment and facilities, but also support the
instructional program through goal setting, modeling, instruction and professional
development of self, individuals and teams of teachers.
Professional Development
According to Eaker, DuFour and DuFour (2002), promising practices embed
teacher collaboration into the school culture and decision-making process toward the
school’s learning mission. Marzano (2003) also highlights research and
recommendations that call for teacher collaboration, teacher involvement in
44
curricular decisions and school policies, and teacher-driven staff development.
School leadership must work to develop a professional learning community in
which… “collaborative teams work interdependently to achieve common goals
linked to student learning” (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006, p. 3).
Conclusion
In an era of standards-based reform, the lack of sufficient improvements in
student performance throughout the nation coupled with increasing dollars spent on
education has lead policymakers and educational leaders to implement a range of
initiatives and refine practices designed to link resource use to improving student
achievement (Odden, 2003). Understanding how educational dollars have been spent
and better ways to track resource use will help schools develop instructional
strategies and allocate resources effectively. The research reviewed suggests what
successful schools might look like. Examining the Evidence-based Model of a
prototypical school system that could achieve desired student outcomes while
maximizing use of resources will help schools better understand how they might
allocate resources and improve student outcomes.
45
Chapter 3: Methodology
The purpose of this evaluative study was to add to the research base of
resource allocation patterns of Southern California elementary schools in order to
link resource allocation with improved student outcomes. A purposeful sample of
four local elementary schools within one district with diverse demographics that
have made substantial gains in student performance was examined in order to aid the
understanding of improving student performance while maximizing use of resources.
Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected in order to compare resource
use patterns among schools as well as implementation of instructional strategies. The
indicator of student performance utilized was derived from scores of percent
proficient and above in both English language arts and mathematics on the California
Standards Tests (CST) from 2003-04 to 2008-09. Exploring issues involved in
improving student performance is required in understanding and improving
educational outcomes and the associated adequate funding levels. This study
documented school-level expenditures, instructional vision and improvement
strategies, and uncovered themes and patterns related to instructional improvement.
Resource allocation and use data was compared to the Evidence-based Model to
compare how these successful schools utilize resources to achieve their goals and
how that compared to (1) the “theory of action” in the Evidence-based Model and (2)
the resource levels available in the Evidence-based Model for improving student
learning and associated funding levels, hence achieving adequacy. How resource
46
allocation decisions were made and factors that affect the decision-making process,
such as the recent fiscal crisis, were also of interest.
As part of thematic graduate studies at USC Rossier School of Education
under the direction of Lawrence O. Picus, several separate school finance adequacy
studies explored the following research questions utilizing purposeful samples of
various school populations in order to add to the Southern California research base.
The research questions were jointly developed (2009) by colleagues in the thematic
group:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at
the school level;
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan;
3. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to recent
changes in California and federal education budgets and flow of dollars;
4. How are the school-level, resource-use patterns aligned with or different
from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-based Model?
Sample and Population
This study selected a purposeful sample of Southern California elementary
schools within one district meeting the following criteria. Schools in the sample
needed to have a diverse student body that displayed improvement as measured by
the state’s accountability system. Schools with significant student populations of
Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL) that have made significant gains while
47
serving large numbers of disadvantaged students were considered. Greenleaf
Elementary Unified School District (GEUSD), a Title 1 school district with
approximately 79% students in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
receiving Free and Reduced Price Lunches (FRPL), 41% English Learners, and 11%
students with disabilities was chosen for the study based on their demographics and
performance. Four schools within GEUSD made substantial growth in AYP scores
over the five year period of 2003-04 to 2008-09. Examining similarities and
differences of school instructional strategies, how these schools allocate resources
and how they link to student achievement may shed light on what is needed for
school improvement.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
Instrumentation used in this study was adapted from previous resource
allocation studies in Wyoming, Washington and Arkansas (Picus, et al., 2008). These
studies were based on a framework to track school-level expenditures which
includes: school/district profiles; contact information; resource indicators; staffing;
professional development; student services; administration; class sizes; and
methodology to determine full time equivalencies (FTEs). The complete School
Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators include all elements of the framework
developed by Odden et al. (2003) and were selected as instrumentation for this study
to help explore the research questions of this study. Both quantitative and qualitative
data were collected in order to explore the research questions of this study and
48
document instructional strategies and resource allocation practices of successful
schools.
On May 16, 2009, a fieldwork training session conducted by Dr. Lawrence
Picus was held for doctoral students in the 2009-10 thematic-group, who were
conducting studies on improving student performance through effective allocation of
resources. Dr. Picus trained the group on use of the codebook and protocols
reviewing data collection, site visit preparation, interviews, data entry, and data
analysis. The doctoral students had an opportunity to provide input and adapt
protocols where necessary. Students were expected to test the instruments and
practice the interview protocols before studying sample schools in an effort to
improve reliability of results of the study. Each student was responsible for
contacting administrators from sample schools to obtain consent, schedule in-person
interviews, and obtain select school documents in preparation for site visits. Pre-visit
artifacts and documents that were collected include: staff lists, bell schedules, class
sizes, and budget information.
Instruments for collecting quantitative data were from the fieldwork
codebook and protocols (2009) developed by Dr. Picus and associates. These data
helped reveal school improvement strategies that are linked to resource allocation.
Quantitative data were compiled and entered into the web data entry portal at
http://www.lopassociates.com, which was organized the same as the codebook. Data
collected included the following categories and were in the form of close-ended
reporting of facts:
49
1. School Resource Indicators
a. Current school enrollment
b. Number of English Language Learner (ELL) students
c. Number of students qualifying for Free or Reduced Lunch (FRL)
d. Number of special education students
e. Total length of school day
f. Length of instructional day
g. Length of core classes
h. AYP
i. API
2. School FTE counts
a. Core academic teachers
b. Specialist and elective teachers
c. Library staff
d. Extra help staff
e. Other instructional staff
f. Professional development staff and costs
g. Student services staff
h. Administration
Instruments for collecting qualitative data included open-ended questions that
allowed school administrators to tell the story of how the school works to improve
50
student performance. The following questions taken from the codebook guided
interviews of site administrators at the various schools:
1. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy?
2. What were the resource pieces of the strategy? How long have the
resources been in place?
3. Was the improvement effort initiated from the top down (central office)
or bottom up (grass roots)?
4. What type of instructional leadership was present?
5. Was there accountability built into this improvement plan?
6. What additional resources would be needed to continue and expand your
efforts?
Data Analysis
A qualitative data analysis focused on the site administrators’ understandings
of their school visions, instructional improvement goals and plans, and how
instructional resources were allocated to achieve those objectives. The analysis also
addressed site administrator views about their ability to influence resource allocation
and progress toward strategic goals for instructional improvement. Data were
analyzed from interviews with site administrators, artifacts, and staffing allocations.
Artifacts included public documents such as the schools’ vision and mission
statements, the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), and the School
Accountability Report Card (SARC). Staffing allocations and resource use patterns
from the six schools were compared within and across schools as well as compared
51
to the Evidence-based Model. Codes were adapted from the field tested work of
Odden & Picus’ (Picus, Odden, Aportela, Mangan, & Goetz, 2008). Protocol and
fieldwork training led by Lawrence Picus occurred May 16, 2009 with all members
of the thematic group.
In hypothesizing what themes and patterns might emerge, the Evidence-based
Model (Picus, Odden, Aportela, Mangan, & Goetz, 2008) provided a framework to
aid analysis. The model is based on promising practices that have emerged from the
literature in the area of successful school reform. Odden and Picus (2008) have
synthesized the literature and evolved a prototypical model into resources and
actions that may precede dramatic advancement in a school’s performance. The
Evidence-based Model staffing resources listed in Table 3 were used as a basis for
comparison.
Table 3: Evidence-based Model Staffing Resources Data Collection Protocol
Staffing Category EB Model Actual
Core Academic Teachers
Specialist & Elective Teachers
Alternative Teachers/Small School Teachers
Library Staff
- Librarian/Media Specialist (Certified)
- Library/Media Tech Aides (Non-Certified)
Extra Help
- Certified Teacher Tutors for English Language
Learners
- Certified Teacher Tutors for At-Risk Students
- Non-certified Tutors 0
- Resource Room Teachers (non-special education) 0
52
Table 3, Continued
- Resource Room Aides (non-special education) 0
- Special Education Teachers Fully Funded
- Special Education Aides Fully Funded
- Gifted & Talented Teachers 0
- Gifted & Talented Aides 0
- Gifted & Talented Funds $ $
- Extended Day
- Summer School
Professional Development
- Total # of Professional Development Days 10
- Instructional Facilitators
- Teacher Time (Substitutes & Stipends) $
- Trainer/Consultant Funds $
- Materials, Equipment & Facilities $
- Travel & Transportation $
- Tuition & Conference Fees
$
$
Other Instructional Staff
- Building Substitutes & Other Substitutes 0
- Instructional Aide 0
- Supervisory Aides
Student Support
- Counselors
- Nurses
- Social Workers
- Psychologists Fully Funded
- Speech/ OT/ PT Fully Funded
- Health Assistant 0
Administration
- Principal
- Assistant Principal
- Secretary
- Clerical
(Source Picus, 2009)
53
Themes and patterns suspected to occur include action and lack of action
centered on the ten steps. Specifically, expected findings included patterns of high
goals, data-driven decision making, multiple strategies for struggling students, and
professional development for teachers and principals where performance is
accelerated. Additionally, expected findings included the converse where
performance remains low. Emergent themes and patterns were identified as exposed
(perhaps flexibility or constraint in use of allocations may contribute to findings) and
then compared and contrasted to the school sites of this study. Finally the school site
data were compared and contrasted to the Evidence-based Model in order to shed
insight onto the complexities of improved student performance.
54
Chapter 4: The Findings
Case studies of four elementary schools within Greenleaf Elementary Unified
School District (GEUSD) display demographic characteristics, contextual
information, and growth in student achievement over the past five years. Following
the school case studies, exploration of the research questions of this study will
analyze existing practices against promising practices found in the literature and
specifically analyzing practices against the Evidence-based Model. A description of
resource use and instructional strategies at Greenleaf, Ashwood, Magnolia and
Center Grove Elementary Schools demonstrate that while resources for GEUSD
schools are inadequate, much has been done to overcome the many challenges
associated with poverty, English learner needs, and fiscal shortfalls to improve
student performance. The schools have assessed their performance problems, set
goals, taken actions, and have a process for making data driven decisions with
support from their district office. The schools with performance data have a track
record of meeting their goals, yet are the goals challenging enough? The schools
have implemented to some degree all of the elements that Odden and Archibald
(2009) assert are necessary for improving student performance. However, adequate
funding levels to produce desired student outcomes for these GEUSD schools are
still needed for a greater impact and to reach educational adequacy for their students.
The Context
GEUSD is located in Los Angeles County with 9 schools and approximately
6,000 students. GEUSD has 6 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and 1 charter
55
high school. The District also serves about 500 pre-school residents as well. Case
studies of the charter high school and middle schools are not included in this
discussion, yet the middle school performance data are included along with the
elementary school data in the quantitative analysis of district demographics and
performance levels. As a Title 1 school district with approximately 79% students in
the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) receiving Free and Reduced Price
Lunches (FRPL), 41% English Learners, and 11% students with disabilities, GEUSD
is making substantial progress despite the hurdles they face (CDE, 2009). GEUSD is
a diverse district with seven significant subgroups: African American; Black;
Hispanic or Latino; White; Socioeconomically Disadvantaged; English Learner; and
Students with Disabilities. Excluding Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD), GEUSD’s FRPL rate among the remaining Los Angeles County districts
with significant poverty exceeds the county average (74%) ranging from 46%-100%.
District student performance has improved by 17% in ELA and 13% in
mathematics as measured by federal AYP (% proficient on STAR exams) over the
five year period of 2005-2009 (CDE, 2009). Again excluding LAUSD, average
growth in performance of the remaining County districts with significant poverty
over the same period was 16% for both ELA and mathematics. To gain perspective,
County performance of the remaining districts with significant poverty ranged from
10-22% growth in ELA and 13-18% growth in mathematics. As a district, GEUSD
made slightly above average growth in ELA and slightly below average growth in
mathematics given significant poverty levels of the local area. Table 4 displays
56
NSLP and performance data of the State, County, District, and schools of this
inquiry. Note that the State and County data in Table 4 includes all school levels and
all districts, not solely the districts with similar makeup to GEUSD.
Table 4: 2009 National School Lunch Program Enrollment and Five Year Growth in
STAR Performance of State, County, District and School
*NSLP/ STAR 2009 NSLP
2005
ELA
2009
ELA Growth
2005
Math
2009
Math Growth
State 3,284,120 (53.7 %) 40% 50% 10% 38% 46% 8%
County 1,020,657 (63.6%) 35% 46% 11% 35% 43% 8%
GEUSD 4,896 (78.6%) 29% 46% 17% 34% 47% 13%
Greenleaf 613 (83.3%) 27% 46% 19% 38% 58% 20%
Ashland 618 (83.3%) 25% 38% 13% 33% 57% 24%
Magnolia 495 (83.5%) 33% 50% 17% 37% 61% 14%
**Center Grove n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
*NSLP enrollment and STAR performance for grades 2-5 was taken from the
California Department of Education website (CDE, 2009).
**Center Grove is a new K-2 school and STAR data is not available.
GEUSD has made substantial progress over the five year period as a whole
and for all significant subgroups. Table 5 details the progress (following page):
57
Table 5: Five Year District and Subgroup Adequate Yearly Progress Comparison by
Subject
English Language Arts Percentage Proficient 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Greenleaf EUSD 30.2 34.8 35.2 40.4 46.4
African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin) 26.9 31.7 33.7 40.2 42.3
American Indian or Alaska Native 40.0 31.3 50.0 -- --
Asian 48.0 54.9 58.5 60.8 59.3
Filipino 56.5 63.3 61.8 64.4 68.4
Hispanic or Latino 27.4 32.0 32.2 37.2 44.0
Pacific Islander 37.0 36.4 39.0 39.0 48.3
White (not of Hispanic origin) 40.5 45.3 43.9 53.8 63.7
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 27.8 32.1 32.7 38.0 43.6
English Learners 23.2 28.1 29.3 34.1 39.8
Students with Disabilities 6.6 11.8 9.6 14.8 26.5
Mathematics Percentage Proficient 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Greenleaf EUSD 35.8 39.4 38.1 44.3 50.2
African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin) 23.9 29.4 25.9 34.4 37.7
American Indian or Alaska Native 26.7 37.5 42.9 -- --
Asian 60.1 60.6 64.7 68.1 72.9
Filipino 62.9 73.3 66.2 68.5 73.4
Hispanic or Latino 34.6 38.2 36.7 42.8 48.6
Pacific Islander 30.4 36.4 35.6 49.2 55.0
White (not of Hispanic origin) 42.9 46.3 46.3 52.4 62.0
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 34.4 38.3 36.2 42.0 48.3
English Learners 33.3 37.3 36.6 42.8 48.0
Students with Disabilities 10.7 16.6 16.4 21.5 28.7
58
GEUSD has made progress for English Learners as well. While growth
targets were not met for Annual Measurable Achievement Objective 1 (AMAO) in
2006 and AMAO 3 in 2005 and 2008, all 2009 AMAOs were met. The significance
of the five year progress highlighted in Table 6 is the indication of student growth for
English Learners who make up 41% of the GEUSD’s total enrollment.
Table 6: 2009 Five Year GEUSD Title III Performance
Title III 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
AMAO 1:
% of EL Students Making
Annual Progress
Yes No Yes Yes Yes
AMAO 2:
% of EL Students Proficient
on the CELDT
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
AMAO 3:
Did EL students make AYP
in ELA and Math?
No
(ELA)
Yes Yes No
(ELA)
Yes
The district focus for the 2009-2010 school year narrows in on goals to: (1)
strengthen decision making systems; (2) further develop professional learning
communities; (3) maintain district financial solvency in light of decreased state and
federal funding; (4) reach agreement with all bargaining units; and (5) develop and
implement an evaluation system for district administration. Their vision is of a
community in which all are scholars and teachers, who work together to spark a love
for life-long learning. Their vision and guiding principles are posted on their website
59
and there is a commitment to excellence and equity for all. GEUSD leadership
consists of the superintendent, assistant superintendent and coordinators of
professional development, state and federal programs, and technology. The district
has undergone recent leadership changes with the 2009 retirement of the long time
previous superintendent.
Examining the context of GEUSD and its schools aids understanding of the
findings discussed in this chapter as they relate to the research questions examined in
this study. Taking a closer look at four GEUSD elementary schools will help
describe existing practices. Following the school case studies, exploration of the
research questions of this study will analyze existing practices against promising
practices found in the literature and specifically analyzing practices against the
Evidence-based Model.
School Findings
Greenleaf Elementary School
Greenleaf Elementary School (GES) is a California award winning school
with 775 students in grades kindergarten through five. Greenleaf ‘s student
population is made up of approximately 77% Hispanic or Latino, 9.5% White, 6.5%
African American, 4.5% Asian, 1.5% Pacific Islander and 1% did not respond. The
student population also has 83.3% poverty (NSLP), 62% English learners, and 11%
students with disabilities. GES is a Title 1 school in year 2 of Program Improvement
(PI) status under NCLB. Their first year of PI was 2006-2007. GES met AYP in
60
2009 and did not advance to year 3 of PI status. Table 7 depicts their 5 year growth
in AYP for English Language Arts and Mathematics:
Table 7: Five Year GES and Subgroup Adequate Yearly Progress Comparison by
Subject
English Language Arts Percentage Proficient 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Greenleaf ES 27.7 29.8 33.5 40.9 47.6
African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin) 38.3 26.4 31.3 50.0 40.0
American Indian or Alaska Native -- -- -- -- --
Asian 41.0 48.8 44.8 66.7 73.7
Filipino -- -- -- -- --
Hispanic or Latino 24.6 28.3 32.7 37.7 45.9
Pacific Islander -- -- -- -- --
White (not of Hispanic origin) 39.2 34.9 32.4 48.6 55.3
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 23.2 28.5 31.8 37.4 47.1
English Learners 17.6 22.6 28.5 32.3 42.8
Students with Disabilities 6.7 4.9 10.5 22.0 36.7
Mathematics Percentage Proficient 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Greenleaf ES 38.3 39.9 46.5 49.6 59.9
African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin) 19.1 22.6 31.4 41.2 50.0
American Indian or Alaska Native -- -- -- -- --
Asian 56.4 56.1 55.2 72.2 78.9
Filipino -- -- -- -- --
Hispanic or Latino 38.2 40.0 48.1 48.7 58.9
Pacific Islander -- -- -- -- --
White (not of Hispanic origin) 43.1 42.9 38.2 54.1 65.8
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 35.1 38.7 46.3 46.5 59.5
English Learners 32.7 36.5 46.4 48.8 59.7
Students with Disabilities 6.7 11.7 25.6 28.6 58.3
61
GES has a current API score of 782, which represents 28 points of growth
from the 2008 base of 754 (CDE, 2009). They exceeded the state target of 5%
growth overall and for their 3 significant subgroups: Hispanic or Latino;
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged; and English Learners. Longitudinal API data are
not included, as comparisons of API scores from one year to the next do not measure
true growth.
Leadership at Greenleaf is stable with a principal who has been in charge for
the past eleven years. The principal has a masters degree and is currently working on
doctoral level courses. His approach focuses on research based practices that employ
a social justice approach focusing on the developmental assets of students. He took
over at a time when the staff was beginning to collaborate professionally and has
since hired over 50% of the teaching staff.
The staff set out under his direction to re-envision who the students are and
what they want for the students as educators. The staff determined what is needed in
order for students to acquire a wide knowledge base, a sense of place and
empowerment, and the ability to think analytically. The staff’s professional work
subsequently focused on determining if their teaching practices supported or
hindered such student development. The staff ‘s overarching goals focus on college
preparation, academic excellence, humanitarian citizenry, arts for all, nutrition,
fitness, and wellness, and family school partnerships.
The staff received training in 2001 and has practiced examining data toward
improved teaching and learning for several years. The current focus for the school is
62
on improvement for English learners in language arts, specifically in word analysis
and reading comprehension. Writing conventions and vocabulary development for
all grades is a key focus. Greenleaf also wants greater progress for fifth grade
students in both English language arts and mathematics. Established goals include
(a) improved proficiency levels on CSTs for English learners and all students in both
English language arts and mathematics; (b) continued arts, music and physical
education instruction; (c) continued weekly and event parent communications.
Key strategies employed related to the goals are:
• Utilize weekly staff meeting time and early release days for results-
oriented collaboration to monitor learning and adjust instruction;
• Differentiated instruction on a daily basis for English language
development;
• School-wide writing articulation, alignment, and continued
implementation of Writing Workshop (Calkins, 1994);
• Professional development in English language acquisition, academic
vocabulary development, building background knowledge, writing,
mathematics and with COTSEN coaches and fellows;
• Instructional interventions for struggling learners before, after, and during
school; and
• Utilize physical education and arts specialists and after school program
staff to enhance learning opportunities.
63
The district office provides professional development support monthly
through early release days and as scheduled by the site. Greenleaf has allocated
resources for substitutes for district staff development, release time for teacher
observations, and release time for Cotsen mentors and teachers to work together. The
district supports the Cotsen Art of Teaching mentoring program at several schools
throughout the district. The district’s current focus is to assist schools with capacity
building on building background knowledge and academic vocabulary development
for English learners. The district is also working with Greenleaf on implementation
of their newly adopted math curriculum, Envision. The district-wide ongoing focus
on writing workshop is supported at GES through the coordinator of staff
development (Calkins, 1994).
The principal reported that over the years, staff development days have been
eliminated from the collective bargaining agreement. Currently there is only one
optional day outside of the contract for staff development. The remaining three pupil
free days in the contract include one day for teacher preparation and two days for
parent conferences. Most professional development is done through collaboration
time each week when students are released approximately two hours early on a given
day of the week. The principal asserts that the structure for professional development
impedes the process. While weekly early release days are ongoing and more focused
than they have been in the past, they are fragmented with the short time frame. With
transition time weekly collaboration is reported at about one and a half hours each
week.
64
Resources are used to not only support professional development concerns,
but also for core instruction, program specialists, and support programs. This
includes 31 classroom teachers, a language arts specialist that serves as the
intervention teacher and site language arts coach, special education staff and English
learner support. Teachers are additionally paid hourly for before and after school
interventions to assist struggling learners in language arts. Instructional aide time and
parent volunteers help assist with struggling readers. Resources are also used for
supporting the art program, in which specialists come in one day a week to provide
all students with an hour of music, drama, or art per trimester. In addition to
instructional personnel, resources are also used for instructional materials and
teaching resources, library materials, technology, supervision, pupil support, and
administration. GES has a principal and a half time teacher on special assignment
(TOSA), serving as an assistant principal. Table 8 displays actual resource use at
GES.
The principal discussed that the largest impact at the site from recent budget
reductions due to the state’s financial crisis was in administration. In 2008-2009,
Greenleaf had a full-time assistant principal. In the2009-2010 school year, the
assistant principal position was downsized to a .5 FTE TOSA. He further stated that
funding in future years for the Cotsen mentoring program may be eliminated and he
fears that funding levels for the art program may be reduced. He stated that with the
high poverty rate and large percent of English learners, federal and state categorical
funds are currently at similar levels to previous years.
65
Table 8 depicts current resource use at Greenleaf and compares resource use
to the recommended resource use levels of the Evidence Based Model:
Table 8: Comparison of GES Actual Resource Use to Evidence Based Model
School Elements
EBM Prototype-
Elementary School
GES Actual
Resource Use
EBM to GES
Comparison and/or
EBM Recommendations
School Characteristics
School Configuration K-5 K-5 Same
Enrollment 432 775 1.8 times larger
Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K-29.25
1-3 22.4
4-5 29.5
K: n/a
1-3: 7.4more
4-5: 4.5 more
Full Day Kindergarten Yes No
(Option 2)
n/a
Number of Teacher Work Days 195 (includes 10 days
for professional
development)
183 (includes 1 day
for teacher prep, 2
days for
conferences)
12 days less
Percentage Poverty (NSLP) 50% 83.3% 33% more
Percentage EL 10% 62% 52% more
Percentage Students with
Disabilities
12% 11% 1% less
Personnel Resources
Core Academic Teachers 24 31 12 less
EBM recommends
43
Specialist & Elective Teachers 4.8 (+20%) .2 8.4 less
EBM recommends
8.6
Instructional Facilitators/coaches
(ratio of one for every 200
students)
2.2 .5 3.4 less
EBM recommends
3.9
Certificated Tutors for struggling
students (1 for every 100 poverty
students)
2.16 .5 6 less
EBM recommends
6.5
Teachers for EL students
(1 for every 100 EL students)
.43
2 2.8 less
EBM recommends
4.8
Extended Day Teachers 2 3.1 less
EBM recommends
5.1
Summer School Teachers
1 teacher for every 15
poverty students
(based on half the
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary
Varies Varies
EBM recommends
5.1
66
Table 8, Continued
Special Education Teachers (of
students with mild-moderate
disabilities)
Additional 4 teachers
for 600 students
1 4.2 less
EBM recommends
5.2
Special Education Teachers (of
students with severe disabilities)
Fully Funded 1 Based on need
Special Education Aides 1.5 4 1.3 more
EBM recommends
2.7
Resources for gifted and talented
students
$25/pupil $0 $25/pupil less
Substitutes 10 days per FTE 10 days per FTE same
Pupil Support (1 for every 100
poverty students, includes
counselors, nurses, psychologists,
Speech/OT/PT, health assistant)
1.32 2.7
3.43 less
EBM recommends
6.13
Instructional Aides 0 0 Same
EBM recommends
0
Supervisory Aides 2 3 .6 less
EBM recommends
3.6
Librarian/Media specialist 1 Librarian
1 Library Technician
.5 1.8 less Librarians
1.3 less Library
Technicians
EBM recommends
1.8 Librarians
1.8 Library
Technicians
Principal (1 per 432 students) 1 1 Same
EBM recommends 1
Assistant Principal (1 per
additional 432 students)
0 .5 .3 less
EBM recommends .8
Secretary 1 1 .8 less
EBM recommends 1.8
Clerical 1 2 .2 more
EBM recommends
1.8
Professional Development
Total # of Professional
Development Days
10 3 plus 1optional
day outside of
school year
7 less
EBM recommends 10
Teacher Time (Substitutes &
Stipends); Trainer/Consultant
Funds; Materials, Equipment &
Facilities; Travel &
Transportation; Tuition &
Conference Fees; Other
Professional Development
$100/pupil $29/pupil $71/pupil less
67
Ashwood Elementary School
Ashwood Elementary School (AES) has 769 students in grades kindergarten
through five. Ashwood’s student population is made up of approximately 74%
Hispanic or Latino, 3% White, 9% African American, 9% Asian, and 2% Filipino.
The student population also has 83.3% poverty (NSLP), 60% English learners, and
9% students with disabilities. AES is a Title 1 school not in PI status. AES met AYP
in 2009. While they did not meet AYP goals in ELA, they did meet AYP through the
“safe harbor” provision. AES still improved CST proficiency levels by the required
minimum growth and their English learners met CELDT performance and growth
goals. Table 9 depicts their 5 year growth in AYP for English Language Arts and
Mathematics.
AES has a current API score of 742, which represents 35 points of growth
from the 2008 base of 707 (CDE, 2009). They exceeded the state target of 5%
growth overall and for their 3 significant subgroups: Hispanic or Latino;
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged; and English Learners. Longitudinal API data are
not included as comparisons of API scores from one year to the next do not measure
true growth.
68
Table 9: Five Year AES and Subgroup Adequate Yearly Progress Comparison by
Subject
English Language Arts Percentage Proficient 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Ashwood ES 27.1 30.3 34.2 28.1 38.3
African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin) 20.8 26.3 35.3 42.9 43.6
American Indian or Alaska Native -- -- -- -- --
Asian 46.6 47.1 59.5 46.7 50.0
Filipino 66.7 66.7 -- -- --
Hispanic or Latino 23.7 27.3 31.3 23.5 35.5
Pacific Islander -- -- -- -- --
White (not of Hispanic origin) 25.7 34.4 27.8 23.5 43.8
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 25.1 27.5 31.4 27.1 35.2
English Learners 21.7 25.2 29.4 24.0 33.0
Students with Disabilities 1.9 4.6 2.7 12.2 15.0
Mathematics Percentage Proficient 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Ashwood ES 34.4 30.8 40.7 44.1 57.7
African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin) 25.0 32.1 26.5 33.3 51.3
American Indian or Alaska Native -- -- -- -- --
Asian 58.6 41.2 71.4 75.6 87.5
Filipino 75.0 75.0 -- -- --
Hispanic or Latino 31.4 28.0 37.2 41.4 54.3
Pacific Islander -- -- -- -- --
White (not of Hispanic origin) 25.7 34.4 61.1 47.1 50.0
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 32.5 29.6 37.7 42.6 55.6
English Learners 31.5 27.6 39.7 43.9 57.7
Students with Disabilities 7.7 12.5 8.1 19.5 32.5
69
The principal at AES began at this site in the fall of 2009. Prior to coming to
AES, she was the principal in the district at another school for ten years. She has a
doctoral degree and is very passionate about making a difference in the lives of
students affected by poverty. Education in GEUSD is very personal to this principal,
as she went to high school in the local area and experienced schooling where many
students were not safe from gang violence and their learning potential was not
developed. Because of the schooling she experienced, she works to make a
difference by employing a success for all approach and believes strongly in
implementing the curriculum with fidelity.
Under the new leadership, the staff set out to update their vision and to
narrow their school focus to target improved performance for their “up and coming”
students. Their vision shows a commitment to success for all in a safe, nurturing
environment where students become empowered learners with strong character and
citizenship. Core beliefs include professional collaboration, effective
communication, empowerment, parental involvement, and high expectations for all.
Through a whole school cycle of inquiry and the examination of performance data,
AES worked through a process to identify needs, pose questions, set goals, and
develop, implement and monitor work-plans to bring about school improvement.
AES’s goals include improved performance on CST’s in ELA and
mathematics, increased parental involvement, responsive administration, and
improvement in school safety. Key strategies developed to achieve the goals include:
70
• Mandatory and after school interventions for struggling students,
including targeted “up and comers” in ELA;
• Professional collaboration and development;
• Determine frequently under a Response to Intervention philosophy which
students are meeting expectations and which students are not;
• Use of coordinated assessments at planned intervals;
• Celebrate and reinforce student performance;
• Enlist parents for classroom and intervention assistance, PTA, School Site
Council, school committees and invite parents to school functions.
The principal described the central office role as one that in the past
empowered schools to operate as entrepreneurs. She felt that this created competition
between the schools rather than collaboration and de-privatization of practices. In the
past 2 years there were significant changes in district leadership staff, which has
brought about a new vision of coordinated curriculum, assessment, and common
instructional strategies. She states that the changes will take time to implement and
affect school improvement, but agrees that the change is needed. Additionally, the
AES principal asserts that the district professional development structure is limited
by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which has eliminated a majority of the
professional development days. The district office assists the school with
professional development needs in the area of curriculum training and
implementation, as well as the teaching of English Learners, yet the training is
71
infrequent and fragmented. Schools must allocate resources for subs for a few
training days that are limited by district personnel resources that have been reduced.
Resources at AES are used to support core instruction, program specialists,
support programs, and professional development concerns. This includes 31
classroom teachers, a language arts specialist that serves as the intervention teacher
and site language arts coach, special education staff and English learner support.
Teachers are additionally paid hourly for before and after school interventions to
assist struggling learners in language arts. Instructional aide time and parent
volunteers help assist with struggling readers. Resources are also used for supporting
the art program, in which specialists come in one day a week to provide all students
with an hour of music, drama, or art per trimester. In addition to instructional
personnel, resources are also used for instructional materials and teaching resources,
library materials, technology, supervision, pupil support, and administration. AES
has a principal and a half time teacher on special assignment, serving as an assistant
principal. Table 10 displays actual resource use at AES.
The principal discussed that the largest impact at the site from recent budget
reductions due to the state’s financial crisis was in administration. In 2008-2009,
AES had a full-time assistant principal. In the2009-2010 school year, the assistant
principal position was downsized to a .5 FTE Teacher on Special Assignment
(TOSA). She further stated that funding in future years for the art program may be
reduced. She stated that with the high poverty rate and large percent of English
72
learners, federal and state categorical funds are currently at similar levels to previous
years and believes funding for these populations will continue.
Table 10 depicts current resource use at Ashwood and compares resource use
to the recommended resource use levels of the Evidence Based Model:
Table 10: Comparison of AES Actual Resource Use to Evidence Based Model
School Elements
EBM Prototype
Elementary School
AES Actual
Resource use
EBM to AES
Comparison and/or
EBM Recommendations
School Characteristics
School Configuration K-5 K-5 Same
Enrollment 432 769 1.8 times larger
Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K-32
1-3 20.7
4-5 29.6
K: n/a
1-3: 5.7 more
4-5: 4.6 more
Full-day Kindergarten Yes No
(Option 2)
n/a
Number of Teacher Work Days 195 (includes 10
days for professional
development)
183 (includes 1 day
for teacher prep, 2
days for
conferences)
12 days less
Percentage Poverty (NSLP) 50% 83.3% 33% more
Percentage EL 10% 60% 50% more
Percentage Students with
Disabilities
12% 9% 3% less
Personnel Resources
Core Academic Teachers 24 31 12 less
EBM recommends 43
Specialist & Elective Teachers 4.8 (+20%) 1.2 7.4 less
EBM recommends
8.6
Instructional Facilitators/coaches
(ratio of one for every 200
students)
2.16 .5 3.4 less
EBM recommends
3.9
Certificated Tutors for struggling
students (1 for every 100 poverty
students)
2.16 .6 3.3 less
EBM recommends
3.9
Teachers for EL students (1 for
every 100 EL students)
.43 2 2.6 less
EBM recommends
4.6
73
Table 10, Continued
Extended Day Teachers 1 4.2 less
EBM recommends
5.2
Summer School Teachers
1 teacher for every
15 poverty students
(based on half the
number of poverty
students), 15 hours
per week @ 25% of
salary
varies EBM recommends 5.2
Special Education Teachers (of
students with mild-moderate
disabilities)
Additional 4 teachers
for 600 students
3 Based on need
Special Education Teachers (of
students with severe disabilities)
Fully Funded 1 Based on need
Special Education Aides 1.5 5 Based on need
Resources for gifted and talented
students
$25/pupil $0 $25/pupil less
Substitutes 10 days per FTE 10 days per FTE Same
Pupil Support (1 for every 100
poverty students, includes
counselors, nurses, psychologists,
Speech/OT/PT, health assistant)
1.32 2.8 3.4 less
EBM recommends 6.2
Instructional Aides 0 1 1 more
EMB recommends 0
Supervisory Aides 2 1 .9 less
EBM recommends 1.9
Librarian/Media Specialist 1 Librarian
1 Library Tech
.5 .5 less Librarian
1 less Library Tech
Principal (1 per 432 students) 1 1 Same
Assistant Principal (1 per additional
432 students)
0 .5 .3 less
EMB recommends .8
Secretary 1 1 .8 less
EBM recommends
1.8
Clerical 1 2 .2 more
EBM recommends
1.8
Professional Development
Total # of Professional
Development Days
10 3 plus 1 optional
day outside of
school year
7 less
EBM recommends 10
Teacher Time (Substitutes &
Stipends); Trainer/Consultant
Funds; Materials, Equipment &
Facilities; Travel & Transportation;
Tuition & Conference Fees;
Other Professional Development
$100/pupil $29/pupil $71/pupil less
74
AES is approximately 1.8 times larger than the EBM elementary prototype
based on student enrollment. The comparison data in Table 10 were adjusted for
school size throughout the table and for poverty and English learners where
applicable before compared to the model. AES has significantly higher teacher to
pupil ratios with larger class sizes than the EBM. Class sizes are 1.4 times larger in
grades 1-3 and 1.2 times larger in grades 4-5. In addition, AES has 33% more
poverty and 50% more English Learners than the model. The findings display that
AES has substantially less: certificated staff; pupil support; and classified personnel,
similar administrative and operational personnel, and substantially less dollars per
pupil allocated for professional development purposes than the model recommends.
Magnolia Elementary School
Magnolia Elementary School (MES) is an ethnically diverse school with 586
students in kindergarten through fifth grades. Magnolia’s student population is made
up of approximately 84% Hispanic or Latino, 7% African American, 4% White, 2%
Asian, 2% Filipino, and 2% Pacific Islander. The student population also has 83.5%
poverty (NSLP), 59.4% English learners, and 10% students with disabilities. MES is
a Title 1 school not in PI status. MES met AYP in 2009. Table 11 depicts their 5 year
growth in AYP for English Language Arts and Mathematics:
75
Table 11: Five Year MES and Subgroup Adequate Yearly Progress Comparison by
Subject
English Language Arts Percentage Proficient 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Magnolia ES 33.0 43.2 38.9 41.2 50.8
African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin) 29.6 43.8 33.3 37.9 44.4
American Indian or Alaska Native -- -- -- -- --
Asian 53.3 83.3 -- -- --
Filipino -- -- -- -- --
Hispanic or Latino 30.7 39.9 37.4 39.7 50.6
Pacific Islander -- -- -- 45.5 --
White (not of Hispanic origin) 44.0 61.5 56.3 66.7 50.0
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 32.9 43.9 35.9 41.9 49.8
English Learners 27.4 37.3 34.0 36.6 47.1
Students with Disabilities 6.1 17.1 16.2 13.5 30.8
Mathematics Percentage Proficient 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Magnolia ES 37.7 49.5 46.4 58.5 61.2
African American or Black (not of Hispanic origin) 27.8 40.3 22.2 41.4 44.4
American Indian or Alaska Native -- -- -- -- --
Asian 66.7 83.3 -- -- --
Filipino -- -- -- -- --
Hispanic or Latino 36.9 48.5 47.6 59.1 61.5
Pacific Islander -- -- -- 63.6 --
White (not of Hispanic origin) 56.0 60.0 56.3 66.7 66.7
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 38.6 50.1 45.0 59.4 61.9
English Learners 32.7 48.0 42.6 58.0 62.2
Students with Disabilities 14.7 24.2 27.0 45.9 38.5
MES has a current API score of 790, which represents 21 points of growth
from the 2008 base of 769 (CDE, 2009). They exceeded the state target of 5%
growth overall and for their 3 significant subgroups: Hispanic or Latino;
76
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged; and English Learners. Longitudinal API data are
not included as comparisons of API scores from one year to the next do not measure
true growth.
The current principal has been at MES for the past nine years. Prior to this
assignment, she was the assistant principal at GES. Like her former boss and
administrator of GES, she shares an equity-pedagogy and has worked to empower
her staff and students. She views her role as one of support, offering resources and
expertise to her staff and setting high expectations for the entire MES community.
The principal looks within to find needed expertise and works to de-privatize
practice among her staff. She is bilingual and communicates effectively with Spanish
speaking families that make up the majority of MES’ population. CST scores and
district leadership has confirmed that MES stands out as the highest performing
elementary schools in the district due in large part to the leadership of this skilled
and personable principal. Several GEUSD site and district administrators have
referred to GES as the “super-star” school. MES is used as a laboratory and training
site for educators throughout the district as a model for observing quality instruction
and guiding teacher development.
The principal reported that when she arrived nine years ago they were the
lowest performing school with an API of approximately 570 and she was compelled
to make changes to improve the school’s performance. She attributes the substantial
growth in student performance of over 200 API points and 5 year AYP growth in
CST scores of 18% in ELA and 24% in Mathematics to developing a results
77
oriented, professional learning community with distributed leadership. MES has
employed outside consultants to assess needs and work with grade level teacher
leaders on facilitating data analysis and ongoing conversations about improving
student learning. The administrator has turned over faculty meeting time to grade
level meetings that focus on student needs, assessments and SMART goals. Current
school goals based on a needs assessment include continued improvement of student
performance in ELA, mathematics, ELD and physical fitness, along with improved
parental involvement.
Key action items related to the goals include:
• Continued utilization of coaches, consultants, professional development
opportunities for staff;
• Focus on implementation of new mathematics curriculum and instruction,
student enrichment, and parent education;
• Provide before and after school intervention opportunities;
• Fund counselor, physical fitness and art instructors, nutrition after school
sports programs;
• Provide ongoing parent education and community outreach.
According to the principal and district leadership, GES’ teacher leadership is strong
with many “superstar” teachers who work interdependently with one another.
Teachers have developed leadership skills through Cotsen mentor training, where
currently 13 out of 23 are current Cotsen fellows or alumni. The Cotsen Foundation
78
has partnered with GES to help teachers develop reflective skills and seek out best
practices.
The district office provides professional development support monthly
through early release days and as scheduled by the site. Like GES, MES has
allocated resources for substitutes for district staff development, release time for
teacher observations, and release time for Cotsen mentors and teachers to work
together. The district utilizes MES as a demonstration site for other staff to observe
effective instruction. The district-wide ongoing focus on writing workshop is also
supported at MES through the coordinator of staff development.
The principal discussed that the largest impact at the site from recent budget
reductions due to the state’s financial crisis was in administration. In 2008-2009,
MES had a half time assistant principal. In the 2009-2010 school year, the assistant
principal position was eliminated. She worries that funding in future years for the
Cotsen mentoring program may be eliminated and that funding levels for the art
program may be reduced. She stated that with the high poverty rate and large percent
of English learners, federal and state categorical funds are currently at similar levels
to previous years.
Resources at MES are used to support core instruction, program specialists,
support programs, and professional development concerns. This includes 24
classroom teachers, a language arts specialist that serves as the intervention teacher
and site language arts coach, special education staff and English learner support.
Teachers are additionally paid hourly for before and after school interventions to
79
assist struggling learners in language arts. Instructional aide time and parent
volunteers help assist with struggling readers. Resources are also used for supporting
the art program, in which specialists come in one day a week to provide all students
with an hour of music, drama, or art per trimester. In addition to instructional
personnel, resources are also used for instructional materials and teaching resources,
library materials, technology, supervision, pupil support, administration. Table 12
displays actual resource use at MES.
MES is approximately 1.4 times larger than the EBM elementary prototype
based on student enrollment. The comparison data in Table 12 were adjusted for
school size throughout the table and for poverty and English learners where
applicable before being compared to the model. MES has significantly higher teacher
to pupil ratios with larger class sizes than the EBM. Class sizes are 1.3 times larger
in grades 1-3 and 1.2 times larger in grades 4-5. In addition, AES has 33.5% more
poverty and 49% more English Learners than the model. The findings display that
MES has substantially less certificated staff, pupil support, classified personnel,
administrative and operational personnel, and substantially less dollars per pupil
allocated for professional development purposes than the model recommends.
80
Table 12: Comparison of MES Actual Resource Use to Evidence Based Model
School Elements
EBM Prototype
Elementary School
MES Actual
Resource use
EBM to MES
Comparison and/or
EBM
Recommendations
School Characteristics
School Configuration K-5 K-5 Same
Enrollment 432 586 1.4 times larger
Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K-31.7
1-3 20.1
4-5 29.6
K: n/a
1-3: 5.1more
4-5: 4.6 more
Full-day Kindergarten Yes No
(Option 2)
n/a
Number of Teacher Work Days 195 (includes 10
days for
professional
development)
183 (includes 1
day for teacher
prep, 2 days for
conferences)
12 days less
Percentage Poverty (NSLP) 50% 83.5% 33.5% more
Percentage EL 10% 59% 49% more
Percentage Students with
Disabilities
12% 10% 2% less
Personnel Resources
Core Academic Teachers 24 24 10 less
EBM recommends 34
Specialist & Elective Teachers 4.8 (+20%) 1.2 6.6 less
EBM recommends 4.8
Instructional
Facilitators/coaches (ratio of
one for every 200 students)
2.16 .5 2.4 less
EBM recommends 3.9
Certificated Tutors for
struggling students (1 for every
100 poverty students)
2.16 .6 4.4 less
EBM recommends 5
Teachers for EL students (1 for
every 100 EL students)
.43 1.6 1.9 less
EBM recommends 3.5
Extended Day Teachers 1 3.1 less
EBM recommends 4.1
Summer School Teachers
1 teacher for every
15 poverty
students (based on
half the number of
poverty students),
15 hours per week
@ 25% of salary
varies EBM recommends 4.1
81
Table 12, Continued
Special Education Teachers (of
students with mild-moderate
disabilities)
Additional 4
teachers for 600
students
1 Based on need
Special Education Teachers (of
students with severe
disabilities)
Fully Funded 2 Based on need
Special Education Aides 1.5 9.3 Based on need
Resources for gifted and
talented students
$25/pupil $0 $25/pupil less
Substitutes 10 days per FTE 10 days per FTE Same
Pupil Support (1 for every 100
poverty students, includes
counselors, nurses,
psychologists, Speech/OT/PT,
health assistant)
1.32 4.5 .5 less
EBM recommends 5
Instructional Aides 0 0 Same
Supervisory Aides 2 1 .7 less
EBM recommends 1.7
Librarian/Media Specialist 1 Librarian
1 Library Tech
.5 .5 less Librarian
1 less Library Tech
Principal (1 per 432 students) 1 1 Same
Assistant Principal (1 per
additional 432 students)
0 .4 .4 less
EMB recommends .4
Secretary 1 1 .Same
Clerical 1 1 .Same
Professional Development
Total # of Professional
Development Days
10 3 plus 1 optional
day outside of
school year
7 less
EBM recommends 10
Teacher Time (Substitutes &
Stipends); Trainer/Consultant
Funds; Materials, Equipment &
Facilities; Travel &
Transportation; Tuition &
Conference Fees;
Other Professional
Development
$100/pupil $38/pupil $62/pupil less
82
Center Grove Elementary School
Center Grove Elementary (CGES) School is a K-2 school operating their first
year under a new name and school identification code, who parted ways with their
former K-5 school, Redwood Elementary in 2009 (CDE, 2009). Redwood
Elementary School (RES) struggled with slow growth as compared to District
counterparts and a physically barrier separated the K-2 campus from the 3-5 campus.
With a public park separating the 2 campuses, administration was spread thin.
District leaders felt that a stronger commitment to site administration might help the
academic performance levels of the students. Figure 2 highlights the slow growth
over 5 years of RES compared to the schools of the study.
Figure 2: Five Year Adequate Yearly Progress Comparison: Annual School-wide
and District-wide Percent Proficient on CSTs in English Language Arts and
Mathematics Subject
83
According to the CDE, demographic and performance data are not yet
available for CGE, but the principal reported that they have 80% poverty (NSLP),
58% English learners, and 7% students with disabilities. Second grade proficiency
levels on 2009 the California Standards Tests at 58% proficient and above in
mathematics and 37% proficient and above in English language arts.
GEUSD appointed their long-time state and federal programs coordinator as
the principal of the newly formed school. The district made a significant
commitment to both schools through their decision to have full time administrators at
both RES and CGES. The principal at CGES is bilingual and has a great deal of
knowledge of district functioning and state and federal categorical programs. Her
experience helped her step in as an informed leader able to act swiftly for improved
student performance. The principal in her first year wants to establish rapport and
trust with the staff and believes in engaging the teachers as professional leaders of
their instruction. She asserts that top down management, from herself or district
leaders, hinders the development of culture and meaning at the site level.
The school’s needs assessment based on available data helped leadership
develop goals and action plans for the 2009-2010 school year. The principal reported
that their greatest needs include improved ELD instruction for English learners,
academic performance in ELA and mathematics for all students, interventions for
students not making sufficient progress, professional development for staff, and
improved parental involvement. Key action items relating to the site’s goals include:
84
• Utilize specialist for ELD, Language arts and mathematics;
• Strengthen core instruction through updated materials, staff development
and infusing technology into the curriculum;
• Align English learner instructional strategies and materials with the ELD
standards;
• Provide before, during and after school intervention for struggling
students.
The district office also supports CGES with their professional development
needs. The principal allocates resources for substitutes and releases teachers to
observe instruction at MES. District staff development personnel coordinate and
facilitate such observations and collaborative conversations for the teachers. The
CGES principal states that the district office is also working with the teachers on the
implementation of the newly adopted Envision mathematics curriculum as well as
building academic vocabulary and background knowledge for English Learners.
Resources at CGES are used to support core instruction, program specialists,
support programs, and professional development concerns. This includes 16
classroom teachers, a language arts specialist that serves as the intervention teacher
and site language arts coach, special education staff and English learner support.
Teachers are additionally paid hourly for before and after school interventions to
assist struggling learners in language arts. Instructional aides assist with struggling
readers. Resources are also used for supporting the art program, in which specialists
come in a half day a week to provide all students with an hour of music, drama, or
85
art per trimester. In addition to instructional personnel, resources are also used for
instructional materials and teaching resources, library materials, technology,
supervision, pupil support, and administration. Table 13 displays actual resource use
at CGES.
The principal discussed how fortunate they were to get a full time principal
for the K-2 site given the economic climate and that the larger elementary schools
had cuts to their assistant principal positions. However, she also stated that due to the
state’s financial crisis, CGES will not get additional classroom and office space that
is needed. Most of the common areas were on the 3-5 campus, such as the health
office and conference room. The principal said that due to the large reserve in the
district few cuts to date were made, but next year cuts will occur given the
governor’s proposed budget due for revision in May, 2010. She said the district has
not called for furlough days, nor have they frozen their salary schedules. The district
has issued 11 temporary teacher lay-off notices and class sizes are expected to
increase in 1
st
-3
rd
grades from 20 to 24.
Table 13 depicts current resource use at Center Grove and compares resource
use to the recommended resource use levels of the Evidence Based Model (following
page):
86
Table 13: Comparison of CGES Actual Resource Use to Evidence Based Model
School Elements
EBM Prototype
Elementary School
CGES Actual
Resource use
EBM to CGES
Comparison and/or
EBM
Recommendations
School Characteristics
School Configuration K-5 K-5 Same
Enrollment 432 411 .95 times smaller
Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K-32
1-3 21.5
K: n/a
1-3: 6.5 more
Full-day Kindergarten Yes No
(Option 2)
n/a
Number of Teacher Work Days 195 (includes 10
days for
professional
development)
183 (includes 1
day for teacher
prep, 2 days for
conferences)
12 days less
Percentage Poverty (NSLP) 50% 80% 30% more
Percentage EL 10% 58% 48% more
Percentage Students with
Disabilities
12% 6% 6% less
Personnel Resources
Core Academic Teachers 24 16 4.8 less
EBM recommends
22.8
Specialist & Elective Teachers 4.8 (+20%) 1.7 2.9 less
EBM recommends 4.6
Instructional
Facilitators/coaches (ratio of
one for every 200 students)
2.2 .5 1.6 less
EBM recommends 2.1
Certificated Tutors for
struggling students (1 for every
100 poverty students)
2.16 .5 2.8 less
EBM recommends
3.28
Teachers for EL students (1 for
every 100 EL students)
.43 0 2.8 less
EBM recommends 2.8
Extended Day Teachers 10 hours per
week
EBM recommends 2.7
Summer School Teachers
1 teacher for every
15 poverty
students (based on
half the number of
poverty students),
15 hours per week
@ 25% of salary
varies EBM recommends 2.7
87
Table 13, Continued
Special Education Teachers (of
students with mild-moderate
disabilities)
Additional 4
teachers for 600
students
1 Based on need
Special Education Teachers (of
students with severe
disabilities)
Fully Funded 0 Based on need
Special Education Aides 1.5 1 Based on need
Resources for gifted and
talented students
$25/pupil $0 $25/pupil less
Substitutes 10 days per FTE 10 days per FTE Same
Pupil Support (1 for every 100
poverty students, includes
counselors, nurses,
psychologists, Speech/OT/PT,
health assistant)
1.32 2.8 .5 less
EBM recommends 3.3
Instructional Aides 0 1 1 more
EMB recommends 0
Supervisory Aides 2 1 .9 less
EBM recommends 1.9
Librarian/Media Specialist 1 Librarian
1 Library Tech
.25 .75 less Librarian
1 less Library Tech
Principal (1 per 432 students) 1 1 Same
Assistant Principal (1 per
additional 432 students)
0 0 Same
Secretary 1 1 Same
Clerical 1 0 1 more than EBM
recommends
Professional Development
Total # of Professional
Development Days
10 3 plus 1 optional
day outside of
school year
7 less
EBM recommends 10
Teacher Time (Substitutes &
Stipends); Trainer/Consultant
Funds; Materials, Equipment &
Facilities; Travel &
Transportation; Tuition &
Conference Fees;
Other Professional
Development
$100/pupil $35/pupil $65/pupil less
88
CGES is approximately 5% smaller than the EBM elementary prototype
based on student enrollment. The comparison data in Table 13 were adjusted for
school size throughout the table and for poverty and English learners where
applicable before being compared to the model. CGES has significantly higher
teacher to pupil ratios with larger class sizes than the EBM. Class sizes are 1.4 times
larger in grades 1-3. In addition, CGES has 30% more poverty and 48% more
English Learners than the model. The findings display that AES has substantially
less: certificated staff; pupil support; and classified personnel, similar administrative
and operational personnel, and substantially less dollars per pupil allocated for
professional development purposes than the model recommends.
Analysis
According to educational economists and researchers, a multitude of actions
steps and adequate funding levels are necessary for attaining high levels of student
achievement (Burbridge, 2008; Odden, 2003; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden &
Picus, 2008; Odden, Picus, Goetz, Mangan, & Fermanich, 2006; Rebell, 2007). The
schools have assessed their performance problems, set goals, taken actions, and have
a process for making data driven decisions with support from their district office.
The schools with performance data have a track record of meeting their goals, yet are
the goals challenging enough? The schools have implemented to some degree all of
the 10 steps that Odden and Archibald (2009) assert are necessary for improving
student performance. However, adequate funding levels to produce desired student
89
outcomes for these GEUSD schools are still needed for a greater impact and to reach
educational adequacy for their students.
The findings demonstrate that these elementary schools do not have adequate
resources as recommended in the Evidence-based Model. Greenleaf, Ashwood and
Magnolia Elementary Schools have greater enrollment than the model calls for.
Center Grove is just under the prototype in total enrollment, yet they only serve K-2
students. All four schools have larger class sizes than the EBM elementary
prototype. On average the schools have 1.4 times larger class sizes for grades 1-3
and 1.2 times larger class sizes for grades 3-5. In addition, the schools have
approximately 32.5% more poverty and 49.5% more English Learners than the
model. Higher poverty and English learner rates alone generate a need for additional
staffing under the EBM and the findings display that the schools have substantially
less certificated staff, pupil support, and classified personnel than the EBM calls for.
Administrative and operational personnel are at similar levels and just under for the
schools yet, substantially less dollars per pupil allocated for professional
development purposes than the model recommends. The model calls for 10 days of
professional development and the schools only have 3. Resources at GEUSD are not
sufficient to reach educational adequacy. Perhaps growth would be greater in
GEUSD if more resources were appropriated.
Despite inadequate resource levels, these schools have shown substantial
growth in student performance. The pressure from state and federal reform efforts to
increase student performance and close the achievement gap, along with the pressure
90
from declining resources, has caused GEUSD to focus on organizational
improvements to meet such demands. GEUSD and its schools have worked closely
to improve learning outcomes for their students. In applying Odden and Archibald’s
10 Steps to Doubling Student Performance (2009), GEUSD has worked with their
schools to understand that change is needed, analyze the performance problem, set
goals, and take action. Evidence of implementation of the first two steps was seen at
each school through an annual needs assessment and performance data analysis that
led each school to identify needs, set goals, and articulate actions related to the goals.
Although, the goals set may not have been ambitious enough, the schools have
steadily improved by about 20% over the five year period studied. When selecting a
sample, 20% growth over five years was at the top end of performance growth for all
Los Angeles County schools considered with 50% poverty and above. GEUSD at
80% poverty has outperformed many neighboring schools with at least half of the
student body participating in the NSLP.
A criticism to note is that the school goals for performance on STAR CST’s
were only incrementally set, rather than systemically reformed and set to a high
level. For example, Greenleaf’s goal for student achievement was to increase
performance on the 2009-10 CST for ELA by 9% to 57% of all students scoring
proficient or advanced. Greenleaf’s goal for performance on the 2009-10 CST for
mathematics was to increase by 10% to 70% of all students scoring proficient or
advanced. These goals reflect enough growth to avoid NCLB penalties, yet what
would happen if the goal was set at 90% proficiency levels? Similarly, the other 3
91
schools set incremental goals as well. The goals appear to be set at achievable levels,
yet step 2 calls for setting very high and ambitious goals for all students.
Step 3, changing the curriculum and creating a new instructional vision were
evident. California schools must adopt standards-based curriculum approved by the
state and follow the seven year adoption cycle. GEUSD currently uses Houghton-
Mifflin for ELA and began implementation in 2009 of the newly adopted Envision
mathematics curriculum by Pearson. The schools also utilize common ELD and
intervention curricula, such as Avenues, Excel, and supplemental materials. District
wide implementation of a reading and writing workshop approach for ELA
instruction and a cognitively guided instructional approach for mathematics was
apparent. A shared vision of success for all and additional help for struggling
students emerged as a theme across the schools studied. In interviews with the
principals, several principals referred to Blankstein’s (2004) assertion that schools
must identify what they want students to know and be able to do, measure
performance, and act when students do not learn the objectives. While principals
emphasized different aspects of their personal visions, all the principals were focused
on improved performance through implementation of the adopted curricula for ELA,
mathematics and ELD instruction. Ashwood focused on fidelity with regards to
implementing the curricula, while Greenleaf and Magnolia empowered teachers to
use their expert judgment in implementing the curricula.
All the schools demonstrated implementation of step 4, which utilizes
formative assessments and data-based decision making, yet district leaders admit this
92
is an area for improvement. Currently, the schools administer trimester writing
benchmark assessments, which are scored against district-created, standards-based,
grade level rubrics. Reading is also assessed formally each trimester utilizing
Developmental Reading Assessment by Pearson. Mathematics benchmarks are
administered every 4-6 weeks utilizing the adopted curriculum. Often times the
results come too late to act upon. District leaders are currently reviewing these
existing benchmarks for a cost benefit analysis. The assistant superintendent in
charge of educational services stated that the assessments are costly to administer,
time consuming to score, and funding for such benchmarks may be in jeopardy.
From the district’s perspective, the schools do not have a tradition of continuity and
have in the past been free to act as entrepreneurs, which accounted for uneven
performance. The new district leadership is committed to providing structure and
focus for schools that will enable them to develop systematic and strategic
assessment plans. The long term goal is for more professional development for
teachers to become effective in developing and utilizing frequent classroom
formative assessments to inform daily instruction.
Ongoing, intensive professional development, step 5, is a systemic barrier to
improving student performance for GEUSD. Professional development days have
been negotiated out of the collective bargaining agreement over the years and the
district currently has only 3 days each year for professional development. The district
has negotiated weekly early release days for 2 hours each week, yet this time is
fragmented and loosely led. Teachers are given collaboration time and administrators
93
have tried to educate staff and provide resources for having effective dialogue
focused on data driven decision making, yet this time for collaboration has lacked
continuity across schools. The professional development coordinator also works with
staff to aid facilitation of collaboration time and on a range of topics as needed.
GEUSD has done a great deal to educate their staff given the poor structure and
limited resources.
Step 6, utilizing time efficiently and effectively, and step 7, extending
learning time for struggling students, were demonstrated at all schools. They utilized
and extended 90 minute block for ELA and found time within and beyond the school
day to extend learning opportunities for struggling students. Multi-age groupings
were apparent for reading and ELD interventions. Additionally, early release for
professional collaboration was designed to improve effectiveness of instruction.
Class size reduction was implemented to some degree, yet not to the degree that the
EBM calls for. Kindergarten classes of 30 students utilize an overlapping schedule to
allow 15 students to arrive early for core instruction with the smaller group. Non-
core activities, such as music, art, and nutrition breaks, occur when all 30 student are
present. The early arrivers leave early allowing time for the late arrivers to receive
core instruction.
Step 8, a collaborative and professional culture, was clearly demonstrated
through artifacts and principal interviews at all the schools. The principals each
discussed their journey to foster collaboration, de-privatize practice, and set high
expectations for student learning. Magnolia as the demonstration school is a prime
94
example of this collaborative culture. As teachers observe fellow educators modeling
best practices in instruction and have follow-up conversations about implications for
their practice, teaching practices were de-privatized. Not only, are collaborative
conversations occurring across schools, but also within schools. At Aswhood, their
collaborative conversations center on their up and coming focus students. These
educators de-privatize practice when they offer strategies and solutions for the focus
students that may not be in their own class. So, all teachers are vested in the progress
of all children.
Step 9, widespread and distributed instructional leadership, is evident in
GEUSD. All four principals are experienced leaders employing best practices in
building a shared vision and leadership around the vision. The principals utilize
teacher leaders at their sites to facilitate collaboration regarding improving student
performance. Some sites utilize coaches and consultants to develop capacity among
the staff. The principals also work closely with district leaders to provide support
with professional development and curricula implementation. Odden and Archibald
refer to a “density” of instructional leadership capacity, which is apparent throughout
GEUSD ranging from teachers to district administration.
According to Suppovitz’s (2006) theory of action for strong district support,
GEUSD exhibits several of the central components of his theory of action. District
leaders at GEUSD have implemented a unified vision for highly effective
instruction. GEUSD has developed commitment from school staff and the
community to implement and support the vision. Each site’s vision is in part based
95
on the district vision. GEUSD has also built structures to inform practices and
monitor implementation of the vision. For instance, the district has established a
process that all schools follow to conduct an annual needs assessment, establish
goals based on the needs, and plan key actions based on the goals. This roadmap
helps guide schools to narrow in on a focus and take action. The annual review helps
the schools monitor progress and make needed adjustments. The fourth component
of Suppovitz’s theory of action is evident, yet a work in progress. The fourth
component involves refinement of the district vision and improved implementation
processes. GEUSD new leadership is working through this refinement process as
they attempt to strengthen structures and procedures for a system approach to
decision making. District leaders have developed focus questions for all decisions
and actions throughout the organization: (1) is it good for students; (2) does it build
capacity; and (3) is it sustainable? With support from the district office, which
exercises power in helping schools make gains in student achievement rather than
turning over all power to the schools, GEUSD has contributed to the growth in
student performance.
GEUSD also utilizes professional and best practices, step 10, where they
work in collaboration within and outside the organization to keep abreast of the latest
research and best practices (Odden & Archibald, 2009). An example of utilizing
Marzano and Pickering’s Building Background Knowledge and Academic
Vocabulary district-wide in professional development and weekly collaboration
meetings, demonstrates GEUSD’s professional ability to seek out and utilize best
96
practices (Marzano, 2009; Marzano & Pickering, 2009). With high English learner
enrollment and needs, improving practice in this area was chosen as a focus based on
need.
An additional best practice at GEUSD is their commitment to parental
involvement and education. All four schools utilize a parent liaison to coordinate
efforts and help involve parents in the educational process. Parents hold seats on
school site councils, school committees and coordinate the Parent Teacher
Association (PTA) Board and activities. Parents also help in classrooms and with
intervention programs and are an integral part of the schools functioning. Some of
GEUSD’s success can be attributed to the parental involvement at all campuses.
Moreover, changes in allocation decisions have affected the decision making
process at the school and district level. Class size and staffing decisions have and
will continue to alter the decision making process regarding resource allocation.
Class sizes are currently under review for an increase from 20 to 24 pupils in 1
st
-3
rd
grades. This class size increase will result in 11 temporary teacher layoffs out of
approximately 175 teachers in GEUSD. While there will be a slight penalty from the
state for the class size, the savings in teacher salaries outweigh the costs. GEUSD
stands to save almost $385,000 from this change in allocation. Reductions to
administration occurred at the assistant principal level, reducing by 50 %. The 2010
State Budget proposal if approved calls for an additional 12% reduction in
administration (CDE, 2010).
97
In addition to class size and staffing changes, sites and district leaders are
reviewing alternatives and changing plans regarding a host of concerns. Schools are
concerned with the loss of additional funding for consultants and non-core programs.
Principals claim that some site money has been swept, cutting into the budget for
extra enhancements. Schools that have consultants will no longer be able to allocate
funds for their services. The schools also report that physical education and arts
programs that all schools participate in may be eliminated.
The district is reviewing all expenditures and streamlining efforts to see what
allocations can be reduced without jeopardizing a quality education. As discussed
earlier, one of the district’s top priorities was to apply a decision making filter as a
systemic structure and tool for improved decision making, problem solving, and
academic achievement. Whether best practice and research or the current economic
downturn served as the catalyst, such focus is needed to achieve educational
adequacy in schools. GEUSD has had sufficient reserves to this point to protect
students from the effects of budget cuts in the classrooms. GEUSD is well positioned
with leadership capacity to meet the heightened demands of today’s educational
environment, yet the changes in economic functioning of its schools and district
office will affect the classrooms in 2010 as they face additional fiscal uncertainty at
this time.
Conclusion
Any one action toward improving student performance is not sufficient.
Proper funding levels combined with a variety of actions are needed to dramatically
98
improve student performance (Burbridge, 2008; Odden, 2003; Odden & Archibald,
2009; Odden & Picus, 2008; Odden, Picus, Goetz, Mangan, & Fermanich, 2006;
Rebell, 2007). While resources for GEUSD schools are inadequate, much has been
done to overcome many challenges and improve student performance. GEUSD has
implemented a multitude of actions toward improving student achievement and
achieved substantial results. The schools have assessed their performance problems,
set goals, taken actions, and have a process for making data driven decisions with
support from their district office. The schools with performance data have a track
record of meeting their goals, yet are the goals challenging enough? All four schools
have implemented to some degree all of the 10 steps that Odden and Archibald
(2009) assert are necessary for improving student performance, which has produced
substantial growth in student performance. However, adequate funding levels to
produce desired student outcomes for these GEUSD schools are still needed for a
greater impact and to reach educational adequacy for their students.
99
Chapter 5: Discussion
A brief overview of this study, a summary of the key findings, and
implications for school and district leaders as well as for policy makers as a result of
these findings are explored in hopes that such insights will aid educational
improvement for Southern California youth and perhaps beyond.
Summary
Examining a purposeful sample of four schools within one Southern
California district having approximately 80% poverty and 60% English learners
highlighted the challenges and struggles that these schools and district faced in
raising student achievement. Outside of the Los Angeles Unified School District
these sample schools had among the highest 5-year growth in AYP scores in Los
Angeles County. These schools, all of which had poverty rates above 50%
demonstrated growth of around 20% in their AYP scores over the last five years.
To conduct this study, data collection protocols were adapted from previous
resource allocation studies in Wyoming, Washington and Arkansas (Picus, et al.,
2008). Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected utilizing the Evidence-
based Model and open-ended interview protocols as a basis for documenting
resource allocation practices and instructional strategies of successful schools and
exploration of the research questions of this study.
The findings regarding resource allocation and school improvement
processes highlight key actions in both areas needed for student success. Current
funding levels and allocations demonstrate that resources for GEUSD schools are
100
inadequate or not at levels recommended by the Evidence-based Model complicating
efforts to achieve an adequate education for all students. Primary elements of
resource use at level less than the model suggests include: (1) class size; (2)
instructional and administrative staffing; and (3) professional development.
Despite these fiscal challenges, GEUSD has implemented a school
improvement process with a multitude of action steps that have lead to substantially
improved student achievement, despite organizational and institutional barriers to
success. All four schools have implemented to some degree all of the 10 steps that
Odden and Archibald (2009) assert are necessary for improving student performance,
which is in keeping with other sources and research recommendations identified in
chapter 2. The findings regarding the school improvement process are paraphrased
into six key areas and for action and elements needed for success: (1) assessment of
the performance problems and setting high goals; (2) changing the curriculum and
setting a new instructional vision; (3) measuring and monitoring progress; (4)
collaborative culture and professional development based on research and promising
practices; (5) core and supplemental intervention instructional time and programs;
and (6) widespread and distributed leadership.
Findings regarding changes in allocations due to the current state fiscal crisis
include changes in class size, teacher and administrative staffing, non-core programs,
consultants, and instructional and assessment materials. Within GEUSD, class sizes
will increase from 20 to 24 pupils in 1
st
-3
rd
grades for the 2010-11 school year. This
class size increase translates to 11 temporary teacher layoffs out of approximately
101
175 teachers throughout GEUSD. Reductions to administration occurred at the
assistant principal level, which was reduced by 50 %. An additional 12% reduction
in administrative costs is proposed by the state for May, 2010 (CDE, 2010). While
Greenleaf EUSD and its schools have taken important steps toward improvement in
student outcomes, the funding and educational systems and structures need to adapt
in order to enable schools to meet school needs in the educational environment of
2010. Under the Evidence-based Model, additional resources would be needed to
help schools reach their full potential in providing adequate education for all.
Implications
Investigating school improvement and resource use through the research lens
of educational adequacy reveals potential implications for educators and policy
makers in improving outcomes for students in Southern California and perhaps in
many other areas of the United States with similar circumstances. With educational
adequacy as the goal, evaluation of educational system functioning at the school and
district level is needed to bring about changes in goals, objectives, and organizational
behavior that will produce desired results. School leaders must ensure the
implementation of a process with deliberate actions toward high goals that involves
the entire school community. An important part of that school community and
achievement is district leadership and support. Additionally shift back to an
increased district role in terms of enabling and supporting school progress may
further enhance school efforts.
102
School Improvement
The findings demonstrate that a multitude of actions created conditions for
improved student success. Lessons learned demonstrate that crucial to success is
developing an understanding of the performance issues and setting challenging and
appropriate goals. Most successful businesses in the commercial sector adopt
specific goal setting processes when diagnosing obstacles for success and improving
organizational performance (Clark & Estes, 2002). Similarly, GEUSD schools have
developed an understanding of the issues surrounding performance. Each school has
proceeded through a cycle of inquiry: posing questions, examining data, identifying
needs, and planning actions to improve school performance. In line with research
presented, GEUSD schools have adopted a school improvement process that enabled
substantial performance results (Johnson, 2002: Marzano, 2003; DuFour et. al, 2006:
Odden and Archibald, 2009). The schools with performance data have a track record
of meeting their goals, which is a major accomplishment, yet are the goals
challenging enough? As schools evolve and refine their processes, goals, skills and
knowledge, so will student performance.
Principals must help build capacity in teachers and staff so that they acquire
the necessary knowledge and skills for participating in conversations that will enable
proper diagnosis and solutions for improving student achievement. The knowledge,
the desire and the organizational opportunity must be present. According to
prominent researchers (DuFour et al., 2006; Elmore, 2003; Fullan, 2007; Marzano,
2003; Odden & Archibald, 2009), teachers need a place or professional community
103
in which they can enhance their professional dialogue, practices, and culture toward
improved schooling. Teachers must also possess motivation to improve performance
problems. Others assert that a primary premise in bringing about school
improvement is the teachers’ belief in students (Cotton, 1989; Danielson, 2006;
Kozol, 1991). This initial step of understanding the problem and setting challenging
goals requires teacher capacity and belief that all children can learn at high levels.
Administrator capacity is necessary for facilitating needs assessment and goal
setting processes. As instructional leaders and facilitators, administrators must also
have the knowledge and skills, motivation to lead, and be free of organizational
barriers in overcoming performance challenges. Administrators need current training
to keep up with the knowledge and skills required for performance (Marzano, 2005;
DuFour et al., 2006). Principals also need motivation to perform based on achievable
steps and rewards for accomplishing tasks (Bandura, 1997; Clark & Estes, 2002).
The role of the administrator today is more complex than ever requiring skills for
developing a vision for instruction and implementing changes in the curriculum.
While system wide curriculum adoptions go beyond the control of site
administration, changes regarding use and implementation involve site level
direction.
Organizational structures and support are necessary to overcome institutional
barriers (Clarke & Estes; 2002, Elmore; 2003, Supovitz; 2006, Togneri & Anderson;
2003). According to MacIver and Farley (2003), central offices can play a key role in
improving instruction and student achievement. MacIver and Farley discuss four
104
categories of successful practices, which include hiring practices; curriculum and
instruction guidance and practices; support to principals; and professional
development for teachers. Similarly, Odden and Archibald’s (2009) assert that
district leadership and structures are needed in supporting school improvement.
Successful practices found at GEUSD included:
• Changing the curriculum and setting a new instructional vision;
• Measuring and monitoring progress;
• Collaborative culture and professional development based on research
and promising practices;
• Core and supplemental intervention instructional time and programs; and
• Widespread and distributed leadership.
While GEUSD’s vision, strategies and actions aided school improvement, systemic
behaviors and processes produced substantial, but incremental growth rather than
dramatic and high growth for all students. GEUSD and its schools have the human
capacity needed with highly qualified staff and experienced leaders ready and willing
to take necessary steps toward improving student outcomes, yet perhaps constraints
of state and local funding reductions have altered their conversations, decisions and
actions. District leaders must have capacity to help school achievement. District
leaders will need to explore the reallocation of resources and changes in practices,
given the current budget reductions and financial instabilities of many districts in
California and the nation. Districts will need capacity to lead change and support
105
schools in leading change through the economic challenges facing the nation and
education.
Resource Use
The findings demonstrate that resources for schools in GEUSD are
insufficient as recommended by the Evidence-based Model. Educators must take
measures to ensure that resources are allocated to achieve maximum results. This
will entail changes in the way schools and districts allocate resources. Educators
must also advocate for improved funding, especially with regards to class size,
instructional and administrative staffing, and professional development expenditures
where deep reductions have taken place. Given current funding levels, leaders are
forced to reduce staffing and alter decisions. Leaders must weigh the costs and
benefits of their allocation and instructional decisions in order to maximize
outcomes, along with advocating for needed funding. GEUSD is forced to conserve
dollars and reduce expenses and one wonders how these reductions will affect
student outcomes? With funding challenges at least in the short term, schools and
districts must explore ways of functioning differently. Leaders must examine what
changes can be made in resource allocation and school improvement that will not
require additional allocations and may conserve and save resources.
While this study examined the elementary level, all levels and areas of
education have been affected by the financial markets of California and beyond
(CDE, 2010). College and university budgets have been reduced, fees have escalated,
and admissions have declined. This generation is the first to feel a downturn in
106
opportunities in higher education. Organizational changes to structures in California
have taken off at the K-12 and higher education levels with on-line education and
one wonders who this disruption will benefit (Christiansen, 2008)? Student outcomes
will be affected in different ways for different groups. Perhaps more students have
access, yet personal instruction and communication is lost. Economics seem to drive
educational institutions rather than best practices. In lowering expenditures, on-line
education fills a need, not necessarily the ideal.
K-12 schools have also faced new challenges due to the growth in charter
school and alternative education. Charter schools organize to seek freedom from
bureaucracy, yet face funding challenges alike. Questions regarding charter schools
remain for further exploration. Do charter schools outperform public schools overall
and what challenges exist? Do charter schools do a better job of providing an
adequate education? How do the disruption of alternative schooling in California and
perhaps the nation affect collective educational values? Is excellence in
organizational effectiveness sought or are economic pressures driving the changes in
institutional behaviors and how will this affect student outcomes?
How can schools get the dollars, goods and services needed? Southern
California’s unique landscape of diverse demographics and issues regarding poverty
and language, along with a rapidly evolving global community, have created a
complex and challenging educational environment to operate within. The vision for
an adequate education for all is apparent in GEUSD, yet without the funding to
achieve adequacy goals, incremental change resulted, not systemic improvement.
107
Local educational leaders will have to continue to advocate for necessary state
funding and systemic changes that will produce adequacy and equity for all.
Recommendations for Future Research
Looking forward, new questions arise:
• How will schools and student outcomes be affected as a result of current
fiscal crises and funding reductions;
• Will schools be forced to make decisions based on reduced funding levels
or based on research-based recommendations;
• How will changes from the reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) in progress affect visions for instruction, resource
allocation, and measurement of student outcomes (USDOE, 2010);
• How will schools reallocate resources in the future and how will this
affect student performance; and
• What will educational values and institutions look like in the future?
Elmore (2002) keenly observed that practices and values change simultaneously.
Consequently, a tremendous challenge for educators lies ahead in ensuring that
educational values are not compromised as a result of reduced funding levels and
outdated state funding mechanisms. Additional studies tracking school level
strategies and resource allocation are needed to explore these new questions and
preserve a focus on student, professional and organizational learning and
performance.
108
Perhaps a district level prototype under the Evidence-based Model would be
beneficial. What district level strategies and resources would be needed for a district
level prototype to generate sufficient conditions for aiding the school improvement
process? Maybe such a prototype would help define district staffing, resource and
best practice needs. Additionally, future studies examining how well the Evidence-
based Model and 10 Steps are aligned with the federal recommendations for practice
under the reauthorization of the ESEA may be helpful.
Conclusion
A brief overview of this study, a summary of the key findings, and
implications for school and district leaders as well as for policy makers as a result of
these findings were explored in hopes that such insights will aid educational
improvement for Southern California youth and beyond. This study documented
resource allocation patterns and school improvement strategies in one district in
order to add to the research base on school improvement in Southern California
schools. School and district administrators may be interested in the insights into the
complexities of reallocating resources and improving student performance as well as
gain thoughts, ideas and suggestions for improving student outcomes. Further studies
are needed to continue to document how successful educational leaders facilitate
changes in practices and school improvement through times of fiscal uncertainty and
the globalization of education.
109
References
Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance. 30(3) 259-
287.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NY: Freeman.
Blankstein, A. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principle that guide student
achievement in high performing schools. CA: Corwin Press.
Brewer, D. J., Hentschke, G. C., Eide, E. R., Kuzin, A., & Nayfack, M. B. (2008).
The role of economics in education policy research. In H. F. Ladd & E. B.
Fiske (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 23-
41). New York: Routledge.
Brimely, V., & Garfield, R. (2002). Financing education in a climate of change.
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Burbridge, L. (2008). Can the impact of adequacy-based reform be measured.
Journal of Education Finance, 34(1), 31–55.
Butler, K. (2009). Education’s shot in the arm. District Administration. 45(4), 20-24.
Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, C., (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Clark, D. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. GA: CEP Press.
Cotton, K. (1989). Expectations and student outcomes. NW Archives: School
Improvement Research Series (SIRS). Retrieved June 20, 2008 from
http://www.nwrel.org/sepd/sirs/4/cu7.html
Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006) Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. IN: Solution Tree.
Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & DuFour, R., (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to
become professional learning communities. IN: Solution Tree.
110
Ed-Data (2008). Comparing California. Retrieved August 18, 2009, from
http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Articles/article.asp?title=California+comparison.
Elmore, R. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 62(3).
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement,
Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved October 29, 2007 from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/Bridging_Gap.pdf
Fillmore, L.W. & Snow, C.E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language.
U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. NY: Teachers College
Press.
Guthrie, J., Hayward, G.C., Smith, J.R., Rothstein, R., Bennett, R.W., Koppick, J.E.,
et al. (1997). A proposed cost-based block grant model for Wyoming school
finance. Davis, CA: Management Analysis and Planning Associates, LLC.
Retrieved July 17, 2009, from
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/schoolx/cost/final/final.htm.
Hanushek, E. & Rivkin, S. (1997). Understanding the twentieth-century growth in
U.S. school spending. Journal of Human Resources 32(1), 35–68.
Hord, S. (2007). Realizing school improvement through understanding the change
process. Issues About Change 1(1) 1-6. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from
http://sedl.org/change/issues11.html.
Johnson, R.S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure
equity in our schools. California: Corwin Press.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities. New York: Harper Perennial.
MacIver, M., & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the
central office in improving instruction and student achievement. Report No.
65. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed
At Risk, Johns Hopkins University.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
111
Marzano, R. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to Results.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Miller, D., Malley, L., & Owen, E. (2009). Comparative indicators of education in
the United States and other G-8 countries: 2009. (NCES 2009-039). National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, D.C.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Table 403. Average math literacy,
reading literacy, and science literacy scores of 15-year-olds by sex and
country: 2006. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_403.asp
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: An
imperative for educational reform. A Report to the Nation and Secretary of
Education of the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
No Child Left Behind Acc of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.
Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2000). Reallocating resources: How to boost student
achievement without asking for more. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc.
Odden, A. & Archibald, S. (2008). Doubling student performance and finding the
resources to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H.A. (2002). A cost
framework for professional development. Journal of Education Finance,
28(1), 51-74.
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education
Finance, 28(3), 323-356.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., et al. (2005). An evidence-based approach to recalibrating
Wyoming’s block grant school funding formula. North Hollywood, CA:
Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. Report prepared for the Wyoming
Legislature. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2006/interim/schoolfinance/Recalibration/WY%20Re
caFinRe.pdf
112
Odden, A. & Picus, L. (2008). School Finance: A Policy Perspective, 4
th
Edition.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Odden, A.R., Picus, L.O., Goetz, M., Mangan, M., & Fermanich, M. (2006). An
evidence-based approach to school finance adequacy in Washington. North
Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
Odden, A., Monk, D., Nakib, Y., & Picus, L. (1995). The story of the education
dollar: No academy awards and no fiscal smoking guns. Phi Delta Kappan,
77(2), 161-168.
Picus, L., Odden, A., Aportela, A. Mangan, M., & Goetz, M. (2008). Implementing
School Finance Adequacy: School Level Resource Use in Wyoming
Following Adequacy-Oriented Finance Reform. North Hollywood, CA:
Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. Report prepared for the Wyoming
Legislative Service Office. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2008/interim/schoolfinance/Resources.pdf
Rebell, M. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement and judicial review: A
proposal for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. Teacher
College Record, 109(6), 1303-1373.
Supovitz, J. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and
sustaining school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Tilly, W.D., (2006). Response to Intervention: An Overview--What Is It? Why Do
It? Is It Worth It? The Special Edge, 19(2), 1-16.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts
can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington,
DC: The Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
United States Department of Education (2010). A blueprint for reform: The
reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. Retrieved
April 15, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/.
113
Vanneman, A. Hamilton, L., Baldwin-Anderson, J., & Rahman, T. (2009).
Achievement gaps: How Black and White students in public schools perform
in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress: 2009. (NCES 2009-455). National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington,
D.C.
114
Appendix A: Data Collection Protocol
School Profile
School Name School’s State ID Number
Address
City State Zip
CA
Phone Fax
Website
NOTES:
School Contact (1)
Title
Principal
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
115
School Contact (2)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
School Contact (3)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
District Profile
District Name
District State ID
116
District Contact (1)
Title
Superintendent
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:
117
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:
118
Core academic teachers
(Self-contained Regular
Education) FTEs
Kindergarten
(Full day program)
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
English/Reading/L.A.
History/Soc. Studies
Math
Science
Foreign Language
NOTES:
119
Specialist and Elective Teachers
/Planning and Prep
FTEs
Art
Music
PE/Health
Drama
Technology
Career & Technical Education
Drivers Education
Study Hall
Athletics
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Description:
NOTES:
Library Staff
FTEs
Librarian
Library Media Specialist
Library Aide
NOTES:
120
Extra Help I FTEs or Dollars ($)
Certified Teacher Tutors
Non-Certified Tutors
ISS Teachers
ISS Aides
Title I Teachers
Title I Aides
ELL Class Teachers
Aides for ELL
Gifted Program Teachers
Gifted Program Aides
Gifted Program Funds
$
Other Extra Help Teachers
Other Extra Help Teachers Funded with Federal
Dollars:
Other Extra Help Classified Staff
Other Extra Help Classified Staff Funded with
Federal Dollars:
NOTES:
121
Extra Help II FTEs
Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for severely disabled
students)
Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers
Special Ed. Resource Room Teacher
Special Ed. Self-contained Aides
Special Ed. Inclusion Aides
Special Ed. Resource Room Aides
NOTES:
Extra Help III
Number of Extended Day Students
Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program
minutes
Teacher Contract Minutes per Week
minutes
Extended day Teachers
Extended Day Classified Staff
Description of Extended Day Classified Staff
Minutes per Week of Summer School
minutes
Length of Session (# of Weeks)
weeks
School’s Students Enrolled in Summer School
All Students in Summer School
Summer School Teachers
Summer School Classified Staff
NOTES:
122
Other Instructional Staff FTEs and Dollars ($)
Consultants
(other than pd contracted services)
$
Building substitutes and other substitutes
Other Teachers
Other Instructional Aides
Funds for Daily Subs
$
NOTES:
Professional Development Dollars ($) and FTEs
Number of Prof. Dev. Days in Teacher
Contract
Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time)
$
Instructional Facilitators/Coaches
Trainers/Consultants
$
Administration
Travel
$
Materials, Equipment and Facilities
$
Tuition & Conference Fees
$
Other Professional Development
$
Other Professional Development Staff
Funded with Federal Dollars:
NOTES:
123
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:
124
Administration FTEs
Principal
Assistant principal
Other Administrator
Description of Other Administrator:
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
125
Appendix B: Data Collection Codebook
DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK
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)
126
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact
person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “WY” is automatically 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.
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
127
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 different from how the state measures the “instructional
128
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 (2008-09). Enter “Y” or
“N” or “NA.”
O. API
VI. Core Academic Teachers
The classroom teachers primarily responsible for teaching a school’s core
academic subjects of reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science,
history/social studies, and foreign language. In elementary schools, core
academic teachers consist of the teachers in the self-contained regular
education classrooms. Some elementary schools may also departmentalize
certain core subjects such as math or science, especially in the upper grades.
These teachers are also to be included as core teachers. In middle schools,
high schools, or any other departmentalized school, core teachers consist of
those teachers who are members of the English/language arts, mathematics,
science, social studies, and foreign language departments along with special
education or ESL/bilingual teachers who provide classes in these subjects.
The teachers should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. (E.g. a half-time teacher would be entered as 0.5) If
teachers are assigned to multiage classrooms, divide up the FTEs weighted
by students per each grade. Enter each teacher’s name that corresponds to
the FTEs entered in the corresponding notes fields. Indicate in parentheses if
the teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category. Example:
129
Grade 1: Matthew Perry (0.5), Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston;
Grade 2: David Schwimmer (0.25), Courteny Cox Arquette (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.
130
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.
131
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.
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.
132
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate
in the extended day program.
W. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of minutes per
week that the extended day program is offered.
X. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work minutes per week
in the teacher contract.
Y. Extended Day Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum after school.
Z. Extended Day Classified Staff: Number of FTE staff who 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 2009.
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 2009.
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.
133
B. Building Substitutes: Number of FTE permanent substitutes.
C. Other Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct, but were not
included in previous categories.
D. Other Instructional Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist instruction,
but were not included in previous categories.
E. Funds for Daily Subs: Daily rate for daily certified teacher substitutes
who replace sick teachers. (This is not for substitutes who replace
teachers who are participating in professional development.)
XI. Professional Development Staff & Costs
This expenditure element includes spending on the professional development
of a school’s staff and the staffing resources necessary to support it.
Professional development staff should be entered as full-time equivalents
(FTEs), and cost 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
134
estimated FTE amount depending on how much time they spend at the
school.
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services. If trainers are from
the district, convert to a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-level administrators of
professional development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the
specific school should be recorded).
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials,
equipment needed for professional development activities, and rental or
other costs for facilities used for professional development.
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.
135
G. Speech/OT/PT: Number of FTE licensed speech, occupational (OT), and
physical therapists (PT) who provide services to the school’s students
H. Health Asst.: Number of FTE health assistants
I. Non-teaching aides: Number of FTE non-teaching aides. (E.g.
Lunchroom aides, Aides who help students board buses; DO NOT
include cooks – the defining difference is whether the staff member is
supervising students or not.)
J. Other Student Services: Number of FTE other student services staff. (Use
this category sparingly.)
K. Other Description: Indicate what the “other” student services staff
member does.
XIII. Administration
This expenditure element consists of all staffing resources pertaining to the
administration of a school. Administrators should be entered as full-time
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
136
grade, the page with that grade's sections will be displayed where you can
enter the individual class sizes.
137
Appendix C: Qualitative Data Collection Protocol
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?
138
• 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?
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?
139
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?
140
Appendix D: Principal Letter
Dear Principal,
Your school has been selected as a possible participant in a study of schools with
significant populations of socioeconomically disadvantaged students in Los Angeles
County that have made substantial gains in improving CST scores over a five year
period. As principal of the school, you are asked to participate in a research study
conducted by Erin Lahr, current doctoral candidate at the University of Southern
California under the direction of Lawrence O. Picus, Ph. D., Professor from the
Rossier School at the University of Southern California. The results of this study will
be used for a dissertation regarding the allocation of educational resources toward
improving student learning.
Your participation is voluntary and you can withdraw from the study at any time. If
you volunteer to participate in this study, you will participate in an interview with the
researcher that will last approximately one hour. You will also need to provide
access to school documents as available, such as bell schedules, staff rosters, master
schedules, mission and vision statements, and school improvement plans. Many of
the requested documents are public information. The interview will be structured to
discuss elements of staffing, scheduling, and your school improvement plan. All
information that you provide and your school will remain anonymous.
I look forward to your participation and working with you as your school is
improving amidst challenging circumstances. Your participation will help document
success where fiscal efficiency and student productivity has risen despite a changing
educational climate. School and district leaders, as well as policy makers, may gain
insight from the findings of this study for future resource allocation and school
improvement decisions.
Attached is additional information regarding this study and requested documents.
Feel free to reply with interest or questions via email or call as below. I will follow
up this letter with a phone call to answer any questions, provide additional
information regarding this study, and schedule an appointment at your convenience
in January or February, 2010.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Erin Lahr
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
141
Contact Information:
Principal, Edison Elementary School
3800 West 182
nd
Street
Torrance, California, 90504
Email: elahr@usc.edu (school), elahr@tusd.org (work)
Phone: (310) 991-8074 (cell), (310) 533-4513 ext. 2880 (work)
142
Appendix E: Pre-Visit Documents
Document Request List
All of these documents should be for the current 2009-10 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.
143
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.
144
Appendix F: Case Study Format
Case Study Write-up Format
I. Background on the school & school district including:
a. Whether they're rural/urban/suburban
b. Makeup of the district: # of elem/mid/high schools
c. Approximate number of students in the district & school, rounded to
the nearest 50 per school, and 100 per district.
d. Description of students (approximate number or percentage of FRL,
ELL, special education, etc.) in the district & school
e. One sentence on the improvement process
f. One sentence on the purpose of the case study.
II. Test Scores
a. Longitudinal API scores (1999-2000 through 2007-08)
b. Longitudinal STAR results (2000 through 2008)
c. CAHSEE (if appropriate)
III. Other Data
a. Other pertinent data from School Accountability Report Cards (copies
of past report cards if available)
b. Program Improvement Status
c. AYP status/progress
d. Other California Program participation information and evaluation
results
IV. Introduction of the key elements of the improvement process
a. How/why it started
b. This should be in "story" form with specific examples that gives a big
picture description of what happened
c. Identify what resources it took (people & dollar resources).
V. Themes of the improvement process
a. Whatever the themes were, make sure that you not only describe
them, but also tie them to any outcome measures that resulted from
the efforts
b. Order the themes in the way that they happened so that the story flows
c. Identify what resources it took (people & dollar resources).
145
VI. Compare the actual resource use in the school to that provided in the
Evidence Based Funding Model using the following table.
a. The far left column, “Source from EB Funding Model,” maps where
on the EB Finance Model (which is on the web board for download)
you can find the quantities to populate the “EB Funding Model”
Column
Staffing Category EB Funding Model Actual
Core Academic Teachers
Specialist & Elective Teachers
Alternative Teachers/
Small School Teachers
LIBRARY STAFF
- Librarian/Media Specialist (Certified)
- Library/Media Tech Aides (Non-Certified)
EXTRA HELP
- Certified Teacher Tutors for English Language Learners
- Certified Teacher Tutors for At-Risk Students
- Non-certified Tutors 0
- Resource Room Teachers (non-special education) 0
- Resource Room Aides (non-special education) 0
- Special Education Teachers Fully Funded
- Special Education Aides Fully Funded
- Gifted & Talented Teachers 0
- Gifted & Talented Aides 0
- Gifted & Talented Funds $ $
- Extended Day
- Summer School
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
- Total # of Professional Development Days 10
- Instructional Facilitators
- Teacher Time (Substitutes & Stipends) $
- Trainer/Consultant Funds $
- Materials, Equipment & Facilities $
- Travel & Transportation $
- Tuition & Conference Fees
$
$
Other Instructional Staff
- Building Substitutes & Other Substitutes 0
- Instructional Aides 0
- Supervisory Aides
Student Support
- Counselors
- Nurses
- Social Workers
- Psychologists Fully Funded
- Speech/ OT/ PT Fully Funded
- Health Assistant 0
Administration
- Principal
- Assistant Principal
- Secretary
- Clerical
146
VII. Lessons Learned
a. The findings from the Washington Successful Districts Study provide
a good framework for summarizing what happened*:
http://www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/SuccessfulDistReport9-
11-06Final.pdf
1. Focus on Educating all Students
2. Use Data to Drive Decisions: Definition is “A process of making
decisions about curriculum and instruction based on the analysis of
classroom data and standardized test data. Data-driven decision
making uses data on function, quantity and quality inputs, and how
students learn to suggest educational solutions. It is based on the
assumption that scientific methods used to solve complex problems in
industry can effectively evaluate educational policy, programs and
methods.” (Cite: http://www.k12.wy.us/FP/title3/Glossary.pdf, which
was developed by The National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive
School Reform.)
3. Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum & Align to State Standards
4. Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional
Development
5. Restructure the Learning Environment
6. Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
...all of which were implemented with:
7. Instructional Leadership and
8. Professional Learning Communities.
* Of course you can only include those that were part of the district's
improvement process.
VIII. End with the additional resources that would be needed to continue &
expand their efforts.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
A purposeful sample of four schools within one Southern California district with approximately 80% poverty and 60% English learners documented the practices of successful schools in allocating resources toward student achievement. These schools, all of which had poverty rates above 50% demonstrated growth of around 20% in their AYP scores over the past five years. Data collection protocols were adapted from previous resource allocation studies in Wyoming, Washington and Arkansas (Picus, et al., 2008). Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected utilizing the Evidence-based Model and open-ended interview protocols as a basis for documenting resource allocation practices and instructional strategies of successful schools.
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
Making the Golden State glitter again: how the evidence based adequacy model can save struggling schools in difficult times
PDF
Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning in a sample of California schools
PDF
The role and value of educational technology in California fourth and fifth year (2006-2007) program improvement elementary schools that achieved AYP growth targets
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools
PDF
Evidence-based study of resource usage in California’s program improvement schools
PDF
Resource allocation and instructional improvement strategies in rural single-school elementary districts
PDF
A case study of what really matters: Examining educational leadership and student achievement
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of four California charter schools
PDF
Native Hawaiians and college success: Does culture matter?
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of six California schools within two school districts
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools
PDF
Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: Case studies of school level resource use in California middle 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
Data use in middle schools: a multiple case study of three middle schools’ experiences with data-driven decision making
PDF
Successful resource allocation in times of fiscal constraint: case studies of school-level resource use in southern 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
An examination of resource allocation strategies and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools
PDF
Resource allocation and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California with budget reductions
Asset Metadata
Creator
Lahr, Erin Lynn
(author)
Core Title
Toward school improvement and fiscal equity: examining educational adequacy in a Southern California school district
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/01/2010
Defense Date
05/04/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Education,educational adequacy,OAI-PMH Harvest,school improvement
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Picus, Lawrence O. (
committee chair
), Brewer, Dominic J. (
committee member
), Nelson, John L. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
elahr@usc.edu,ellahr@aol.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3170
Unique identifier
UC1182298
Identifier
etd-Lahr-3772 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-365179 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3170 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Lahr-3772.pdf
Dmrecord
365179
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Lahr, Erin Lynn
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
Tags
educational adequacy
school improvement