University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

SUCCESSFUL RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN TIMES OF FISCAL
CONSTRAINT:
CASE STUDIES OF SCHOOL-LEVEL RESOURCE USE IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

by
Kumi Toyoda-Smart

____________________________________________________________________
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

December 2010

Copyright 2010 Kumi Toyoda-Smart

ii
DEDICATION
I wish to dedicate this dissertation to my family. Dana, my husband, love of
my life and soul mate – You never let me down! Philip, for whom I went to USC to
finsh my Ed.D. because you love USC so much. Fight On! Greg, your passion for
life inspires me! William, your smile keeps me going! Without your support,
patience and love this dissertation would have never been completed. I could not
have asked for a better supporting cast.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Dominic Brewer, Dr. John Nelson and Dr. Guilbert
Hentschke for offering to serve on my dissertation committee. Their unselfish offer
of time and expertise is appreciated.
Additionally, I would like to offer a special thank you to Dr. Lawrence Picus,
my dissertation chair, for his hours of proofreading, suggestions and words of
encouragement during the last two years.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables v

List of Figures viii

Abstract ix

Chapter One. Introduction 1

Chapter Two. Literature Review 15

Chapter Three. Methodology 52

Chapter Four. Presentation of Findings 61

Chapter Five. Summary, Conclusions and Implications 89

References 112

Appendices:
Appendix A. Case Study One 117
Appendix B. Case Study Two 137
Appendix C. Case Study Three 155
Appendix D. Case Study Four 177
Appendix E. Case Study Five 195
Appendix F. Pre-Visit Documents 217
Appendix G. Document Request List 218
Appendix H Data Collection Codebook 220
Appendix I Data Collection Protocol 231
Appendix J Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol School Sites 243
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: The 21 Responsibilities and Their Correlation with Student
Academic Achievement 28

Table 2.2: Recommendations for Adequate Resources for a Prototypical
Elementary, Middle and High School 47

Table 4.1: Enrollment Numbers for the Four Districts 62

Table 4.2: District and School in the District 62

Table 4.3: Enrollment, Population Status and Statistically Significant
Population Percentages 63

Table 4.4: Statewide Rankings 2007-2009 64

Table 4.5: API Scores for Schools 2007-2009 65

Table 4.6: Ranking of School Application of Odden, et al.’s (2008) Ten Steps
to Double Performance 66

Table 4.7: API Score and Ten Steps to Double Performance
(Odden, et al., 2008) 68

Table 4.8: List of Principal’s Tenure at Current Site Rating 75

Table 4.9: School Characteristics Comparison: Case Study Schools and
Evidence Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources 79

Table 4.10: Resource Comparison: Case Study Schools and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources 81

Table 4.11: Number of Improvement Strategies, Percent Free or Reduced
Lunch, Percent EL and API Score 84

Table 5.1: Instructional Improvement Strategies Rankings vis-à-vis 2009
API Scores 100

Table A1: AAES API Scores for Academic Years 2005-2009 120

Table A2: Similar Schools Ranks Decile Rating Scale 122

Table A3: AAES Similar Schools Ranking for Academic Years 2005-2009 123
vi
Table A4: Resource Comparison: AA Elementary School and Evidence
Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources 132

Table A5: Implementation of Odden et al.’s Ten Steps to Double Performance
at AA Elementary School 134

Table B1: BBES AYP Status 2005-2009 140

Table B2: BBES API Scores 2005-2009 141

Table B3: Similar Schools Ranks Decile Rating Scale 142

Table B4: BBES Statewide and Similar Schools Ranking 2005-2009 143

Table B5: Resource Comparison: BB Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources 150

Table B6: Implementation of Odden et al.’s Ten Steps to Double Performance
at BB Elementary School 152

Table C1: CCES API Scores for Academic Years 2005-2009 159

Table C2: Similar Schools Ranks Decile Rating Scale 160

Table C3: CCES Similar Schools Ranking for Academic Years 2005-2009 161

Table C4: 5 Professional Development Day Uses 166

Table C5: Proficiency Levels for School-Wide SBRC and Non-SBRC School
in ELA 171

Table C6: Proficiency Levels for School-Wide SBRC and Non-SBRC School
in Math 171

Table C7: Resource Comparisons CC Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources 172

Table C8: Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps at CC Elementary School 175

Table D1: DDES API Scores for Academic Years 2005-2009 180

Table D2: Similar Schools Ranks Decile Rating Scale 182

Table D3: DDES Similar Schools Ranking for Academic Years 2005-2009 183
vii
Table D4: Resource Comparison: DD Elementary School and Evidence
Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources 191

Table D5: Implementation of Odden et al.’s Ten Steps to Double Performance
at DD Elementary School 193

Table E1: EEES API Scores 2005-2009 200

Table E2: Similar Schools Ranks Decile Rating Scale 201

Table E3: EEES Similar Schools Ranking 2005-2009 202

Table E4: 5 Professional Development Day Uses 210

Table E5: Resource Comparison: EE Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources 212

Table E6: Implementation of Odden et al.’s Ten Steps to Double Performance
at EE Elementary School 214
viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: National School District Expenditure Averages 35

Figure 2.2: Evidence Based Model School Expenditure Structures 37

Figure 2.3: Graphic Representation of Evidence Based Model Application 46

Figure 4.1: Graphic Representation of API Scores for 2007-09 65

Figure A1: AAES Percent Free and Reduced Lunch for Academic Year
2005-2009 119

Figure A2: AAES API Scores for Academic Years 2005-2009 120

Figure B1: BBES Percent Free and Reduced Lunch 2005-2009 139

Figure B2: BBES API Scores for Academic Years 2005-2009 140

Figure C1: CCES Percent Free and Reduced Lunch for Academic Years
2005-2009 157

Figure C2: CCES API Scores for Academic Years 2005-2009 158

Figure D1: DDES Percent Free and Reduced Lunch for Academic Years
2005-2009 179

Figure D2: DDES API Scores for Academic Years 2005-2009 180

Figure D3: DDES 2009 Percent Proficient or Advanced in ELA (CST) 184

Figure D4: DDES Percent Proficient or Advanced in Math (CST) 184

Figure E1: EEES Percent Free and Reduced Lunch 2000-2009 197

Figure E2: EEES API Scores 2005-2009 199

ix
ABSTRACT
This study examines how five diverse California elementary schools—two
underperforming and three high achieving, with statistically significant subgroups of
English Learner, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and minority students—have
allocated resources to improve student achievement. The applied research
contributes new information to the current body of knowledge regarding Adequacy
Oriented School Finance Reform (Picus, Odden, Aportela, Mangan, & Goetz, 2008).
The goal of this project is to collect school data from the 2007-2008
academic year and examine how site level financial allocations have changed in
response to the 2008-2009 California education budget cuts and how those
reallocations have impacted programs at the five elementary schools. These findings
will then be overlaid with the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) to
validate the Model’s theory of improved student achievement.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the federal government’s
driver to gather performance data on students, has impelled public schools to refine
their curricula to reflect current educational standards. A by-product of this
accountability is the standards based reform movement, the goal of which is to
standardize instruction nationally and to attain a result of 100% proficiency on
standardized tests by 2014. The purpose of this study is to inform the public of the
best use of educational dollars to improve student learning and to further understand
the link between resource allocation and student performance.
For nearly a century and a half, the nation has struggled with equitable
educational standards, beginning with the establishment, and subsequent
dismantling, of separate-but-equal educational systems, followed by the federal
government’s strive in the 1960s to balance funding among school districts via
programs of The Great Society. In California, a series of court cases and ballot
propositions incrementally pushed educational policy and funding toward equitable
allocation through programs borne primarily by the state with revenue excesses
being earmarked for K-12 education. Additionally the measures stipulate using
funds wisely to improve instruction and school materials, and lay out a blueprint of
student achievement goals and instructional accountability later amplified by NCLB.
Under the equity model the achievement gap between high and low
performing schools seemingly has widened along racial and socio-economic lines.
Schools with predominantly White and Asian students in suburban areas score well
2
while urban schools with predominantly brown and black students score poorly on
these same exams. Lawsuits triggered by schools’ underachievement brought
attention to adequacy models, with adequacy studies having been conducted in more
than thirty states (Rebell, 2007). Adequacy models differ from equity models in that
they seek to determine the costs of educating all children to state mandated
performance levels (Odden, 2003; Rebel, 2007). Four main methods to estimate
adequacy have come to the fore: the successful district approach, the cost function
approach, the judgment approach, and the evidence-based approach (Odden & Picus,
2008). Further description of the adequacy models are examined in Chapter Two.
The issue of resource allocation in public schools is not a recent problem.
Federal and state policies regarding school resource equity have been determined
principally by litigation brought by populations disenfranchised by local schools.
While federal and state governments have made attempts to provide equality in
school funding for diverse groups, equality and equity are not the same.
Furthermore, due to the complex make up of special populations and school funding
models, a concise determination for the best approach to link school funding to high
student performance outcomes has yet to be determined.
The current body of research has established connections between
instructional and institutional practices that result in high student performance. The
research on best practices combined with the information captured in the case studies
holds promise for insights to connect practices to resources with the ultimate goal of
improving student achievement. It is the researcher’s goal to establish a connection
3
between the ingredients for improved student achievement and resource allocation.
Which practices are more cost effective to attain the goal of high student outcomes?
At the time of this writing, the State of California, and the nation as a whole,
is facing a period of fiscal constraint. Financial resources are limited; the California
education budget has been reduced by approximately $8 billion. Concurrently,
California schools are scrambling to achieve proficiency in its world-class standards
with fewer resources to support instructional and institutional programs. The
researcher will draw on equity and adequacy models and use the Evidence Based
Model (EBM) as a framework to investigate the use of resources at the school level.
Problem Statement
The nationwide economic downturn in the fall of 2008, followed by a
California budget deadlock, has intensified the battle for adequate educational
funding from the state. In encountering challenges, public education usually reacts
with an ad hoc plan that lacks proper research and planning. The absence of research
and planning often result in school resources, both human but principally financial,
to be poorly implemented. Clark and Estes (2002) state, “Effective performance
improvement must start with clearly understood work goals (Bandura, 1997) and
accurate analysis of the cause of the gaps between current and desired performance
(Gilbert, 1996; Rummler & Rache, 1995; Locke & Latham, 1990).”
This study examines how and why schools with comparable numbers of
disadvantaged students are outperforming other underperforming schools. The
Evidence Based Method (EBM) (Odden & Picus, 2008) will be used as a lens to
4
contrast resource allocation patterns at the site level in Los Angeles County. Similar
studies related to the EBM have been limited to Wyoming and Arkansas (Odden et
al., 2006; Odden et al, 2008). Outcomes from this analysis of school data contributes
to the dialogue related to what successful schools are doing to improve student
achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to collect qualitative and quantitative data in
order to establish a link between targeted resource use and increased student
performance.
School site data will be compared to the Evidence Based Model to identify
school resource assignments derived from research-based practices. This study
offers information regarding site level expenditures to provide a context for policy
makers, teachers, and researchers related educational spending. The following four
research questions guided this study:
1. What are the current instructional 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 the
recent budget reductions?

4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned
with, or different from, the resource use strategies used in the
Evidence Based Model?

5
Importance of the Study
Given the current budgetary reductions, increased cost of living, and the
approaching deadline for NCLB proficiency, California resources must be allocated
to raise student performance outcomes. The study of the three successful and two
underperforming schools compares how schools with similar demographics yet
different student test results use resources differently to improve student test scores.
Additionally, there are implications for policy makers and educational leaders at the
state and local levels to examine the findings to ascertain the use of California’s
limited educational resources in the most effective way.
Limitations
The results of this research are not generalizable; it utilized California
demographics which are dissimilar to other states. Nevertheless, conclusions from
this study have implications for education as a whole. School level studies were
limited to a four-month period at five selected elementary school sites across four
school districts within one county.
Delimitations
The researcher based this study on a purposeful sample of two
underperforming schools compared to three over-performing Southern California
Schools. Findings may only be generalized to similar schools with like
demographics. The small sample is due to time and geographic constraints which
limited the investigation to schools in the southern portion of Los Angeles County
6
that receive schoolwide Title I funds. The sample was further limited by those
schools principals’ willingness to participate in the study.
Assumptions
There are two assumption related to this study. First, it was assumed that,
during interviews and quantitative data collection, principals and staff presented
honest and accurate information. Second, it was assumed that all documentation was
accurate and reflected correctly and completely the site’s use of resources.
Definitions
1. (Educational) Adequacy: The funding necessary for schools to meet student
academic performance expectations determined by the state based on NCLB
requirements (Odden & Picus, 2008).
2. Academic Performance Index (API): A single-number indicator that can range
from 200 to 1000 that serves as a summary measurement of the performance of
a school’s students on California’s Standardized Testing and Reporting tests.
API values are used to rank schools of similar class (e.g., elementary, middle,
high) and, separately, among groupings of 100 schools composed of similar
demographics according to the Similar School Ranks. The state’s threshold
value for a successful school is an API score of 800 (EdSource, 2008).
3. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): “A goal of the 2001 federal law No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) that requires schools and districts to measure and report
students’ annual progress toward proficiency in English/language arts and
mathematics by 2013-14. Progress is based on whether the school or district
7
met its Annual Measurable Objectives and demonstrated 95% participation on
standardized tests, achieved its target on the Academic Performance Index and,
for high schools, met target graduation rates” (Ed-Data, 2009).
4. Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO): “The annual target for the percentage
of students whose test scores must be proficient or above in English/language
arts and mathematics. Meeting the AMO is the first step toward demonstrating
Adequate Yearly Progress under the federal law No Child Left Behind
(NCLB)” (Ed-Data, 2009).
5. California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS): “An annual collection of
basic student and staff data that includes student enrollment, graduates,
dropouts, course enrollment, enrollment in alternative education, gifted and
talented education, and more. Statistical information about schools, teachers,
and students that is collected from each public school on a given day in
October” (Ed-Data, 2009).
6. California Standards Test (CST): “Tests in English/language arts and
mathematics in grades 2-11, science in grades 5 and 9-11, and history/social
science in grades 8, 10 and 11 based on California’s academic content
standards. This is the core of California’s statewide Standardized Testing and
Reporting Program (STAR)” (Ed-Data, 2009).
7. Categorical Fund(s): “Funds from the state or federal government granted to
qualifying school districts for children with special needs, such as disabilities;
for special programs, such as the School Improvement Program; or for special
8
purposes, such as Economic Impact Aid or Transportation. Expenditure of
most categorical aid is restricted to its particular purpose. The funds are
granted to districts in addition to their revenue limit income” (Ed-Data, 2009).
8. Certificated/Credentialed Employees: Employees holding appropriate state
credentials also known as “licensed employees” (Odden & Picus, 2008).
9. Coaching: “refers to opportunities for active learning that are often ongoing in
nature and assist teachers in active learning” (Odden et al., 2002, p. 69).
10. Comprehensive School Reform: A U.S. Department of Education program
designed to assist public schools across the country to implement effective,
comprehensive school reforms that are based upon scientifically based research
and effective practices. An important component of the No Child Left Behind
Act, the program’s focus is to raise student achievement via proven methods
and strategies to produce and expand the quality and quantity of comprehensive
school reform, enabling all children, particularly low-achieving children, to
meet challenging academic standards (US DoE, 2004).
11. Cost Function Approach: An adequacy model that uses econometrics to
identify costs to achieving desired student outcomes.
12. Cost Function: The cost of inputs to attain predetermined outcomes.
13. Cost of Living Adjustment: An inflation adjustment given to districts from the
state. It is common referred to as COLA.
14. Costing Out: The process of determining the cost of providing students with an
adequate education.
9
15. Costs: “expenditures incurred to produce a certain outcome” (Odden et al.,
2002, p. 73).
16. Effective Professional Development: “Professional development that produces
change in teachers’ classroom-based instructional practice, which can be linked
to improvements in student learning” (Odden et al., 2002, p. 53).
17. English Learner (EL): The designation, currently used, to identify students not
yet proficient in English.
18. Equalization Aid: Increased aid allocated by the legislature to districts with
revenue limits lower than other districts to equalize funding between districts.
19. Equity: Equalization of funding per pupil.
20. Evidence Based Model: A research-based adequacy model that addresses
staffing and other resources necessary to make all students meet state mandated
proficiency levels.
21. Expenditure: What is spent (Odden et al., 2002, p.73).
22. Expert Judgment Approach: The aggregation of informed opinions from
individuals with particular expertise, used to obtain a rapid assessment of the
state of knowledge about a particular aspect of student achievement. Expert
judgment is frequently used to produce position papers on issues requiring
policy responses and is integral to most other decision-making tools.
23. Free/Reduced Price Meals: Program providing free and reduced price school
meals to eligible students from economically disadvantaged households. The
10
percentage of free and reduce price students at a school is an indicator of
determining the socio-economic status of a school.
24. General Fund: Fund for financing state government programs, used to account
for revenues which are not specifically designated to be accounted for by any
other fund. In California’s budgetary system, the General Fund’s primary
revenue sources are the personal income, sales and corporation taxes, and its
major uses are education, health and human service, and correctional programs
(CA DoF, 2009).
25. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): The 2001 reauthorization of the
federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA 1965) that places
comprehensive requirements on public schools and districts throughout the
United States, particularly in terms of assessment, accountability, and teacher
quality. It increases the federal focus on the achievement of disadvantaged
pupils, including English learners and students who live in poverty; provides
funding for “innovative programs” such as charter schools; and supports the
right of parents to transfer their children to a different school if their school is
low-performing or unsafe. In California, those sanctions currently apply only
to schools and districts that accept Title I funding (Ed-Data, 2009; EdSource,
2009).
26. Professional Learning Community: A collegial group of educators committed
to working collaboratively in ongoing processes of collective inquiry and
action research to achieve better results for the students they serve. A powerful
11
staff-development scheme, additional benefits of which include reduced
teacher isolation and better informed and committed educators (DuFours, 2004;
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2009).
27. Program Improvement (PI): A state department of education intervention under
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) that details a series of steps to
improve student performance in a school that failed for two years in a row to
make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward the goal of having all students
become proficient in English language arts and mathematics by 2013-14. Only
schools that receive federal Title I funds are subject to Program Improvement.
The steps in PI could include a revised school plan, professional development,
tutoring for some students, transfer to another school with free transportation,
and, at the end of five years, significant restructuring or takeover of the school
(Ed-Data, 2009; EdSource, 2009).
28. Proposition 13: An amendment to the California Constitution passed by voter
initiative in June 1978 limiting property taxes to no more than 1% of full-
assessed value. Proposition 13 and implementing legislation caused a shift in
support for schools from local property taxes to state general funds (EdSource,
2009).
29. Proposition 98: Voter-approved initiative that amended the California
Constitution in 1988 to guarantee a minimum amount of funding for K-14
(kindergarten through community college) education each year. The
guaranteed funding, a program unique in the nation, is provided through a
12
combination of state General Fund and local property tax revenues. The
proposition also mandated detailed reports called School Accountability Report
Cards (SARC) that cover at least 13 required topics on student achievement
and school conditions such as test scores, dropout rates, and teacher
qualifications (LAO, 2005; EdSource, 2009).
30. Proposition 111: Voter-approved initiative that amended the California
Constitution in 1990 to guarantee a minimum amount of funding from property
and state taxes for K-14 (kindergarten through community college) education
each year via formulæ for calculating the guarantee under different economic
conditions. Also provides that excess state revenues are allocated equally
between education and taxpayers (Prop 111, 1990; EdSource, 2009).
31. Redesignated Fluent English Proficient (RFEP): Threshold of English
proficiency and academic achievement by an English Learner (EL) student that
advances that student out of the EL subgroup into the RFEP reclassification.
32. Revenue Limits: The specific combination of state and local property tax funds
a school district may receive according to its Average Daily Attendance (ADA)
for its general education program. Categorical aid is granted in addition to
revenue limit income (Ed-Data, 2009).
33. Schoolwide Program (SWP): A program that uses Title I money to support
comprehensive school improvement efforts and to help all students, particularly
low-achieving and at-risk students, meet state standards at particular schools.
To qualify as a schoolwide Title I program, at least 40% of a school’s students
13
must be considered low income. Schoolwide programs can provide Title I
services and support to all of the children in the school, regardless of income
level. Schools operating schoolwide programs can combine Title I funds with
other federal, state, and local funding to finance a more comprehensive
approach to improving student achievement.
34. Serrano v Priest: A California court case begun in 1968 and settled in the mid-
1970s that challenged the inequities created by the U.S. tradition of using
property taxes as the principal revenue source for public schools, asserting the
wide discrepancies in school funding because of differences in district wealth
represented a denial of equal opportunity (EdSource, 2009).
35. Similar School Ranks: An assessment of a school, based on its Annual
Performance Index (API) score, within a group of 100 schools having similar
demographics, opportunities and challenges, the criteria of which include
student mobility, student ethnicity, socioeconomic status, faculty credential
status, EL student population, and GATE student population (CA DoE, 2007).
36. Socioeconomically Disadvantaged: “Students whose parents do not have a high
school diploma or who participate in the free/reduced price lunch program
because of low family income” (Ed-Data, 2009; EdSource, 2009).
37. Special Education: “Programs to identify and meet the educational needs of
children with emotional, learning, or physical disabilities. Federal law requires
that all children with disabilities be provided a free and appropriate education
14
according to an Individual Education Plan (IEP) from infancy until 21 years of
age” (Ed-Data, 2009; EdSource, 2009).
38. Successful Schools Approach: The identification of a site or sites within a
district deemed successful in the attainment student proficiency and using their
data to establish the benchmark districtwide goals (Odden, 2003, p 122).
39. Title I: The first title of ESEA 1965 and NCLB ensuring “that all children
have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality
education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic
achievement standards and state academic assessments” through twelve
components, including high-quality academic assessments and accountability
systems, closing the achievement gap, the sufficient distribution of resources,
and the affording parents substantial and meaningful opportunities to
participate in the education of their children (US DoE, 2001).
40. Training: “refers to teachers sitting and getting training of any length, from
one day workshops to three-week summer institutes” (Odden et al., 2002, p.
69).

15
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

Educational equity in the United States is a product of its milieu. The past
140 years have seen equitable educational defined as separate-but-equal, racially
equal and economically equal. In the new millennium, parity is further redefined as
adequacy, achieved through consciously inequitable resource distribution for the
purpose of uniform and sustained student proficiency. Affecting the course toward
student competence are legislative mandates; voter input and reaction; legal
requirements and restrictions; and educational research, review and reform. At the
focal point of these fluctuating consonant and dissonant forces is the education
budget.
This literature review examines the current state of California’s public school
financial allocation for direct instructional human and material resources at the K-12
level. California’s public school system stands at the intersection of the pursuit of
the student achievement goals set forth in the federal No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLB) while facing an ongoing and worsening state budget crisis in the 2009-
2010 fiscal year. This literature review provides both a historical context out of
which the educational adequacy movement has emerged, and research into resource
prioritization for student proficiency maximization in this time of fiscal austerity.
The review has four sections: the current condition of California’s public
education finance and the historical path that brought it here; instruction
improvements via professional development and quality leadership; resource use;
and Adequacy Models. Haycock (1998) reveals the value of good teaching on
16
student performance: Central ingredients for improved instruction include the
quality leadership (Fullan, 2003; Fullan, 2005; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005;
Northouse, 2007) and professional development to improve teacher knowledge and
skills (DuFour, 2006). Educational resource use has focused historically on funding
equity and has not aligned resource use with increasing student performance
outcomes. Educational adequacy attempts to correct this disconnect between
resource use and student proficiency results. This literature review—and this treatise
as whole—focuses on the financial allocations and investments that yield the greatest
return in student proficiency; thus, segments of the budget that least impact student
achievement—transportation, physical site and food service—are consciously
excluded.
California Educational Funding
California’s education financing is a unique funding system directed by the
populace. Through ballot initiatives and lawsuits, California’s school funding was
wrested from individual districts and put in the state’s control, governed by specific
voter instructions on the allocation of portions of the education budget. This section
offers the historical context in which education of the citizenry fell to the states
through the omission of education in any national decree, education was
administered wholly at the community level, and California gradually elevated
control to the state, with federal mandates and programs periodically intersecting,
shaping and altering California’s course. This overview details the path that has put
17
the necessity of adequate education funding and the ability of its implementation
from a state-controlled budget in a period of fiscal contraction in conflict.
Resource Allocation Trends, Objectives and Evolution—a National Perspective
Education of the populace has long been a facet of governmental control left
to individual states and local communities to steward as set forth by the Tenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, the federal government has, at
times, inserted itself with legislation or legal decisions that have had direct
ramifications on public school administration, and educational budgets have been
reallocated accordingly. The separate-but-equal doctrine, for example, derived from
the Fourteenth Amendment through the 1896 U.S Supreme Court case Plessy v
Ferguson, required de jure parallel school systems for Blacks and Whites, which
school districts had to maintain until that model was dismantled via the 1954 Brown
v The Board of Education of Topeka decision.
The administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson embarked on a path to
further eliminate racial injustice and eradicate poverty through a suite of domestic
programs known as The Great Society. A key piece of legislation emerging from
The Great Society program was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965. The core of ESEA 1965 is the mandate to materially bolster impoverished
schools in the ambition to elevate them to the same level as sites in more affluent
communities. Thus the education equality movement was born.
Originally scheduled to expire in 1970, ESEA 1965 had been continuously
reauthorized every five years since its enactment, from which the educational equity
18
movement drew its fuel and credence. The new millennium saw a profound
reevaluation of school parity, performance and output. The No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 changed the unit of measure from fiscal equity to student proficiency as
gauged by performance on a set of nationally-normed standards-based tests. In
response, state governments and school districts shifted from ensuring that each
district and site was funded equally to ensuring that each is funded adequately to
strive for the NCLB targets.
California’s ability to attain adequacy goals like those set forth in NCLB is a
function of the state’s capacity to fund necessary programs and initiatives. Local
school districts are best equipped to determine the most effective means of attaining
adequacy, yet the ability to attain these goals is often made more challenging by the
budgets that are allotted by the state.
Resource Allocation Trends, Objectives and Evolution—the California Perspective
Echoing both Brown v the Board of Education of Topeka and ESEA 1965, a
group of public-interest attorneys in Los Angeles filed a class action suit, Serrano v
Priest, on behalf of the state’s public school students. Arguing that California’s
public education general fund financing structure violated the equal protection clause
of the California Constitution (Coon, 1999), Serrano v Priest claimed that general
educational funding that is a function of each school’s tax base revenue is
inequitable. Coon notes that in 1968, the year the suit was filed, the school district in
the working class Los Angeles neighborhood of Baldwin Park spent $577.49 to
educate each of its pupils, while affluent Beverly Hills spent $1,231.72. For Baldwin
19
Hills to attempt to match Beverly Hills’ per-pupil spending, it would have to extract
even more taxes from its residents.
While many in the legal community view the case as flawed in its inability to
attain its educational equality goal, Serrano did have cultural resonances. One
response was the 1978 passage of Proposition 13. The proposition, which amended
the state constitution, declares that property taxes cannot exceed 1% of the property’s
assessed value, upending revenue streams throughout the state. Under the new law,
longtime property owners are scheduled to pay less in property tax than new
homebuyers. Additionally, the drastic reduction in revenue at the county level,
where property taxes are assessed, forced the state government to make up the
shortfalls.
While Proposition 13 limited the amount of revenue local governments could
extract from its residents, the initiative put no such constraints on the state
government, which now bore the burden of filling any budgetary gaps created by the
proposition, nor did it provide the state government any direction should California’s
government find itself with excess revenue. The year following Proposition 13’s
passage, initiative co-sponsor Paul Gann helmed a spending limit measure designed
to regulate spending by, and the growth of, state programs and services (Martin,
2000). Gann limits annual spending on state services and programs—including
education—based on the previous year’s expenditures, adjusted for population,
inflation and any transfers of governmental responsibility. The legislation requires
that all excess revenue be returned to the taxpayers via a reduction in tax rates and
20
fees. Appearing on the November 1979 ballot as Proposition 4, the Gann Initiative,
as it became known, became the second half of California Constitution Article XIII,
of which Proposition 13 was the first half (Martin, 2000).
In 1986, California’s revenue exceeded the Gann limits by $1.1 billion.
Governor George Deukmejian proposed allotting $400 million to education and
refunding the $700 million balance to tax payers, but Gann prevented this move and
the legislature refused to support the governor’s proposal. Nevertheless, the
legislature deviated from the letter of Gann, authorizing a hard refund to taxpayers
(versus the rate and fee reductions outlined in Gann), a move that cost the state
upwards of $200 million to execute (Martin, 2000). A provision directing a
percentage of the state’s excess revenue be assigned to the education budget was
written into a proposition that can be seen as the harbinger of the principles of
educational adequacy.
Proposition 98 was drafted in the fall out of the 1986-1987 tax refund.
Known as “The Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act,”
Proposition 98 guarantees a 40% minimum allocation of the state’s general fund for
K-14 education and mandates the state maintain a “prudent” reserve fund.
Proposition 98 also amends Gann, enjoining the state to distribute excess state
revenue equal to 4% of the minimum educational funding level to schools; the
balance would be returned to taxpayers. Additionally, Proposition 98 mandates that
any extra revenue allocated to schools becomes their subsequent permanent funding
minimum. Proposition 98 also writes in safeguards against school district
21
capriciousness, requiring school districts to spend the Gann overage funds directly
on classroom instructional improvement by providing for additional instructional
materials and reducing class sizes, and to file detailed accountings of student
achievement, drop-out rates, per student expenditure, progress toward class size and
teaching load reduction, classroom discipline, curriculum, quality of teaching, and
other school matters in School Accountability Report Cards (Prop 98, 1988). This
government review of school performance vis-à-vis budgetary spending indicates a
shift from absolute funding parity to the incorporation of concerns of quality,
performance and output.
In the new decade, government put forth a protective stopgap to prevent
overexpenditure in lean economic periods. Proposition 111 is an omnibus spending
limit measure that shifts foci to sectors related to California’s changing and growing
population, specifically addressing traffic congestion, mass transit, infrastructure,
health care and programs for the elderly, but within it, the proposition introduced a
third state funding test appended to the two originally set forth in Proposition 98.
Two formulæ, or tests, direct Proposition 98’s K-14 budgetary allocation.
The first test, a percentage-of-revenue calculation, guarantees each year’s budget is
equivalent to the budget allocation in the Proposition’s adoption year, which, in
1986, was approximately 40% of California’s General Fund. The second, a
maintenance-of-effort formula, commits the previous year funding adjusted for
changes in Average Daily Attendance (ADA) and cost-of-living. The K-14 budget is
determined by whichever test yields a higher amount. Proposition 111’s third test
22
refines the cost-of-living calculation in Test 2. Proposition 98 calculated cost-of-
living as a function of California’s per capita income and the nation’s consumer price
index (USCPI). Proposition 111 uncoupled the USCPI, making the cost-of-living
calculation directly linked to California’s per capita income (which, in turn, is tied to
General Fund revenue) (Prop 111, 1990). Proposition 111 allows the state to
decrease K-14 allocations via Test 3 in lean economic times, yet it also installed a
maintenance factor, requiring the state to accelerate Proposition 98 disbursements in
the wake of Test 3—or full allocation suspension—to return K-14 budgets to the
levels at which they would have been had the Test 3 or suspension not occurred
(LAO, 2005).
Proposition 111 also modified Proposition 98’s Gann limit overage
provisions, changing the excess revenue allocation from 4% of the minimum funding
level to 50% of the total excess revenue (with the other half being returned to
taxpayers). However, 111 calls for that excess revenue disbursement to no longer be
a factor in calculating the funding base for ensuing years.
Summary
Initiatives that aim to equalize educational funding (ESEA 1965), strike down
a de facto poll tax for education (Prop 13) or ensure that funds are being used
appropriately for the betterment of schools, their staff and their pupils (Prop 98)
cannot rightly be argued against. Yet none of these measures appears to have been
as far-reaching and beneficial to the educational system as it needed to be. As a
result, it was usually schools—and specifically students—who suffered. The Great
23
Society was unable to eradicate the decades of underattention minority neighborhood
schools received, nor was it able to address the myriad of factors affecting the
communities in which those schools were located. The series of legal decisions and
propositions did benefit California’s K-14 students, but only after first serving
taxpayers and lawmakers. Proposition 13, designed to balance school funding by
placing the burden on the state government, precipitated a drastic reduction in the
state’s property owners’ tax liabilities. Proposition 98 called for guaranteed
minimum allocation, but of greater interest was the assurance that excess state
revenue would be refunded directly to taxpayers. Proposition 98’s requirement of
districts to report on student achievement, student/teacher ratios, drop-out rates and
other school performance and status measurements didn’t deter the inclusion of the
educational funding passages in Proposition 111 which permit the state to reduce or
fully suspend educational spending.
California’s K-12 program requires a concerted examination that endeavors
to establish a vigorous education plan that addresses each student in the public
school system individually and strives to afford each student adequate—not equal—
access to knowledge. Without an acknowledgement of, and an appropriate fiscal
response to, the complex disparities among schools and their student populations,
California’s K-12 system will be challenged to provide an adequate education to
each of its students as called for in the spirit of the equal protection clauses of the
California and United States Constitutions.
24
The appropriate fiscal response, however, is compromised by the financial
allocation responsibility resting with the state. If the state’s revenue contracts,
education funding contracts or, via Proposition 111, can cease altogether. In times of
fiscal austerity, schools need strong, vibrant leadership and a dynamic, creative
faculty who can overcome economic hardship with a robust pedagological approach
in the pursuit of student proficiency.
Instruction
The first section of instructional improvement focuses on leadership’s role in
the allocation of resources to improve student achievement. The subsequent two
sections address the need for educational resources to be designated for effective
professional development and core instruction as fundamental components in
increasing student performance.
Improving performance at the school level involves the implementation of
various programs in a strategic and systematic manner (Duke, 2006). These
strategies include structuring schools to allow for focused, instructional time and
faculty collaboration; providing support for struggling students; providing teachers
with effective and on-going professional development; and engaging families and
communities in the educational process. For these plans to be successfully executed,
strong, effective, instructional leadership must be in place at the school level
(DuFour & Burnette, 2002; Fullan, 2003; Fullan, 2005; Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty, 2005; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). The site administrator
holds the unique ability to take the mandates of the district, state or federal
25
government and present them in a way that is meaningful to the culture of the site.
Without that guidance and authority, new policies risk being quickly abandoned,
unfulfilled or altogether ignored (Fullan, 2003). A leader’s decisions, based on the
context of the students and faculty, make a difference in the children at that school
(Fullan, 2003; Fullan, 1997). Leaders must follow student performance data and
base their decisions on student needs, and must advance sustained professional
development to change the learning contexts for the faculty and students (Fullan,
2003).
Leadership
A useful leadership interpretation for education administrators is the impact
of the leader on a group in the pursuit of a common purpose (Northouse, 2007).
Administrators can remain reserved, keeping the organization operating in the status
quo or influence individuals and groups aspiring for a unified goal (Northouse,
2007). Leadership is a complex process with varying approaches. Three approaches
are described in this section: Northouse’s Transformational leadership; Spillane,
Halverson, and Diamond’s (2001) Distributed perspective; and Marzano, Water, and
McNulty’s (2005) 21 Leadership responsibilities.
Transformational leadership evolved for the combined works of Burns
(1978), Bennis and Nanus (1985), and Kouzes and Posner (1987). Kouzes and
Posner (1987, 2002) began to develop their model of leadership based on interview
data from more than 1,300 senior and middle level managers from the public and
26
private sector describing their “personal best” leadership experiences. Based on their
data the authors constructed a Transformational leadership approach.
Northouse (2007) describes Transformational leadership as a new and
encompassing approach to leadership, stressing the need for leaders, official and
unofficial, to understand and adapt to the context of his followers in order to
accomplish great things. Recognized as change agents, leaders are good role models
that articulate a clear vision, empower others to meet high standards, hold
themselves to a high standard, have the ability to make others trust them, and give
depth and meaning to the organization. Transformational leadership has implications
for groups wanting to be empowered to succeed in times of uncertainty.
An additional model for leadership described by Spillane, Halverson, and
Diamond (2001) brings to light a gap in the existing literature by addressing how and
why good leadership works. The researchers conducted a 4-year longitudinal study
of formal and informal leaders through observations and interviews in the Chicago
metropolitan area with the aim of making leadership practices more transparent. The
Distributed Theory of Leadership describes how leadership cognition and activity is
grounded in the context and social interactions that underscore each situation, where
supervision is shared by positional leaders and unofficial leaders (i.e., followers)
(Spillane et al., 2001).
These researchers examined the practice of school leaders from four tests:
leadership tasks and function, task enactment, social distribution of task enactment,
27
and situational distribution of task enactment. Among the discoveries made by
Spillane et al. (2001) are:
• Leadership is not based on the individual’s ability, skill or charisma;
while these aspects are part of one’s leadership style, they are not all that
matter
• Socio-cultural context (the people and situation) are fundamental to
understanding leadership practice
• Leadership practice is context and task specific
• By using the distributive frame leaders can evaluate and reflect on their
practice, thereby informing future actions
It was found that effective leaders, in conjunction with their staffs, are able to
identify goals, impediments to their attainment, and the resources—material,
structural or developmental—required to overcome those hindrances (Spillane,
2001).
Marzano, Water, and McNulty (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of data
collected from 35 years of research to unearth research-based leadership practices
that influence school effectiveness. Fundamental in their examination of leadership
practice is the concept that leadership matters. Marzano et al. (2005) found a .25
correlation between leadership behavior and the average academic achievement of
the student. Assume a school context where the principal in leadership ability and
the student in average student achievement is at the 50
th
percentile. If the leadership
ability were to increase by 34%, taking into account a .25 correlation, it would reveal
28
a 10% increase in student achievement. Under the same parameters, if the leadership
ability were to increase by 49% the shift would be a 22% increase in student
achievement.
The research of Marzano et al. (2001) distilled the data to 21 fundamental
responsibilities and related them to the student academic achievement value.
Marzano’s 21 responsibilities and their relationships are described in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 – The 21 Responsibilities and Their Correlation with Student Academic
Achievement
Responsibility The Extent to Which the
Principal
Ave.
r
95%
CI
No.
of
Stud
-ies
No. of
Schools
1. Affirmation** Recognizes and celebrates
accomplishments and
acknowledges failures
.19 .08-
.29
6 332
2. Change Agent** Is willing to challenge and
actively challenge the
status quo
.25 .16-
.34
6 466
3. Contingent
Rewards*
Recognizes and rewards
individual
accomplishments
.24 .15-
.32
9 465
4. Communication** Establishes strong lines of
communication with and
among teachers and
students
.23 .12-
.33
11 299
5. Culture** Fosters shared beliefs and
a sense of community
.25 .18-
.31
15 819
6. Discipline* Protects teachers from
issues and influences that
would detract from their
teaching time or focus
.27 .18-
.35
12 437
7. Flexibility** Adapts his or her
leadership behavior to the
needs of the current
situation and is
comfortable with dissent
.28 .16-
.39
6 277

29
Table 2.1, Continued
8. Focus** Establishes clear goals
and keeps those goals in
the forefront of the
school’s attention
.24 .19-
.29
44 1,619
9. Ideals/Beliefs** Communicates and
operates from strong
ideals and beliefs about
schooling
.22 .14-
.30
7 513
10. Input** Involves teachers in the
design and
implementation of
important decisions and
policies
.25 .18-
.32
16 669
11. Intellectual
Stimulation**
Ensures faculty and staff
are aware of the most
current theories and
practices, and makes the
discussion of these a
regular aspect of the
school’s culture
.24 .13-
.34
4 302
12. Involvement in
Curriculum,
Instruction, and
assessment**
Is directly involved in the
design and
implementation of
curriculum, instruction
and assessment practices
.20 .14-
.27
23 826
13. Knowledge of
Curriculum,
instruction, and
assessment**
Is knowledgeable about
current curriculum,
instruction and assessment
practices
.25 .15-
.34
10 368
14. Monitoring/
Evaluating**
Monitors the effectiveness
of school practices and
their impact on student
learning
.27 .22-
.32
31 1,129
15. Optimizer** Inspires and leads new
and challenging
innovations
.20 .13-
.27
17 724
16. Order Establishes a set of
standard operating
procedures and routines
.25 .16-
.33
17 456
17. Outreach Is an advocate and
spokesperson for the
school to all stakeholders
.27 .18-
.35
14 478

30
Table 2.1, Continued
18. Relationships* Demonstrates an
awareness of the personal
aspects of teachers and
staff
.18 .09-
.26
11 505
19. Resources** Provides teachers with
materials and professional
development necessary for
the successful execution
of their jobs
.25 .17-
.32
17 571
20.Situational
Awareness**
Is aware of the details and
undercurrent in the
running of the school and
uses this information to
address current and
potential problems.
.33 .11-
.51
5 91
21. Visibility** Has quality contact and
interactions with teachers
and students
.20 .11-
.28
13 477
Note: 95% CI stands for the interval of correlations within which one can be 95% sure the true
correlation falls. No. of Studies stands for the number of studies that address and a responsibility.
No. of schools stands for the number of schools involved in computing the average correlation.
Source: Marzano et al., 2005, p. 42-43

The above table describes Marzano et al.’s 21 responsibilities with notations
for correlations with Spillane et al. and Northouse. One asterisk (*) identifies a
relationship with Spillane et al.’s or Northouse’s leadership theory and two asterisks
(**) reveals relationship with both Spillane et al. and Northouse. Of Marzano et al.’s
21 responsibilities, sixteen are supported by research collected by Spillane et al. and
Northouse, three are supported by one other research project, and only two are not
described in the other research. As administrators develop these attributes toward a
common goal of achieving greater student achievement, so too can they develop
them in tandem with leadership principles as they endeavor to increase staff and
faculty excellence, with resources management encouraging administrators to
31
provide their staffs with the necessary materials and professional development to
successfully execute their jobs (Marzano, 2001).
Professional Development
Effective leaders appraise their faculty and provide meaningful professional
development to improve teacher knowledge and skills to foster quality instruction in
schools. In the 1990s research and theories emerged positing the importance of
instructional improvement for teachers (Haycock, 1998) and the value of effective
teacher practice in meeting the challenges of providing an adequate education for all
students (Cuban, 1993). The Evidence Based Model (EBM) recognizes the
importance of professional development as a key expenditure in improving pupil
performance.
Academic Performance Index (API) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
information discloses a significant and pervasive gap that exists between schools of
historically underserved students and students of privilege (Haycock, 1998).
Sustained, committed and directed teacher collaboration greatly improves the quality
of teacher output and yields significant, and at times immediate, results in student
understanding, knowledge and proficiency, as well as invigorating both educator and
student morale (Schomoker, 2005).
The advent of NCLB’s accountability in student achievement data compels
teachers to improve the proficiency of the pupils in their classes and has put the
quality and availability of educator professional development under scrutiny (Wilson
& Berne, 1999). Traditionally, teachers have not worked collaboratively to advance
32
student achievement; they primarily teach their lessons in the microcosms of their
own classrooms without meaningful discourse among one another (DuFour et al.,
2006). Educators can strive to improve their craft via the establishment of a strategic
professional development program.
One model of professional development widely used in California is the
Professional Learning Community (PLC) (DuFour et al, 2006). The PLC model
advocates continuous structured professional development to improve student
learning and teacher practice, but puts the onus of development in the hands of the
educators themselves. Thus, the PLC becomes both a vehicle toward improved
professional practice and a peer support network.
Inaugurating a PLC is not without challenges, the greatest of which is
breaking a site’s cultural inertia. Changing an organization’s beliefs and practices
can be challenging, with individual teachers adopting and adapting to the prevalent
school culture. Past attempts to broadly reform school culture from the outside
historically have failed, with reformers discovering that a school’s culture can be
difficult to alter from the outside (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). A PLC that is
born of, and tailored to, a school’s unique environment can have a greater potential
for success, especially under the sponsorship of effective, transformative leadership
aiding it in reaching a critical mass.
PLC success is predicated on a site’s reculturation (Fullan, 2000), a
realignment of the norms, behaviors, expectations and modes of interaction among a
school site’s faculty and staff (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Reculturation
33
requires a site’s educators to begin paving a new road of collaborative pedagogy
assessment with routine review and methods to make improvements (Fullan, 2000).
PLCs become the inquiry teams for the investigation of best practices for both
teaching and learning (DuFour et al., 2006). Based on the realities of a school site,
this collective inquiry enables the PLC teams to share their experiences and utilize
their combined knowledge to surmount obstacles and improve student learning. This
heightened awareness progresses into fundamental shifts in attitudes and beliefs and,
over time, transforms the culture of the school (DuFour, 2006).
Resource Use
Money allocated to education has been on the rise for the last hundred years,
even factoring in inflation (Odden & Picus, 2008). Standardized test scores,
nevertheless, reveal that this increase in funding has not had a significant effect on
student learning. Odden and Picus (2008) reason this paradoxical result can be
attributed to ad hoc resource allocation. In times of fiscal constraint, when the
school funding is in decline, the question becomes how will schools invest in
learning to best support the student achievement (Odden & Archibald, 2000). Odden
and Picus (2008) postulate that the targeted use of resources in researched based
instruction has the potential to double student performance without doubling
funding. The following section addresses fiscal federalism as a funding model,
which offers flexibility to districts yet lacks accountability for how those resources
are spent; the changes in educational resources allocation over time; how schools are
using their resources; resource tracking as a framework for categorizing resources;
34
and the development of resource reallocation as a plan for distributing resources to
enhance student learning.
Fiscal Federalism
The theory of Fiscal Federalism addresses how schools use resources at the
local level when funds are received through block grant programs (Oates, 1999).
Fiscal Federalism in action involves the allocation of resources from one government
agency to another with the caveat that resources are directed to a large scale goal
with minimal restriction on how the dollars are spent (Picus, Odden, Aportela,
Mangan, & Goetz, 2008). Block grants offer schools the ability to allocate resources
with limited restrictions for how the funds are to be spent. While the goal of a
Federal Block Grant may be for fiscal equalization, no pronouncement can be
assumed, however, for how local school districts will utilize educational dollars
unless usage restrictions are tied to the funds (Picus et al., 2008). Consequently,
legislatures should not expect educational dollars to be used in a common, systematic
manner when school funding is provided through block grant programs (Picus et al.,
2008).
Resource Use Over Time
School district financing data from the past five decades reveal a national
pattern. Although actual dollar amounts vary state to state, the percentage in each
category is comparable. Districts typically spend sixty percent on instruction, eight
to ten percent on professional development, nine percent on operations and
maintenance, four to six percent on food service, seven percent on site
administration, and three percent on district office administration (see Figure 2.1)
(Odden, Monk, Nakib, & Picus, 1995; Odden, 2007; Odden & Picus, 2008).
Figure 2.1 – National School District Expenditure Averages
60%
10%
9%
6%
5%
7%
3%
Instruction
Prof Development
Operations
Transportation
Food Services
Site Admin
District Admin

Source: Odden and Picus, 2008
While educational resources targeted to core instruction have not changed
dramatically, increased instructional resources have been directed toward elective
classes (e.g., art, music, physical education, career-technical classes), special
population needs (e.g., special education, bilingual education) and instructional aides
(Picus, Odden, Aportela, Mangan, & Goetz, 2008). Additionally, in the wake of a
budgetary spike—following the 1984 education reforms, for example—districts
usually allocate the added funds to large, one-time investments like new buildings or
wholesale physical renovations (Picus et al., 2008), with real teachers salaries
increasing only marginally following the injection of funds.
35
36
Resource Use at the School Level
Asset use at the national and district levels offers a big picture of educational
resource allocation, yet school level analysis offers a deeper exploration of how these
resources directly affect student performance. Though data are now available for
analysts and policymakers to examine resource distribution at the district level, they
are concerned that school level resource allocation data are lacking the detail
required to understand the factors in the educational system and the implications for
educational programs and strategies that impact student achievement (Busch &
Odden, 1997; Picus et al., 2008;). As a result, newer data tracking systems have
been developed to fill this void in school based resource use.
Tracking Resources
There was an effort in the mid-1990s to align school resources with
instructional improvements to establish a legitimate expenditure tracking procedure.
Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003) developed a framework to track
school level expenditures by educational program and strategies (Odden & Picus,
2008). School resources indicators and the school expenditure structure are
presented in Figure 2.2.
37
Figure 2.2– Evidence Based Model School Expenditure Structures
School Resource Indicators
School Building Size
School Unit Size
Percent Low Income
Percent Special Education
Percent ESL/LEP
Expenditures Per Pupil
Professional Development
Expenditures Per Teacher
Special Academic Focus of
School/Unit
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Class Periods

Length of Reading Class (Elementary)
Length of Mathematics Class (Elementary)
Reading Class Size (Elementary)
Mathematics Class Size (Elementary)
Regular Class Size (Elementary)
Length of Core* Class Periods (Secondary)
Core Class Size (Secondary)

Non-Core Class Size (Secondary)
Percent Core Teachers

*Math, English/LA, Science, & Social Studies
School Expenditure Structure
Instructional 1. Core Academic Teachers
- English/ Reading/ Language Arts
- History Social Studies
- Math
- Science
2. Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning and Preparation
- Art, music, physical education. etc.
- Academic Focus with or without Special Funding
- Vocational
- Drivers Education
- Librarians
3. Extra Help
- Tutors
- Extra Help Laboratories
- Resource Rooms (Title 1. special education or other part-day pullout
programs)
- Inclusion Teachers
- English as a second language classes
- Special Education self-contained classes for severely disabled students
(including aides)
- Extended Day and Summer School
- District-Initiated Alternative Programs
4. Professional Development
- Teacher Time - Substitutes and Stipends
- Trainers and Coaches
- Administration
- Materials, Equipment and Facilities
- Travel & Transportation
- Tuition and Conference Fees
5. Other Non-Classroom Instructional Staff
- Coordinators and Teachers on Special Assignment
- Building Substitutes and Other Substitutes
- Instructional Aides
6. Instructional Materials and Equipment
- Supplies, Materials and Equipment
- Computers (hardware, software, peripherals)
7. Student Support
- Counselors
- Nurses
- Psychologists
- Social Workers
- Extra-Curricular and Athletics

38
Figure 2.2, Continued
Non-Instructional 8. Administration
9. Operations and Maintenance
- Custodial
- Utilities
- Security
- Food Service
Source: Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003)
Further explanation is provided in the Evidence Based Model section.
Resource Reallocation
Marzano (2003) confirmed schools can help students overcome the inputs of
race and low socioeconomic status that are factors historically related to poor student
academic outputs. Targeted resource use can serve to ameliorate the impact of race
and poverty on academic achievement. The question is, have educational resource
reallocation reforms positively impacted student performance at schools?
In a study of four districts in Kentucky, Adams (1994) found increased per
pupil spending in all districts and significantly spending increases in high-poverty
districts. Expenditure patterns revealed slightly increased spending in instruction,
greater spending in the areas of salaries and professional development, and most for
supplies, equipment and facilities than preceding the reform. Adams (1994) found
minimal change in student performance gains.
In a similar study of eleven districts in New Jersey, Firestone, Goertz, Nagle,
and Smelkingson (1994) yielded similar results. The reform required schools to
reallocate funding to implement an instructional improvement plan. However,
Firestone et al. (1994) found spending patterns similar to those found in Kentucky:
additional funds were utilized for salaries, materials, facilities, and program changes
39
not targeted to instructional improvement. Funding in high poverty communities
increased substantially and those funds were used to improve facilities and restore
programs that had been previously cut.
Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997) took a different approach and examined
resource allocation following reform efforts at high-performing schools. Studying
five schools in Boston, the researchers discovered that resources were apportioned in
innovative ways to improve instruction. In the elementary level, resources were
primarily used to allow for flexible grouping during core instruction, and redefinition
of teacher roles. This restructuring of teacher roles supported collaboration and
common planning times. These schools allocated resources in ways to improve
instruction and created an environment focused on meeting student needs thus
positively impacting student performance (Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1997). The
authors found empirical evidence that supports the connection between resource
reallocation and focused instructional improvement plan.
Goe (2006) conducted a study of underperforming California schools that
received additional funding as part of the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming
Schools program. The goal of these additional funds was to allocate supplemental
funding in order to improve instructional programs at the participating schools. The
researcher followed the schools for several years, collecting data from interviews,
observations, and expenditures to determine how the target schools allocated the new
funds to improve instruction. Goe (2006) found the schools were challenged in
allocating the funds in the way they were intended, concluding that funding might
40
have had a positive impact if the funds were targeted specifically for increasing
student proficiency.
The research shows that providing money to a school without accountability
or instructional vision is folly (Hanusheck, 1994). Picus (2000) and Odden and
Archibald (2000) suggest that schools need to look at the resources they currently
have and reallocate them with a structured approach to support student learning prior
to allocating additional funds to existing school programs. Many in the research
community would agree that targeting current resources to research based instruction
practices and programs has implications for improving student performance
(Jefferson, 2005). Loeb (2007) found that per pupil spending is considerably lower
in California than other states.
Adequacy
Educational policy of the last two decades has focused on standards based
education reform (Odden, 2003), evolving into to a system of both equity and
excellence called adequacy. Adequacy in educational fiscal policy is the furnishing
of adequate resources that enables all children to meet a state’s proficiency standards
(Picus, 2004), where equity is the realization of significantly reducing the
“achievement gap” between low socioeconomic status minority student and suburban
white and Asian students, and excellence is the fulfillment of doubling the
performance of our educational system within the next decade.

41
Educational Adequacy

Adequate funding for education theory is rooted in the standards-based
education reform movement and the framework that resource allocation variances
affect educational outputs (Odden, 2003). The standards-based reform movements
have increased school accountability with no increase in material support (Lee &
Wong, 2004). Adequacy theory submits that educational funding needs to be a
function of school performance and the proficiency targets such that sites receive the
funding necessary to achieve the mandated goals (Baker, 2005; Clune, 1994; Odden,
2003; Rebell, 2007). The progression from the equity model to the adequacy reflects
the widened focus from a select group of students to all students. Adequacy theory
recognizes that each student requires a unique quality and quantity of resources
(Baker, 2005) and ensures that resources are distributed such that each student is
afforded an equal opportunity to achieve the proficiency requirements (Odden,
2003).
Opinion on the veracity of adequacy theory is split. Some researchers believe
the shift to adequacy has been politically motivated following questionable court
decisions (Hanushek, 2006). Courts in several states have mandated the use of
adequacy studies as means of determining the cost of educating students to specified
proficiency levels (Clune 1994; Hanushek, 2006; Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007).
Adequacy studies are unreliable, Hanushek (2006) argues, because resource
augmentation and student achievement correlation is amorphous; additionally,
Hanushek contends the studies are tainted because they are more political than
42
scientific in nature. Hanushek advocates simpler reforms such as stronger
accountability systems, improved performance incentives, and assurances that
resources utilization and site operation is transparent.
Conversely, education researchers such as Baker (2005) suggest the adequacy
model can offer a fiscal policy that achieves what current and previous models have
failed to do. The adequacy model incorporates the effect financial resources have on
achievement (Ladd & Hansen, 1999), noting that adequacy can only be attained by
both identifying an appropriate expenditure level for a typical student and requiring
school districts to maximize resource allocation to ensure student learning and
achievement (Odden, 2003).
Four different methodologies have been used to estimate adequate funding
levels needed to achieve specified performance goals: 1) the successful district
approach, 2) the cost function approach, 3) the professional judgment approach, and
4) the evidence based approach (Guthrie & Rothstein, 1999; Loeb, 2007; Odden &
Picus, 2008). Each approach is supported by body of research that details its
strengths and weaknesses. Brief synopses of successful district, cost function, and
professional judgment are below, followed by a comprehensive analysis of the
evidence based approached, which is the methodology on which this disquisition is
built.
Successful District Approach
The successful district approach investigates schools that have been
successful in achieving student proficiency and correlates the sites’ success to their
43
resource allocation. This method has been used in Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi
and Ohio. The successful district model seeks to identify districts successful in
meeting state proficiency standards for student achievement and then sets the
adequacy level at the weighted average of expenditures per pupil (Odden, 2003).
Districts that are statistical outliers (e.g., highest spending, lowest spending, highest
wealth, and lowest wealth) are eliminated from the analysis. Districts are typically
limited to non-metropolitan districts, average size, with relatively homogeneous
populations, that spend below the state average. The criticism to this model is that
adequacy cannot be generalizable to rural and urban districts.
Cost Function Approach
The economic cost function is a regression analysis with expenditures per
pupil as the dependent variable: independent variables include student and district
characteristics as well as performance level desired (Odden, 2003). Results to this
approach generate an average district adequate expenditure per pupil. This figure
can be statically adjusted to account for differences in district make-up (e.g., pupil
need, educational prices, district size, and context). The adequate expenditure per
pupil rises and falls based the performance level desired. The capability of the
analysis enables the researcher to adjust to multiple variables depending on the
district make-up, however the complex statistical analysis makes it challenging to
use in a political context. This model is also hindered by the average results per
pupil often trigger adjustments two to three times an average district’s expenditure
44
level. No district currently uses this method, though it has been studied in New
York, Wisconsin, Texas and Illinois.
The former two adequacy models begin to link resources to student
performance, yet they do not indicate the strategies required for those resources. The
professional judgment and evidence based model attempts to remedy this gap in
allocating resources effectively toward student achievement.
Professional Judgment
The professional judgment approach, formerly referred to as the resource cost
model in the 1980s, has been used in Kansas, Maryland, Oregon and Wyoming
(Odden, 2003). Educational experts were asked to identify effective strategies for
elementary, middle, high school and for special-needs students (ingredients). The
experts then attached a price to each of the ingredients and sum the amounts to
determine a total expenditure amount per pupil. This approach allows for adjustment
for both small and large districts, students needs (e.g., special needs), and other local
contexts. The benefit of this approach is that it identifies the ingredients to positively
affect student performance; its drawback, however, is that expert judgment related to
the ingredients do not necessarily relate to student outcomes. Additionally,
professional judgment varies across states and districts and is contingent on how the
process is investigated.
Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2008) identifies
ingredients needed for high-quality, comprehensive schoolwide instructional
45
programs. This model has been used in Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arizona,
Arkansas, North Dakota and Kentucky because of its close alignment to research
based strategies for schoolwide student improvement. Adequacy is determined by
attaching a cost to each ingredient and aggregating to obtain the adequate amount per
pupil (Loeb , 2007; Verstegen, 2007). The Evidence Based Model’s strategies are
grounded in comprehensive school design models that are founded in research and
best practices. Picus (2004) states an advantage to the evidence based approach is its
grounding in the research of strategies and programs successful in improving schools
and student achievement.
Odden et al. (2008) developed the evidence-based approach in research from
randomized trials, quasi-experimental designs and meta-analyses to ascertain
effective practices that lead to high student performance outcomes. The researchers
determined the following ingredients to obtain high student results:
1. Administer a needs assessment
2. Set high goals for student performance
3. Adopt a rigorous, standards-based curriculum
4. Engage in data-driven decision making
5. Commit resources in on-going and effective professional development
6. Focus instructional time efficiently
7. Provide multiple interventions for struggling students
8. Create professional learning communities
9. Empower leaders to support instructional improvement
10. Family engagement (Odden, et al., 2008)
Figure 2.3 outlines an example of resources this funding model sees as
necessary to ensure high levels of achievement for all students.
Figure 2.3 – Graphic Representation of Evidence Based Model Application
Instructional
Materials
Pupil Support:
Parent/Community
Outreach/
Involvement
Gifted
Tutors and pupil support:
1 per 100 at risk
Elem
20%
Middle
20%
High School 33%
The Evidence Based Model:
A Research Driven Approach to Linking Resources to Student Performance
K-3: 15 to 1
4-12: 25 to 1
State and CESAs
District Admin
Site-based Leadership
Teacher
Compensation
ELL
1 per
100
Technology

Source: Odden and Picus, 2008
The evidence-based model calls for an expenditure structure that includes
low teacher to pupil ratio in the core academic classes – 15:1 in kindergarten to third
grade and 25:1 in fourth and fifth grade – specialist teachers, extended support,
46
47
specialized education, and professional development is in the inner circle of the
model. Non-instructional expenditures in the model include teacher compensation,
instructional materials, site-based leadership, district administration, technology, and
pupil support.
Table 2.2 describes a prototypical elementary, middle and high school with
an identified poverty rate of 50 percent. The use of 50 percent poverty reflects a
growing incidence of poverty in schools (Odden & Picus, 2008). Figures can be
adjusted to recognize the exact demographic information at a given school.
Table 2.2 – Recommendations for Adequate Resources for a Prototypical
Elementary, Middle and High School

School Element Elementary
School
Middle Schools High Schools
School Characteristics

School configuration K-5 6-8 9-12
Prototypic school size 432 450 600
Class size

K-3: 15
4-5: 25
6-8: 25 9-12: 25

Full-day kindergarten Yes NA NA
Number of teacher
work days
200 teacher
work days,
including 10
days for
intensive
training.
200 teacher work
days, including
10 days for
intensive training.
200 teacher work
days, including
10 days for
intensive
training.
% Disabled 12.0 % 12.0 % 12.0 %
% Poverty (free &
reduced lunch)
50 % 50 % 50 %
% ELL

10 % 10 % 10 %
% Minority

30 % 30 % 30 %

48
Table 2.2, Continued
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 3.0
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:
3.0
5. Teachers for ELL
students
An additional
1.0 teachers
for every 100
ELL students
who
0.43
An additional 1.0
teachers for every
100 ELL students
0.45
An additional
1.0 teachers for
every 100 ELL
students
0.60
6. Extended Day 1.8 1.875 2.5
7. Summer School 1.8 1.875 2.5
8. Learning and mild
disabled students
Additional 3
professional
teacher
positions
Additional 3
professional
teacher positions
Additional 4
professional
teacher positions
9. Severely disabled
students
100% state
reimbursemen
t minus
federal funds.
100% state
reimbursement
minus federal
funds.
100% state
reimbursement
minus federal
funds.
10. Teachers for gifted
students

$25/student

$25/student

$25/student
11. Vocational
Education
NA NA 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/250
students
3.25 total
1 for every 100
poverty students
plus 1.0
guidance/250
students
5.4 total
49
Table 2.2, Continued
14. Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 2.0 3.0
15. Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 1.0 1.0 librarian
1.0 Library
technician
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 &
prep time
10 summer
days
Additional:
$100/pupil for
other PD
expenses –
trainers,
conferences,
travel, etc.
Included above:
Instructional
facilitators
Planning & prep
time
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for
other PD
expenses –
trainers,
conferences,
travel, etc.
Included above:
Instructional
coaches
Planning & prep
time
10 summer days
Additional:
$50/pupil for
other PD
expenses –
trainers,
conferences,
travel, etc.

19. Technology $250/pupil $250/pupil $250/pupil
20. Instructional
materials

$140/pupil

$140/pupil

$175/pupil
21. Student Activities $200/pupil $200/pupil $250/pupil

Source: Odden and Picus, 2008
Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota and
Kentucky have used the Evidence Based Model. Most recently Odden and Picus
(2008) collected data over a two year period from 334 Wyoming schools. Data
sources included interviews with principals and superintendents to collect staffing
fiscal resource information. They found that Wyoming continued at the same level
of school administration instructional facilitators, fewer core teachers, more elective
50
classes and teachers, more instructional aides, less tutoring, less library resources and
less pupil support than the model calls for. Although the overall findings reveal a
difference between the model and implementation, it should be noted that this
fundamental change in the state’s school finance system is still in its first full year of
implementation. Further research over time may reveal a more robust picture of the
impact of this funding reform on student achievement.
Hanushek (2006) debates the legitimacy of adequacy models as unable to
articulate the exact amount it would take to ensure each student attains proficiency
on state performance standards. Hanushek (2006) believes that research based is not
convincing enough to be labeled evidence based. He would suggest a new name for
this expenditure structure “the consultants’ choice model.”
As California does not have the needed funding streams to implement the
Evidence Based Model, the questions are, can the state work within its current
system of school finance to meet the diverse needs of their students, and do
California schools have enough resources to meet the state proficiency standards.
Summary
The purpose of this study is to analyze the allocation of resources that strives
to provide students with the necessary instruction to meet state proficiency
guidelines. This literature review provides the framework pertaining to educational
adequacy and resource reallocation and provides the historical background that
grounds the research questions and case study analysis.
51
California’s history of litigation, legislation, and policy has imparted a
complex environment in which districts and schools function. This study examines
how several schools allocate resources within the context of this tightly controlled
environment.
Adequacy models provide a context for linking educational resources to
student performance outcomes. A growing body of research suggests that research
based instructional strategies can positively impact student learning, thus
concentrating resources toward improving instruction has the potential to improve
schools. The adequacy model utilized to undergird this research is the Evidence
Based Model which provides a framework by which schools may be compared and
analyzed. Instructional ingredients such as leadership and professional development
will be examined for its affect on student results.
Schools with a common vision of student proficiency that work
collaboratively, innovatively, anchored in research based instructional strategies, and
utilizing data based decision making while strategically allocating resources to this
end had attributes for school improvement. Successful schools and underperforming
schools have commonalities that make up the culture of the school. Understanding
the relationship of the similarities to school performance offers insight into how to
reform school to new cultures of practice that can result in higher student results.
52
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

NCLB and the current standards based reform movement have created an
environment wherein schools must examine the effectiveness of their practices. New
accountability systems have been put in place to ensure student outcomes are
measured in a standardized manner. The high stakes testing in California is the
result of this current trend in education. Though the test has revealed some
diminutive gains in urban schools educating minority students and English Language
Learners, the achievement gap remains.
Schools continue to grapple with the resource allocation that best meets the
needs of marginalized populations. This investigation examines schools to ascertain
their instructional improvement strategies, resource distribution, changes in resource
allocation based on current funding trends, and compares the resource allocation
against the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). The researcher offers
recommendations based on the data collected.
This chapter outlines:
• Purpose of the study
• The research questions
• Units of analysis
• Sampling strategies
• Types of data collected
• Validity and confidence

53
Introduction
This section describes the methodology, sample, instruments, the data
collection and analysis process for the study. The study’s purpose is to understand
the effects of schools’ allocation of federal, state, and local resources on student
outcomes. It is the author’s desire that the findings of this study will serve as a basis
for institutions to allocate resources efficiently and effectively to maximize students’
learning experiences.
The sample will be selected using data from the California Department of
Education website. API and AYP Scores, Similar School Ranks and demographic
information will be examined in developing a purposeful sample. From the initial
screening, the focus will turn to schoolwide Title I elementary schools. Title I
schools typically serve low socioeconomic and minority students and receive federal
funding to improve educational services for children at risk due to poverty.
In December 2009, the researcher contacted the district and school to solicit
their voluntary participation in the study. The site administrator was presented with
IRB documents and a request list of documents which were to be picked up at the
scheduled interview date. Written statements, on school letterhead, of acceptance to
participate in the study were also requested at that time. Following IRB approval the
author scheduled a mutually agreed upon time to conduct the interview. Interview
questions were given in advance and all interviews, unless otherwise refused, were
recorded.
54
Between December 2009 and March 2010, the author conducted interviews
with the principals of five improving and low performing elementary schools. Both
qualitative and quantitative data entry was conducted within 48 hours of the
interview. The researcher triangulated data, combined findings across studies, and
identified patterns and themes. The information was analyzed and synthesized in
order to prepare the results and findings section of this report.
Sample and Population
This study examines resource allocation at five diverse California elementary
schools—two underperforming and three high achieving, with statistically significant
subgroups of EL, economically disadvantaged, and minority students—in their
endeavor to improve student achievement. The applied research contributes new
information to the current body of knowledge regarding Adequacy Oriented School
Finance Reform (Picus, Odden, Aportela, Mangan, & Goetz, 2008).
The project goal is to collect school data from the 2007-2008 school year and
examine changes in site level financial allocations in response to the 2008-2009
California education budget reduction and the impact of those reallocations on
programs at the five elementary schools. The researcher will examine each school’s
use of resources, varying leadership approaches, and instructional strategies to guide
the study. These findings will be overlaid with the Evidence Based Model (Odden &
Picus, 2008) framework.
Education Data Partnership (2009) reports 5,761 elementary schools in
California serving 3,031,291 students. A focused yet purposeful sample will be
55
determined by narrowing the criteria to Los Angeles Country schools with a
minimum forty percent Free/Reduced Price Meal participants, a statistically
significant number of EL students, and receiving Title I funds.
As Schoolwide Title I institutions receive additional funding to mitigate
children at risk educationally due to poverty or low income, a site’s Title I status will
serve as a proxy for socioeconomic levels. Schoolwide Title I funding in
conjunction with EL funding provides vibrant possibilities for schools to allocate
resources for improved student outcomes.
Four research questions are examined in the exploration of these issues:
1. What are the current instructional 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 the
recent budget reductions?

4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned
with or different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence
Based Model?

Units of Analysis
Components of the methodology include quantitative data to identify sample
schools. A purposeful sample of five schools was selected based on predetermined
criteria of statistically significant subgroups. Quantitative data on resources and
students outcomes were collected along with qualitative data on the process for
instructional improvement at the site. The mixed method approach was selected to
56
offer the researcher multiple data sources such as interviews and existing document
in compiling case studies.
This study uses a purposeful sample of five elementary schools, three of
which have demonstrated high achievement with their significant subgroups, while
the other two exemplify underperformance within the targeted subgroups. Owing to
the nature of a purposeful sample study, the results cannot be extrapolated for
generalized findings. The study, however, offers insight more authoritative than
anecdotal to resource allocation practices in underperforming and high achieving
school sites with high percentage disenfranchised and English Learner populations in
periods of budgetary flux. Additionally, it is the researcher’s hope that the data and
finding collected here will be incorporated in the growing body of school
improvement research and in the effective use of available financial resources.
The quantitative data drawn from the noted data streams are merged with
qualitative data rooted in case studies of each school site to provide a robust
illustration of each site and its resource allocation methodology, thereby addressing
research Questions 1, 2 and 3 of this study. Data colleted from the research
Questions 1, 2, and 3 will be compared to the Evidence Based Model (Odden &
Picus, 2008).
Odden and Picus developed the Evidence Based Model in 2003, based on
successful school reform models, to construct a framework for distributing resources
to improve student achievement. The framework is a vehicle to disaggregate school
57
budget items in order to illuminate how the site apportions resources to improve
student performance.
The Evidence Based Model is founded on the premise that high quality
leadership and teachers are the underpinning for high student performance outcomes.
This Model stems from research regarding effective school leadership by Marzano,
Waters, and McNulty (2005); best educational practices by Marzano (2003); and the
“How People Learn” framework (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000) for the
knowledge and skills teacher in facilitating high student achievement. With
classroom instruction at the center, the Evidence Based Model recommends the
specific use of resources based on student characteristics to maximize student
learning.
Data Collection
Qualitative data for the case studies were collected via interviews with site
principals. The interview protocol centered on the intersection of a site’s resource
allocation with its instructional strategies, followed by an exploration of the current
budget climate’s impact on educational programs. The data collected from the sites
illustrate the method and effectiveness of resource disbursement in the school’s
pursuit of increased student achievement and determine to what extent resource
allocation aligns with the school improvement strategies. Detailed case studies
elucidate similarities and differences between the school sites and vis-à-vis the
Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). Question 4 was analyzed by
58
comparing case study data to the Evidence Based Model. Similar studies have been
conducted in Arkansas, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
The researcher conducted a mixed method study to determine how resources
are targeted effectively to improve student learning and to link those resources to the
most effective programs. This research provides a context for federal and state
policymakers, district administrators, and school administrators and principals to
determine an effective system to reallocate funding to improve student performance
in times of fiscal constraint. The success of California’s school children hinges on
an understanding how and why similar schools in urban areas school are
overperforming or underperforming.
Instrumentation
This study was conducted under the supervision of Professor Lawrence O.
Picus in partial fulfillment of the University of Southern California’s Rossier School
of Education (RSOE) Ed.D. program. Ten researchers, as part of a thematic group,
conducted concurrent studies utilizing similar format and research questions. To
maintain standardization of data collection among the research group a fieldwork
training session was conducted on May 16, 2009, and facilitated by Dr. Picus.
The one-day training included instruction on a data collection system used in
Arkansas, Washington and Wyoming by Lawrence O. Picus and Associates to
uncover school expenditures related to staffing, schedules, and professional
development. Documents provided as part of the training included the following:
• IRB Approval Form (Appendix F)
59
• Document Request List (Appendix G)
• Data Collection Codebook (Appendix H)
• Data Collection Protocol (Appendix I)
• Open-Ended Protocol (Appendix J)
Information gathered by means of the aforementioned documents served as
the foundation for further inquiry on analyzing school expenditures. These
instruments guided the researcher in examining how resources are allocated at the
school site to target student achievement.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study is to analyze how five urban Title I elementary
schools allot funding from federal, state, and local sources. Data collected from the
qualitative and quantitative research were analyzed and synthesized from the five
sites.
The data were reviewed for accuracy and cleaned where appropriate.
Incomplete or missing data were addressed with follow-up correspondence via phone
or e-mail with the appropriate individual. These data were merged with the
information and perspectives gathered in the interviews to create the case study for
each of the five elementary schools examined.
Performance data from the California Department of Education were
explored to determine the effectiveness of the schools’ resource distribution. This
additional information guided the researcher in finding similarities and differences
among the five schools. Each school was contrasted with the Evidence Based Model
60
to provide insights regarding how the schools allocate resources within the context of
the model.
Chapter Four presents the findings from the qualitative and quantitative data
analysis of how schools are allocating resources to advance student achievement.
61
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

This chapter presents the findings of this study. First, there is an overview of
the schools that participated in this study followed by a section of the findings as
they relate to the research questions. The four research questions that guided this
project are:
1. What are the current 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 the
recent budget reductions?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned
with or different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence
Based Model?
The final section provides a discussion of the findings.
Overview of the Schools and Districts
This section provides an overview of the schools that participated in the case
studies. The case studies offer an in-depth survey of each school and the district in
which the school resides. Each study provides detailed information related to
achievement data, instructional strategies, instructional improvement plans, site
leadership and resource use. The full case studies for the five schools can be found
in Appendices A-E.
62
The five schools included in this study were selected from four districts in
Los Angeles County of Southern California, each within thirty miles of the
researcher’s home. Pseudonyms were utilized for the participating districts and
schools to protect their confidentiality. The four district names are WW Unified
School District, XX Unified School District, YY Unified School District and ZZ
Unified School District. The district size varies from the highest enrollment of
approximately 90,000 to the lowest enrollment of approximately 6,000 students.
Table 4.1 shows the enrollment number at the four districts.
Table 4.1 – Enrollment Numbers for the Four Districts
District WWUSD XXUSD YYUSD ZZUSD
Enrollment Data 24,785 87,509 6,241 20,798

Five elementary schools were involved in this study. Two schools were from
the WW Unified School District and one school was from each of the remaining
three school districts. Table 4.2 displays the districts and the school or schools in the
district.
Table 4.2 – District and School in the District
District Schools in the District
WWUSD CC Elementary School (CCES)
EE Elementary School (EEES)
XXUSD AA Elementary School (DDES)
YYUSD DD Elementary School (DDES)
ZZUDD BB Elementary School (BBES)
63
The significant subgroups represented at each school include: percent
socioeconomically disadvantaged, free and reduced lunch eligible, English Learner,
Hispanic or Latino, and Asian. The Asian subgroup was statistically significant in
only 3 of the 5 schools. Table 4.3 details the school enrollment numbers and
percentage of each statistically significant subgroup.
Table 4.3 – Enrollment, Population Status and Statistically Significant Population
Percentages
School
Total
Enrollment
Population
Status
Percent
Free/
Reduced
Meals
Percent
English
Learner
Percent
Hispanic
Percent
Asian
AAES 411 Urban
Fringe of
a Large
City
85.2% 36.7% 41.1% 29.4%
BBES 410 Mid-size
city
60.7% 34.4% 56.1% N/A
CCES 453 Mid-size
city
49.9% 30.7% 30.5% 30.7%
DDES 742 Urban
Fringe of
a Large
City
83.3% 58.5% 74.9% N/A
EEES 611 Mid-size
city
36.8% 25.0% 26.0% 19.1%

The five schools selected to participate in this study were three schools that
have demonstrated high achievement with their school-wide API and with their
significant subgroups, and two schools that underperform both as a school and with
their significant subgroups. The statewide rank was utilized as the proxy for
64
determining high achieving and underperforming schools. Successful schools had
ranks of 7, 8 or 9 for three consecutive years, 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Underperforming schools had ranks 3, 4, or 5 on the statewide rankings in 2007,
2008 and 2009. All schools in this study received federal assistance. Four of the
schools received Schoolwide Title I funds; one school, EEES, received Targeted
Title I funding and is scheduled to receive Schoolwide Title I funding in the 2010-
2011 academic year. Table 4.4 displays the Statewide Ranks in 2007-2009.
Table 4.4 – Statewide Rankings 2007-2009
School 2007 2008 2009
AAES 9 8 7
BBES 5 4 4
CCES 7 7 7
DDES 3 2 2
EEES 9 9 8

The Statewide Rank categorizes schools numerically based on their API
scores. All schools are then disaggregated in ten deciles or groups. These deciles
groups, 1-10, determine the rank of school. Schools scoring 10, 9 and 8 are the top
10, 20, and 30 percent of all school taking the CST. Schools scoring 5 or below on
the statewide rank are in the bottom 50% of all schools taking the CST. Table 4.5
and Figure 4.1 display the API scores for the schools that participated in the study.

Table 4.5 – API Scores for Schools 2007-2009
School 2007 2008 2009
AAES 857 849 832
BBES 761 742 762
CCES 810 800 832
DDES 719 707 742
EEES 867 873 854

Figure 4.1 – Graphic Representation of API Scores for 2007-2009

The data in Table 4.5 and Figure 4.1 reveal that none of the five schools makes
continuous growth in between 2007-2009. AAES, BBES, CCES and DDES
declined in API score from 2007-2008 and increased in 2009. CCES had a huge 32
index point increase in 2009. EEES increase in API score from 2007-2008 and
dropped in 2009.

65
66
Findings
Current Improvement Strategies Observed at the School Level
Data for Research Question One
The improvement strategies observed at the five schools participating in this
study were derived from Odden et al. (2008):
1. Administer a needs assessment
2. Set high goals for student performance
3. Adopt a rigorous, standards-based curriculum
4. Engage in data-driven decision making
5. Commit resources in on-going and effective professional development
6. Focus instructional time efficiently
7. Provide multiple interventions for struggling students
8. Create professional learning communities
9. Empower leaders to support instructional improvement
10. Family engagement
Table 4.6 – Ranking of School Application of Odden et al.’s (2008) Ten Steps to
Double Performance
Implementation
Strong Average Weak
1) administer a
needs assessment
AAES
CCES
BBES
DDES
EEES

2) set high goals
for student
performance
AAES BBES
CCES
DDES
EEES
67
Table 4.6, Continued
3) adopt a
rigorous,
standards-based
curriculum
AAES
BBES
CCES
DDES
EEES

4) engage in data-
driven decision
making
AAES

BBES
CCES
EEES
DDES

5) commit
resources in
ongoing and
effective
professional
development
AAES

BBES
CCES
EEES
DDES
6) focus
instructional time
efficiently
AAES
BBES
CCES
DDES
EEES

7) provide multiple
interventions for
struggling students

AAES
BBES
CCES
DDES
EEES

8) create
professional
learning
communities
AAES
CCES
BBES
DDES
EEES

9) empower
leaders to support
instructional
improvement
CCES AAES
BBES
EEES
DDES
10) Family
engagement
AAES
EEES
BBES
DDES
CCES

Table 4.7 presents a quantifiable analysis of the application of Odden, et al.’s
instructional strategies at the five participating schools and their API Score.

68
Table 4.7 – API Score and Ten Steps to Double Performance (Odden et al., 2008)
Ratings
School API Score
2009
Strong Average Weak
EEES 854 3 6 1
AAES 832 8 2 0
CCES 832 5 4 1
BBES 762 2 8 0
DDES 742 2 5 3

Administering a Needs Assessment
While all five schools administer needs assessments, some of the schools are
farther along than other schools in using this support strategy. Schools AAES and
CCES stand out in particular for spending considerable time assessing the needs of
the student. They have scheduled times to conduct needs assessments and design
instructional plans based on student performance. Three schools, BBES, DDES and
EEES, did administer need assessments, however they did not show the same
commitment to this instructional strategy. BBES, DDES and EEES used benchmark
and other tests as needs assessments, yet it is unclear to what extent the teachers
conducted these needs assessments with fidelity.
Setting High Goal for Student Achievement
All five schools have ideas to schoolwide student achievement goals,
however AAES had the most collaborative vision for setting high goals for student
achievement. AAES’ principal cites the school’s commitment to the philosophy that
every child can learn and their instructional programs are customized to continually
push students to the next level, not just an arbitrary score of number.
69
Three schools BBES, CCES, and DDES had average implementation. The
administrators at the three schools stated they were interested in bringing up test
scores, yet this was not a collaboratively developed performance goal of the staff at
the school. As a new principal at EEES, the principal is working on a schoolwide
vision of high goals for student performance.
Adopt a Rigorous Standards-Based Curriculum
All schools ranked high in the adoption of a rigorous, standards based
curriculum strategy. The state recommends textbooks for all core subjects for
adoption, with these textbooks having been evaluated for their alignment to the state
standards. Four of the five schools use the state recommended textbooks; AAES is
the only school that uses materials that are not state approved. AAES is utilizing
Columbia Readers and Writers program in Language Arts and the Cognitively
Guided Instruction method for teaching mathematics, after having painstakingly
aligned all lessons to the state content standards. AAES delivered a report of its
curriculum alignment to the district and was granted a waiver, thus allowing AAES
to be the only school in the district to utilize material not on the approved school list.
Engage in Data Based Decision Making
All five schools that participated in the study engaged in some kind of data
collection and calibrated instruction based on the data. AAES most rigorously
assessed students every 4-8 weeks. These assessments were district mandated and
calendared on both the school and districtwide calendar. Assessment results were
due to the principal, and struggling students were offered extra support in the
70
classroom or with an intervention teacher. All data and intervention strategies were
recorded for accountability purposes.
BBES likewise collected data on a district-mandated schedule, yet the faculty
was not as thorough in their use of data to inform instruction.
CCES and EEES did not have scheduled assessment periods and the district
did not have any districtwide common assessments. As a Standards Based Report
Card (SBRC) pilot school, CCES assessments were common formative and
summative assessments created by the staff as evidence to support grades on the
SBRC. Grade level teams created the assessments aligned to the state standards and
developed rubrics to rank proficiency. EEES teachers were provided with the
assessment materials, however they were not mandatory nor were results due to the
principal. The structure was not in place at either school to take data and use them
for future instruction. While some teachers at CCES and EEES did use assessments
and modified instruction to meet student needs, this was not standardized
schoolwide.
DDES had district mandated benchmark assessments. The new principal, as
of fall of 2009, was still in the process of developing how to use these benchmark
data. This is a relative area of weakness.
Commit Resources to Ongoing and Effective Professional Development
The participating five schools and four districts provided some professional
development at the district and site level. The schools had between 2-5 days of
professional development built into the school year. All five schools also had
71
ongoing Professional Learning Community meetings and worked collaboratively as a
school and in small groups.
AAES had the most structured programs for PLCs, committing grant or Title
I funds for professional development. AAES was rated strong in this area. BBES,
CCES and EEES were still in developing trusting collaborative environments for
professional learning. Professional development was still was not as effective as
AAES. BBES, CCES and EEES were average in committing resources in ongoing
and effective professional development. As a new principal at DDES, she is still at
the beginning stages with her staff in regard to PLC and professional development.
This is a relative area of weakness at DDES.
Focus Instructional Time Efficiently
Although all school sites had a significant block of time devoted to core
instruction, principals did not provide a schedule of specific instructional time to the
researcher. All principals stated they conducted walk arounds, but specific time
spent on evaluating the efficiency of instructional time was not put in place. This
area was average at all schools.
Provide Multiple Interventions for Struggling Students
All five schools provided extra help for struggling student during the school
day and afterschool. Some schools offered summer school for the struggling
students, EL, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students. There were many
opportunities for the students to work with credentialed teachers to receive additional
72
instruction in the area of difficulty to recover skill and return to the general
classroom.
AAES, BBES, CCES, DDES, and EEES all used components of the
Response to Intervention (RTI) framework to provide additional support at the site
level. There are three tiers in the RTI pyramid of interventions. Tier I, the broadest
and basic, is a schoolwide intervention supporting all students at the site. Affecting
core instruction, Tier I is the most broadly preventative and proactive program,
addressing the needs of 80-90% of the site’s student population. Some students,
however, require a second tier of intervention that provides additional supports for
those students who are in an at risk subgroup. Tier II interventions affect 5-10% of
the school’s student population. Tier III interventions affect approximately 1-5% of
the student body. Students in this tier often require intensive individual support as
they have not responded sufficiently to Tier I and II programs. In many cases, Tier
III groups include Special Education and Far Below Basic students who are taking
the California Modified Assessment (CMA).
CCES, being a Schoolwide Title I site with categorical funding, has directed
funds for English Language Arts (ELA) interventions for students ranked Basic,
Below Basic and Far Below Basic. Struggling readers and students scoring Basic
and Below Basic are identified for these additional resources. These small group and
individual instructional pieces are implemented in six-week intervals with the goals
of specific skills instruction, additional practice, and preparation for the CST.
73
Progress monitoring is a key component and students are moved in and out of this
intervention at the beginning of each six-week cycle.
Create Learning Communities
Learning communities provide opportunities for teachers to collaborate, learn
and grow as individual professionals, and for the school to grow as a team. All five
schools that participated in this study utilized learning communities at their school
site. One school allocated time within the school day for teacher collaboration. Four
schools modified their weekly schedule for early dismissal, once a week, to work in
collaborative groups. All schools referred to their weekly collaborative time as
Professional Learning Communities (PLC).
DuFour et al (2006) believes the best method for teachers to improve their
craft is via the establishment of a strategic professional development program.
However, creating PLCs is just the beginning of the process. One of the difficulties
in developing Professional Learning Communities is in breaking a site’s cultural
norms. Changing an individual’s beliefs and practices can be difficult; changing
organization’s beliefs and practices can be even more daunting. Past attempts to
broadly reform school culture from the outside historically have failed, with
reformers discovering that a school’s culture, the fabric of its existence, is too
difficult to alter from (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). A PLC that is tailored to the
school’s unique environment has greater potential for success, especially under the
sponsorship of effective, transformative leader.
74
The staffs at AAES and CCES have school cultures that have a greater
potential to foster PLCs. AAES and CCES staffs have traditionally worked well in
collaborative groups, working as teams rather than in isolation. They were also
willing to be groundbreakers in their district, trying new strategies to improve
teacher practice and student learning. Additionally, the principal at AAES
exemplifies the qualities of transformational leadership. He seeks and values staff
input in the professional development as a means to improve student achievement.
BBES, DDES, and EEES do have PLCs in place on paper, but they are
missing key components of the model. BBES has a new principal who has forced
her professional development agenda on the staff. DDES and EEES both have new
principals and have just inaugurated PLCs. Principals at the three schools cite they
are still building a collaborative school culture to make enhance PLC meetings.
Effective use of PLCs can offer faculty members sheltered time to collaborate
and build collegial relationships with fellow staff members, offering teachers the
opportunity to address professional challenges communally. Teachers can use their
strength to support their colleagues, learn from the strengths of others to improve
their professional practice, and share successful practices. The routine of sharing
ideas and working together to meet student needs has the potential to positively
impact student achievement by focusing on effective classroom instruction, as well
as nurture instructional and professional goals for their site.

75
Empowers Leaders to Support Instructional Leadership
Empowering leaders to support instructional leadership within the staff
includes effective leadership and organizational skills of the principal, but also the
principal’s capacity to shepherd and mentor the staff. The varying years of
experience of the principal at each site impacts the degree to which the principals
have been able to lead the staff by example and mentor other leaders within the
school. Northouse (2007) describes Transformational Leadership as a new and
encompassing approach to leadership, stressing the need for leaders, official and
unofficial, to understand and adapt to the context of his followers in order to
accomplish great things. New principals had difficulty incorporating a
transformational leadership style in their short tenure. Table 4.8 lists how long
principals were at their school site.
Table 4.8 – List of Principal’s Tenure at Current Site
School Start at Site Time at the
School
Principalship
Background
AAES Fall 2008 Second Year New to principalship
BBES Fall 2009 First Year Transferred from
another elementary
site
CCES Fall 2001 Ninth Year Transferred from
middle school
DDES Fall 2009 First Year Transferred from
another elementary
site
EEES Fall 2008 Second Year New to principalship

76
With the longest number of years at the school site CCES’ principal has been
able to foster instructional leadership at CCES. He has been able to develop
leadership capacity at the school, continues to trust in the staff to support
instructional improvement, and, thus, generally leaves instructional improvement
strategies to his leadership team. The official and unofficial leadership at this site
has been able to make systemic improvements in the instructional programs to
bolster student performance.
AAES has a very dynamic leader that is working with his unofficial leaders
to improve instruction at the school; as he is still new to the school, however, he has
not had ample time to identify teacher leaders in each grade level who have the
capacity to be effective unofficial leaders. The current unofficial leadership includes
two teachers that are coaching the implementation of the Cognitively Guided
Instruction in math. These two teachers, along with the principal, are working on
making systematic improvements to the instructional program at AAES.
BBES, DDES and EEES are different in regard to the instructional leadership
and leadership team. Each of the three schools has struggled with shifting
principalships. The change in leadership has led to situations where individual
teachers have taken a leadership role in the direction chosen by the teachers, thereby
creating a disorganized instructional improvement efforts at the schools. Principals
at DDES and EEES are working toward shifting power to a more collaborative
schoolwide direction. Both principals hope to build effective leadership teams to
assist them in paving a new school context of collaboration as they co-construct a
77
systematic school improvement plan. The principal at BBES is imposing a
framework for school improvement and accountability.
Family Engagement
All five schools had opportunities for meaningful opportunities for family
engagement. AAES and EEES ranked strong in this area, nurturing strong
relationships with the parents of their students and offering multiple opportunities for
the parents to become part of the school cultures. BBES and DDES had some
opportunities for parents, but not as structured as those established at AAES and
EEES. CCES’ principal states this is an area of difficulty; he plans on devoting more
energy and money to grow family engagement in the 2010-2011 school year.
How Resources Are Used to Implement the School’s Instructional Improvement Plan
And
How Did the Allocation and Use of Resources Change in Response to the Recent
Budget Reductions?
Data for Research Question Two and Three
The principals at the schools that participated in the study observed that the
availability of human and financial resources play a role in the key role in
implementing a school’s instructional improvement plan. In 2008-2009 the fiscal
uncertainty played a key role in how principals allocated resources at the beginning
of the school year. Districts and principals spent conservatively because of the
California Budget Crisis painted a dire picture for education funding. District
78
officials were unsure of future funding streams and held back on spending in the fall
of 2008.
A tremendous amount of manpower was expended to develop a strategic plan
for the 2009-2010 school year. One program that lost some ground in two of the
schools was Class Size Reduction (CSR), as class sizes increased from 20-to-1 to 24-
to-1 in grades K-3. In 2010 class sizes will increase again to 30-to-1 in the grades K-
3.
In 2008 EEES was hit particularly hard with the change of principalship and
the loss of the technology aide due to budget cuts. The technology aide managed the
computer lab that administered the Successmaker program, a standards driven
teaching and assessment data collection instrument used by the school.
Successmaker would evaluate students based on their performance on standards
based questions. It would benchmark their starting level and promote them to more
challenging levels upon mastery of the content standard.
Additionally, the technology aide managed Edusoft, a student data collection
and analysis application that enables teachers to create assessments and collect data
on the district server. Data from Edusoft was disaggregated to reveal trends to
inform instruction. The previous principal had systematically collected the Edusoft
student data sheets from the EEES faculty every six- to eight-weeks, and expected
teachers to address the needs of struggling students as revealed in the Edusoft
analysis. With the loss of the technology aide, the use of Edusoft and Sucessmaker
79
as a data collection and instructional tools became optional. The schoolwide API
dropped 18 index points.
How are the Actual Resource Use Patterns at the School Sites Aligned with or
Different from the Resource Use Strategies Used in the Evidence Based Model?
Data for Research Question Four
This section illustrates how resources at the five schools compare to the
strategies recommended in the Evidence Based Model (EBM). The resources
indicators are broken down into School Characteristics and Resources. Table 4.9
contains data related to the prototypical EBM school, case study school data, and
EBM comparison. All data are listed in order with AAES first and EEES last.
Table 4.9 – School Characteristics Comparison: Case Study Schools and Evidence
Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School
Characteristics
EBM
Proto-
typical
Elemen
-tary
School
AAES
School
Data
BBES
School
Data
CCES
School
Data
DDES
School
Data
EEES
School
Data
EBM
Comparison
Configuration K-5 K-5 K-6 K-5 K-5 K-5 Same as EBM at
4 schools.
BBES has 6
th

grade.
Enrollment 432 411 410 438 742 611 3 schools are
close in
enrollment.
DDES and EEES
are much larger
than prototypic
size
80
Table 4.9, Continued
Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K-3 20
4-5 35
K-3 20
4-5 30
K-3 24
4-5 33
K-3 20
4-5 30
K-3 24
4-5 33
All 5 schools
exceed the EBM
recommendation
for class size
Full Day
Kindergarten
Yes No Yes Yes Yes No 3 schools have
full day
kindergarten.
AAES and
DDES have ½
day kindergarten
less than EMB
recommendation
Number of
Teacher Work
Days
190 +
10 PD
Days
180 +
5 PD
Days
179 +
5 PD
Days
180 +
5 PD
Days
183 +
2 PD
Days
180 +
5 PD
Days
All 5 schools do
not meet EMB
recommendation
for workdays or
PD days
Students with
Disabilities
12% 16% 4% 16% 9% 14% 3 schools have
slightly more
students with
disabilities. Two
schools have
fewer students.
Students in
Poverty
50% 85% 61% 53% 88% 36% 4 schools have
more students in
poverty than the
prototypical
EBM school.
EEES is the
exception.
EL Students 10% 25% 22% 22% 58% 22% All schools have
more EL
students than
prototypical
EBM school
Minority
Students
30% 92% 94% 82% 96% 77% All 5 schools
have more
minority students
than prototypical
EBM school.

The five schools participating in the study had similar school configurations
and enrollment numbers. Class sizes were larger than the EBM recommendations.
Three of the four schools had full kindergarten and two had half-day kindergarten.
Teachers worked fewer days and had fewer days for professional development.
81
Three schools had more students with disabilities and two had fewer students with
disabilities. Four schools had more students at their school with more than 50% of
their students in poverty. English learner and minority student populations at the
case study schools exceeded the EMB prototypical percentages. Table 4.10 discloses
data related to resource allocation compared to the EBM.
Table 4.10 – Resource Comparison: Case Study Schools and Evidence Based Model
(EBM) for Adequate School Resources
RESOURCES EBM
Proto-
typical
Elemen-
tary
School
AAES
School
Data
BBES
School
Data
CCES
School
Data
DDES
School
Data
EEES
School
Data
EBM
Comparison
Core Teachers 24 19 22 16 31* 32* All schools had
fewer than EBM
recommendation
for teachers
Specialist
Teachers
20%
more; 4.8
(based on
student
pop.)
1 2 1.7 0.6 1.5 Fewer specialist
teachers at all 5
schools
Instructional
Facilitators/
Mentors
2.2 2 0 0 0 0 Fewer
Instructional
mentors at all 5
schools
Tutors 1 for
every 100
poverty
students:
2.16
No tutors at case study schools No tutors at any
of the 5 schools
Teachers for
EL
1 for
every 100:
0.96
0 0 0.5 1 .66 Fewer EL
teachers at all 5
schools
Extended day 1.8 No extended day at case study schools No extended day
at all 5 schools
82
Table 4.10, Continued
Summer
School
1.8 0 0 4 0 2 Summer school
provided at 2 of
5 schools. These
2 schools met or
exceeded EBM
recommendation
Learning
Disabled
Student
3 3 2 2 1 2 Except for
AAES, all other
schools did not
meet learning
disabled student
staffing
recommendation
GATE Student $25/
student
The site level budget did not show resource
allocation related to GATE
No GATE
allocation at all 5
schools
Substitutes 5% of all
of the
above
The site level budget did not show resource
allocation related to substitutes
No allocation at
all 5 schools for
substitutes
Pupil Services 1 for
every 100
poverty
students:
2.32
3.4 0 1.6 3 2.8 Less than
recommended in
the EBM
Non-
instructional
aides
2 0 2 0 0 0 Only BBES met
EBM
recommendation
for non-
instructional
aides
Librarian/
Media
Specialists
1 The site level budget did not show resource
allocation related to library/media specialists
No allocation for
librarian/media
specialists
Principal 1 1 at all schools Same as EBM
School Site
Secretary
2 2 2 1 2 1 3 schools same
as EBM; 2
schools at 50%
recommendation
83
Table 4.10, Continued
Professional
Development
Instruc.
Faciliator,
planning
& prep
time, 10
summer
days;$100
/pupil for
other PD
expenses
—trainers,
confer-
ences,
travel, etc.
5 days
PD;
$37.36
5 days
PD; no
dollar
amt
dis-
closed
5 days
PD;
$68.49
2 days
PD
district
paid
5 days
PD;
$91.76
All schools had
fewer numbers
of planning and
prep time,
summer days,
and dollars spent
on PD
expenses—
trainers,
conferences,
travel, etc.
Technology $250/
pupil
$240/
pupil
$201/
pupil
$46/
pupil
$45/
pupil
$55/
pupil
All 5 schools
spent less than
EBM
recommendation
for technology
Instructional
Materials
$140/
pupil
$11/
pupil
$55/
pupil
$85/
pupil
Not
dis-
closed
$55/
pupil
All 5 spent less
than EBM
recommendation
for instructional
materials
Student
Activities
$200/
pupil
The site level budget did not show resource
allocation related to student activities
All 5 schools did
not have
resources
allocated to
student activities

Discussion of Findings
The implementation of Odden et al.’s (2008) Ten Steps to Double
Performance has been utilized at varying degrees at the five schools. Improvement
strategies observed were: (1) administer a needs assessment; (2) set high goals for
student performance; (3) adopt a rigorous, standards-based curriculum; (4) engage in
data-driven decision making; (5) commit resources in ongoing and effective
professional development; (6) focus instructional time efficiently; (7) provide
multiple interventions for struggling students; (8) create professional learning
84
communities; (9) empower leaders to support instructional improvement; and (10)
family engagement. Table 4.11 shows each school with the number of instructional
strategies implemented in the strong and average categories, their percent free or
reduced lunch, percent EL, and API score.
Table 4.11 – Number of Improvement Strategies, Percent Free or Reduced Lunch,
Percent EL and API Score
School 10 Steps
Strong

10 Steps
Average

Percent
Free/Red.
Lunch
Percent
EL
API
Score
State-
wide
Rank
AAES 8 2 85.2% 36.7% 832 7
BBES 2 8 60.7% 34.4% 762 4
CCES 5 4 49.9% 30.7% 832 7
DDES 2 5 83.3% 58.5% 742 2
EEES 3 6 36.8% 25.0% 854 8

Of the five schools that participated in the study AAES and DDES had the
highest percentage of free and reduced lunch and English Learner students. AAES
and DDES had similar percentages in the free and reduced lunch category, 85.2%
and 83.3% respectively. DDES had a higher percentage of English Learners at
58.5% to AAES at 36.7%. EEES has the lowest number of students categorized in
the free and reduced lunch and percent EL. EEES did not have the strong
implementation of the Ten Steps, however earned the highest API score and
statewide school rank, which may be in part to a lower percentage of fee or reduced
lunch students and EL students, a historically underserved and underachieving
group, and a higher number of white and Asian Students who traditionally score
higher on standardized test. AAES’ student population has highest number of
students qualifying as free and reduced lunch and second highest number EL
85
students. It is noteworthy that AAES ranked strongest implementation of the Ten
Steps higher needs than other schools and the second highest API score behind
EEES.
Furthermore, all five schools adopted a rigorous standards based curriculum
and provided extra help for struggling students. The schools generally administered
needs assessments and utilized data in some way to inform instruction. Some
schools were deficient in the areas of collaboratively setting goals for student
achievement, committing resources for effective professional development, the
commitment of resources to effective professional development, empowering
leadership to support instructional leadership. Focusing instructional time efficiently
appeared to be a relative area of weakness as elementary schedules were not a
closely monitored and controlled as high and middle school schedules. Teachers had
some flexibility to schedule language and math blocks.
The comparison between the recommendations in Evidence Based Model
(EBM) and the actual resource use at the five school sites show that they retain fewer
resources than recommended by the EBM. In all five schools, the number of core
teachers is less than the EMB recommendation. Although the number of core
teachers appears to exceed the number of core teachers recommended at a
prototypical elementary school, when that core teacher number held steady while
enrollment increased, two schools would have fewer core teachers than the EBM
recommends.
86
Specialist teachers, instructional facilitators/mentors, and teachers for EL
were staffed with fewer teachers than the EBM suggests. Teachers in this category
provided core teachers with preparation and collaborative planning time. The EBM
recommends specialist teachers release core teachers in teams to provide time for
collaboration and professional development.
All five schools provided struggling students with extra support, but none of
the schools followed the approach proposed by the EBM. Certificated tutors were
not used at any of schools. Some schools provide some after school small group
intervention programs for struggling students by a certificated teacher, but schools
did not fund extended-day programs as recommended in the EBM. The after school
intervention served fewer students for less time each day than prescribed in the
EBM. Finally, two schools offer a summer school program that resembles the
components of the EBM’s summer school program recommendation. Title I and EL
funds were utilized to subsidize the summer school program.
Professional development at the five school sites varied from the professional
development that is supported through the EBM. Teachers at all school sites had
fewer days for professional development and, at some sites, these days were spread
out throughout the academic year. The EBM recommends ten days of intensive
professional development before the school year begins. A full-time, on-site
instructional coach for each school site to provide ongoing instructional support to
teachers through out the school year is recommended in the EBM. In actuality none
of the five schools have a full-time instructional coach.
87
GATE budget, substitutes, pupil support, librarian/media specialist,
technology, instructional materials, and student activity allocations were less than the
recommendations in the EBM. Four schools did not meet the learning-disabled
student support recommendation of 3 FTE teachers. AAES had 3 learning-disabled
support teachers which meets the number learning disabled teachers recommended
by the EBM. BBES was the only school to meet the recommendations of the EMB
with 2 non-instructional aides. The other four schools did not have any resources
directed to non-instructional aides. All five schools met the EMB recommendation
for the number of principals. Three of the five schools met the number of school site
secretaries. Two schools have only one secretary each, which is half the
recommended number.
The use of support personnel such as counselors, nurses, psychologists, and
health assistants differs greatly from school to school, however, all five schools are
staffed at a much lower level than recommended in the EBM. One area in which all
schools meet the recommendation is related to the principal. The EBM recommends
one principal and all schools met this recommendation.
Finally in administrative support, three of the five of the schools meet the
number of 3 staff members. Nevertheless, the EBM also suggests that each school
have a twelve-month secretary for every two hundred students. This component of
the recommendation was not met. The five schools only have one or two
administrative support staff members, and the secretary worked for only ten to
88
eleven months out of the year. For this reason schools are understaffed in the area of
administrative support.
When asked how additional resources might help the school improvement
efforts all the principals responses echoed each other: They requested resources for
more coaches/mentor to offer professional development to improve instruction. The
EBM model provides instructional coaches at every school to support ongoing
instructional improvement that includes input on professional development. The
EBM reveals these resources are deficient at the school cites and recommends these
area be fully funded based on school characteristics.
In comparing resources between those recommended by the EBM and the
actual resource use at the five schools, the school sites consistently maintain fewer
resources than recommended by the EBM. Schools that participated in the study did
not meet the majority of the adequacy recommendations of the EBM.
Summary
This chapter presented the findings for the four research questions addressed
in this study. The researcher presented the data collected from the five case studies
to illustrate the instructional improvement strategies used in the schools. Odden, et
al.’s (2008) Ten Steps to Double Performance were presented along with a depiction
of how the schools allocated resources to sustain these strategies. The resource use
was compared to the recommendations presented in the Evidence Based Model.
The study is summarized in Chapter Five with conclusions, recommendations
and implications for further research.
89
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Overview of the Problem
The financial crisis in fall 2008 and California’s budget deadlock has
heightened the battle for adequate educational funding. In the past, public education
typically has reacted with a plan that lacks proper research and preparation. This
lack of planning often resulted in school resources, human and financial, to be
inefficiently allocated.
This study examines how and why schools with comparable numbers of
disadvantaged students are bettering other schools. The Evidence Based Model
(EBM) (Odden & Picus, 2008) is used as a lens to contrast resource allocation
patterns at the site level in Los Angeles County schools. Similar studies related to
the EBM have been conducted in Wyoming and Arkansas (Odden et al., 2006;
Odden et al., 2008). The school analysis contained in this study contributes to the
dialogue related to successful school strategies to increase student achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to collect qualitative and quantitative data to
demonstrate a link between targeted resource use and increased student performance.
School site data is compared to the Evidence Based Model to identify how schools’
resource allocations in practice are aligned with research based recommendations.
This study offers information regarding site level expenditures to furnish a context
for policymakers, teachers and researchers working on educational spending. The
following research questions guide this study:
90
1. What are the current 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 the
recent budget reductions?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with
or different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence Based
Model?
Methodology
The purposeful sample was selected using data from the California
Department of Education website. API and AYP Scores, statewide ranking and
demographic information were examined in developing a purposeful sample. From
the initial screening, the focus turned to five schools, four Schoolwide Title I schools
and a Targeted Title I school that will be a Schoolwide Title I elementary school in
the 2010-2011 academic year. Title I schools, as recipients of federal funding to
improve educational services for children at risk due to poverty, typically serve low
socioeconomic and minority students.
In December 2009, the researcher contacted districts and schools to solicit
voluntary participation in the study. Principals were contacted via e-mail regarding a
possible site visit and request for an interview. Upon acceptance the principal was
presented with Institutional Review Board (IRB) documents, a list of interview
questions and a list of requested documents which were retrieved at the scheduled
91
interview date. Written statements, on school letterhead, of acceptance to participate
in the study were also requested at this time. Following IRB approval the researcher
scheduled a mutually agreed upon time to conduct the interview. Interview
questions were given in advance and all interviews, unless otherwise declined, were
recorded.
Between December 2009 and March 2010 the researcher conducted
interviews with the principals of five improving and low performing elementary
schools. The qualitative and quantitative data collected from the schools were
analyzed and synthesized to prepare the results and findings section of this report.
Sample and Population
This study examines resource allocation at five diverse California elementary
schools—two underperforming and three high achieving, with statistically significant
subgroups of EL, economically disadvantaged, and minority students—in the greater
Los Angeles area of Southern California, in their endeavor to improve student
achievement. The applied research contributes new information to the current
understanding of Adequacy Oriented School Finance Reform (Picus, Odden,
Aportela, Mangan, & Goetz, 2008).
The project goal was to collect school data from the 2005-2009 school years
and examine how resource allocation affects student performance. The researcher
examined each school’s resource use, leadership strategies, and instructional
techniques to guide the study. These findings were overlaid on the Evidence Based
Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) framework.
92
Education Data Partnership (2009) reports 5,761 elementary schools in
California serving 3,031,291 students. A focused yet purposeful sample was
determined by narrowing the criteria to Los Angeles Country schools that receive
Schoolwide Title I funds, serving 25 percent or more EL and 40 percent or more
Free/Reduced Price Meals student population. While only a Targeted Title I school
this year, EEES is striving to become Schoolwide Title I school in the 2010-2011
academic year; their status for EL is at 25 percent and 36.8 percent Free/Reduced
Price Meals.
As Schoolwide Title I institutions receive additional funding to mitigate
children at risk educationally due to poverty or low income, a site’s Title I status
served as a proxy for socioeconomic levels. Schoolwide Title I funding, in
conjunction with EL funding, affords vibrant possibilities for schools to allocate
resources for improved student performance.
Data Collection
Qualitative data for the case studies were collected via interviews with
principals. The interview protocol centered on the intersection of a site’s resource
allocation to improve student performance, followed by an exploration of the impact
of the current budget climate on educational programs. The data collected from the
sites illustrate the method and effectiveness of resource disbursement in the school’s
pursuit of increased student achievement, and determine to what extent resource
allocation aligns with both the instructional practices and the EBM (Odden & Picus,
2008). Detailed case studies elucidate similarities and differences between the
93
school sites and against the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008). Question 4 was analyzed
by comparing the site level school characteristics and resource allocations against the
recommendations of the Evidence Based Model. Although it is too early to tell,
similar studies have been conducted at school sites in Arkansas, Washington,
Wisconsin and Wyoming that have demonstrated positive student achievement in
response to adopting EBM recommendations (Odden & Picus, 2008).
The researcher conducted a mixed method study to analyze effective targeted
resource allocations that improve student learning and explore resource links to the
most effective programs. This research provides a context for federal and state
policymakers, and district and school administrators to determine the effective
system to reallocate funding to improve student performance in times of fiscal
constraint. The success of California’s school children hinges on an understanding
of how and why similar schools in urban areas are overperforming or
underperforming.
Instrumentation
This study was conducted under the supervision of Professor Lawrence O.
Picus in partial fulfillment of the University of Southern California’s Rossier School
of Education (RSOE) Ed.D. program. Ten researchers, as part of a thematic group,
conducted concurrent studies utilizing similar format and research questions.
To maintain standardization of data collection among the research groups a
fieldwork training session was conducted on May 16, 2009, facilitated by Dr. Picus.
The one-day training included instruction on a data collection system used in the
94
Arkansas, Washington and Wyoming studies by Lawrence O. Picus and Associates
to uncover school expenditures related to staffing, scheduling and professional
development. Documents provided as part of the training included the following:
• Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval Form (Appendix F)
• Document Request List (Appendix G)
• Data Collection Codebook (Appendix H)
• Data Collection Protocol (Appendix I)
• Open-Ended Protocol (Appendix J)
These instruments guided the researcher in examining school site resource
allocation to target and boost student achievement.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study is to analyze the distribution of federal, state and
local educational funding at five urban Targeted and Schoolwide Title I elementary
schools in the greater Los Angeles area of Southern California. Data collected from
the qualitative and quantitative investigations were used to analyze and synthesize
the research from the five sites.
The data were reviewed for accuracy and cleaned where appropriate.
Incomplete or missing data were addressed with follow-up correspondence via phone
or e-mail with the appropriate individual. These data were merged with the
information and perspectives gathered in the interviews to create case studies for
each of the five elementary schools examined. These case studies appear in
Appendices A-E.
95
Performance data from the California Department of Education were
reviewed and considered in determining the effectiveness of the schools’ allocation
of resources. This additional information piloted the researcher to find similarities
and differences among the five schools. Each school was contrasted with the
Evidence Based Model to provide insights regarding how the schools allocate
resources within the context of the model.
Chapter Four presents the findings from the qualitative and quantitative data
analysis of schools’ resource allocation strategies to advance student achievement.
Summary of Findings
This section provides the summary for the findings from the five case study
schools as they relate to the four research questions. The research questions were
answered using quantitative and qualitative data collected from the case study
schools. The case studies are located in Appendices A-E.
Findings for Research Question One
Odden, et al. (2008) recommends the ten steps below as ingredients to obtain
high student results. The ingredients were founded in research from randomized
trials, quasi-experimental designs and meta-analyses to ascertain effective practices
that lead to high student performance outcomes. The ingredients are listed below:
1. Administer a needs assessment
2. Set high goals for student performance
3. Adopt a rigorous, standards-based curriculum
4. Engage in data-driven decision making

96
5. Commit resources in ongoing and effective professional development
6. Focus instructional time efficiently
7. Provide multiple interventions for struggling students
8. Create professional learning communities
9. Empower leaders to support instructional improvement
10. Family engagement (Odden, et al., 2008)
The five participating schools used many of the ingredients suggested by Odden et
al. (2008) to improve student performance.
1. Administer a Needs Assessment
All five schools administered needs assessments in a strong to average
manner. AAES, CCES had strong implementation of needs assessments, BBES,
EEES and DDES had average implementation. Of the three schools that showed
strong implementation of this strategy, AAES and CCES demonstrated the most
collaborative commitment to assessing needs. The principals and staffs at these
schools were vested in assessing a student’s specific needs in order to address those
needs in the classroom. They utilized benchmark assessments, formative
assessments, teacher-created materials, and other assessment tools to develop a
profile for each child.
2. Set High Goals for Student Performance
The five schools set goals for student performance, however the quality of the
goals at each of the schools varied greatly. AAES had the most collaboratively
developed goal of teaching and meeting the child’s needs at whatever level they were
97
working at to support them in meeting and surpassing proficiency on the CST. The
curriculum adopted by AAES was aligned with their philosophy that instruction
should focus on the child’s needs, and the staff collaborated to develop lessons
differentiated to the specific needs of the students in their classes. The other four
schools’ student performance goals focused on improving API scores.
3. Adopt a Rigorous, Standards-based Curriculum
All five schools adopted a rigorous standards-based curriculum in both
language arts and math. Four of the five schools adopted material based on the state
recommendations; AAES did not decide to use a curriculum that the state
recommended. AAES selected the Columbia Readers and Writers Project in
Language Arts, and Cognitively Guided Instruction in Mathematics, neither of which
appear on the state’s recommendation list. AAES faculty, however, painstakingly
went through all the lessons in both the language arts and math adoptions and
aligned them with the California Standards. These alignments were presented to the
district, which, upon review, issued AAES a waiver to use material not on the state
adoption list.
4. Engage in Data-based Decision Making
All five of the schools use data in some way to inform instruction. They use
data for formative assessments, benchmark exams, and teacher-created assessments
to evaluate a student’s instructional level. These evaluation data were used to guide
classroom instruction, and may also be utilized to identify students for intervention
programs offered at the school. The differences in the implementation of engaging
98
in data-based decision making lie in the staff’s commitment to employ this strategy
and frequently use data to inform their practice to meet the needs of the students.
5. Commit Resources in Ongoing and Effective Professional Development
The faculties at the schools that participated in this study were provided with
ongoing professional development. All districts offered two to five pupil-free days
before and during the school year to provide professional development.
Additionally, all of the schools offered weekly time for ongoing professional
development. Differences between the five schools regarding the effectiveness of
the professional development lie in the schools’ commitment to professional
development, the teachers’ willingness to use what is learned in the professional
development, and the quality of the professional development.
6. Focus Instructional Time Efficiently
The schools allocated significant blocks of time for core instruction in
language arts and math, however none of the principals at the five schools was
provided a schedule of specific instructional time for language arts and math for each
grade level. The principals conducted walk arounds as an accountability safeguard
on the use of instructional time, but this time was not specifically used evaluate
instructional time. This was not a strong instructional ingredient at any of the five
case study schools.
7. Provide Multiple Interventions for Struggling Students
Extra help for struggling students is an area of strength at all five observed
schools. Elements of Response to Intervention (RTI) were utilized for in-class
99
interventions (Tier 1), pull-out interventions (Tier 2), and special education
interventions (Tier 3). Intervention classes were held during the school day and after
school. Two schools offered summer school for struggling, EL, and
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students. Instruction is provided by credentialed
teachers so that struggling students can receive additional instruction in the area of
difficulty with the aim of recovering skills and returning to the general classroom.
8. Create Professional Development Communities
All five schools meet on a weekly basis to collaborate. The schools modified
schedules to provide weekly collaboration time within the school day or with a
minimum day for students once a week. The schools referred to this weekly
protected time as Professional Learning Communities (PLC).
9. Empower Leaders to Support
Effective transformational leadership was evident at AAES. The principal
and staff work together to form a centralized instructional plan to meet the needs of
the students. Strong leadership was evident within the staff at CCES, yet leadership
was not centralized on the principal. Both aforementioned schools scored in the top
three deciles of the statewide rankings in 2008-2009 school year. EEES also scored
in the top two deciles in the statewide rankings, however their demographics reveal a
student population with very different needs. The populations served at EEES were
not as disenfranchised as those at the other four schools. Four of the five schools
that participated in this study had principals with less than 3 years experience at the
case study school. The new principals were in the process of developing the
100
leadership capacities of their staffs. Developing depth in instructional leadership at
these sites may enable the schools to make systemic changes to improve their
instructional programs.
10. Family Engagement
The five schools that participated in the study all acknowledged the value of
family engagement to support student learning and offered families opportunities to
support the school in a variety of ways. AAES and EEES had the most active
participation of the community. BBES and DDES had some opportunities for
families and CCES admitted to a need for increased family engagement at the
school.
Table 5.1 – Instructional Improvement Strategies Rankings vis-à-vis 2009 API
Scores
School Improvement Strategies 2008-2009 API
AAES 8 (strong)/2 (average) 832
BBES 2 (strong)/8 (average) 762
CCES 5 (strong)/4 (average)/1 (weak) 832
DDES 2 (strong)/5 (average)/3 (weak) 742
EEES 3(strong)/6 (average)/1 (weak) 854

Conclusions for Research Question One
Although EEES has the highest API score at 854, their demographic needs
are not comparable to the high needs of the other four schools. As indicated in Table
5.1, the two schools that had high need populations, AAES and CCES, and
implemented improvement strategies in a strong manner, scored highest on
standardized test as indicated by API scores. Schools that implemented the fewest
number of effective strategies did not meet California’s 800 API scoring goal. The
101
data above suggest that the number of instructional improvement strategies utilized
seem to help schools improve student performance on the statewide standardized
tests. Furthermore, the data reveal that the relationship between number of
instructional strategies utilized and API scores may not have the same impact on
schools with historically higher performing students.
Findings for Research Questions Two and Three
Question Two posed, “How are resources used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?” The third research question asked, “How did the
allocation and use of resources change in response to the recent budget reductions?”
Data related to Research Questions Two and Three are included in the case studies
which can be found it Appendices A-E, and data from the case studies were utilized
to answer Research Questions Two and Three.
The principals at the five case study schools indicated that the availability of
human and financial resources plays a key role in implementing a school’s
instructional improvement plan. Districts and principals began budgeting
conservatively, due to California Budget Crisis and the fiscal uncertainty facing
education funding starting around 2008. Furthermore, principals at the case study
schools revealed that the fiscal uncertainty was pivotal in how they allocated
resources at the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year.
A significant amount of human resources was used to develop a strategic plan
for dealing with possible budget reductions. A program that lost favor during this
time was the Class Size Reduction (CSR) program. Two of the five schools
102
increased class sizes in the 2009-2010 school year. CCES and EEES increased class
sizes from 20-to-1 to 24-to 1 in grades K-3; in the 2010 academic year class sizes
will increase to 30-to-1 in grades K-3. School funding was reduced and the five
schools studied reallocated funding based on their strategic plans for the schools. All
five principals indicated the need for additional instructional coaches to improve
instruction at the schools and aid with professional development.
Conclusions for Research Questions Two and Three
All five of the schools utilized, to varying degrees, Odden, et al.’s (2008) Ten
Steps to Double Performance. Furthermore, principals acknowledged the importance
of instructional funding in implementing their school improvement plans and
instructional strategies for meeting their instructional goals. A significant amount of
human resources was used to plan and redesign programs in preparation for possible
cuts in the school budgets. Uncertain educational funding for the 2009-2010 school
year delayed implementation of some instructional programs or the restructuring of
programs. There were no instructional coaches at any of the five schools studied, yet
the principals unanimously indicated this was an area of need at their sites. Three of
the four schools increased class in 2009. The impact of these changes may not be
evident until the API and AYP scores are posted for the 2009-2010 school year.
Findings for Research Question Four
Question Four inquires how the actual resource use patterns at the school
sights are aligned with, or differ from, the resource use strategies recommended in
the Evidence Based Model (EBM). The resource comparison tables in each of the
103
case studies provide the data from each of the five case study schools that were used
to answer Research Question Four. Additionally, Tables 4.9 and 4.10 in Chapter
Four provide a synthesis and analysis of how all five schools compare to the EBM.
The comparison between the prototypical Evidence Based Model (EBM)
elementary school and the actual school data from the five schools reveals that the
case study schools steadily retain fewer resources than recommended in the EBM.
The resource allocations were broken down into the following six categories for this
study:
1. Core teachers and Specialist teachers
2. Resources for extra help (Instructional Facilitators/Mentors, Tutors,
Teacher for English Learners, Extended Day, Summer School,
Learning Disabled support, GATE Students support, and instructional
assistants)
3. Professional Development
4. Librarian/Media Specialist
5. Support Staff
6. School Administration
1. Core and Specialist Teachers
At each of the five case study schools, fewer core and specialist teachers are
employed than are called for in the EBM recommendations. One factor that explains
this difference is increased class size. The EBM provides enough resources to staff
grades kindergarten to third grade at fifteen to one and twenty-five to one in fourth
104
through sixth grades. The class sizes at the five schools studied ranged from twenty
to twenty five to one in kindergarten to third grade and thirty to thirty-five to one in
fourth through sixth grades. Furthermore, the data indicate that all schools in the
study are underfunded in the area of specialist teachers.
2. Resources for Extra Help
The EBM recommends the allocation of additional resources for extra help
based on the demographics of the schools. Resources for extra help include
instructional mentors, tutors and teachers for English Learners. All of the schools
employed fewer specialist teachers than recommended in the EBM. The data also
show that all of observed schools underfund extended-day programs compared to the
EBM, and none of the schools apportioned resources to extend the school day. Extra
help was given to students before, during, or after school based on the students’ areas
of weakness. The Response to Intervention Model (RTI) was utilized to identify the
struggling students. The before, during, or after school programs provide additional
assistive instruction forty-five to sixty minutes per day, three to five days per week,
in 6-8 week sessions. Only two schools, EEES and CCES, provided summer school
programs as a resource for extra help. These schools utilized Title I and EL funds to
support the program.
3. Professional Development with Instructional Coaches
The EBM recommends 10 days of intensive professional development at the
beginning of the school year. These 10 days are to take place outside of the
recommended 190 instructional days proposed in the EBM. Teachers are to work
105
with fellow staff members to improve their professional practice. All five schools
studied have partially implemented professional development days into the school
calendar, offering two to five days of professional development.
The EBM also recommends instructional coaches to provide ongoing
professional development to the school faculty throughout the year. Only one
school, AAES, provides funding for instructional facilitators. It is noteworthy that
all five principals expressed a desire to employ additional mentors to assist in their
professional development efforts.
4. Library/Media Personnel
None of schools in this study employed library/media teachers. The EBM
recommends one library/media teacher for elementary schools. All five schools are
underfunded in this area.
5. Pupil Support Staff
The EBM defines pupil support staff as counselors, nurses, psychologists,
and other direct service providers. All five schools are underfunded in this area.
AAES comes the closest at 3.4 full time equivalent (FTE) staff members; based on
their number of students classified as living in poverty, however, AAES should have
8.5 FTE according to EBM guidelines.
6. School Administration
The EBM identifies school administration as principals, assistant principals
and school secretaries. The EBM funds one principal per school site, a criterion met
by all five schools. DDES and EEES qualify for at least some part-time assistant
106
principal support based on their school population. None of the five case study
schools are staffed with an assistant principal.
The EBM recommends two school site secretaries. Three schools—AAES,
BBES, and DDES—met recommended number of secretaries. Two of the schools,
CCES and EEES, did not meet the recommendation. Every school that participated
in the case study fell short of secretarial support when compared to the EBM. The
EBM recommends for two full twelve-month secretaries. The five schools
participating in the study have one secretary to two secretaries each that work ten or
eleven months in a school year.
Conclusions for Research Question Four
In comparing EBM resource indicators with the actual resource strategies in
place at the five case study schools, the data reveal that schools are underfunded.
Schools participating in the study had more needs yet fewer resources to meet those
needs. The area that most similarly aligns with the EBM is administrative support.
Most schools had at least one principal as recommended in the EBM. In addition,
three of the four schools employ two school secretaries which mirrors the EBM
recommendation. Two schools staffed the school secretary at fifty percent of the
recommended number of secretaries. It is noteworthy that AAES most similarly
meets the allocation recommendations of the EBM, has the most demographically
challenging group of students, and has the second highest API Score. It is interesting
that CCES has the same API score as AAES but has a population with fewer needs
than AAES.
107
Recommendation
The findings and conclusions of this study undergird to the following
recommendations:
One: AAES implements the majority of Odden et al.’s (2008) Ten Steps to
Double Performance. At this site, the principal, school leaders and teachers have a
common vision to address student needs. The cornerstone of this school is that
instruction must focus on each individual child. Lessons, interventions, curriculum
adoption, professional development are refined to ensure that every child makes
progress toward proficiency and beyond on the California Standards Test. Although
this school had a drop in API score in 2009 they are outperforming schools with
similar demographic characteristics.
To sustain growth in student achievement schools should have a shared
purpose will all stakeholders. Parents, principal, teachers, and other school staff
members should have a common purpose of meeting the needs of all students at the
school. This shared purpose should drive resource allocation decisions and
instructional improvement strategies at the school.
Two: All five case study schools have incorporated a schedule that provides
teachers with ongoing professional development thorough Professional Learning
Communities. This type of professional development offers teachers at the school
the opportunity to strengthen their professional practice. Research has shown
learning communities improve teacher knowledge and skills (Dufour, 2006).
108
Improved teacher quality, in turn, has a positive impact on student performance
(Haycock, 1998).
It is the recommendation of this study that schools continue to imbed and
advance opportunities for continuing professional development and teacher
collaboration. Suggestions for collaboration include, but are not limited to,
horizontal and vertical articulation as well as the sharing of effective instructional
practices to improve student achievement. This process of building a collegial
professional development program should be an integral part of a school’s
improvement program. Research grounded in the reculturation of a school reveals
moving a school to a collaborative and away from an isolationist path paves a new
road to make improvements in teaching and learning (DuFour et al., 2006; Gallimore
& Goldenberg, 2001).
Three: All five principals of the schools in the study feel that instruction
coaches would benefit their improvement efforts. Resource constraints limited the
principals’ ability to hire coaches to provide support to teachers in meeting the needs
of struggling students and to lead professional development topics. Furthermore,
additional days are needed provide intensive professional development. These days
need to take place prior to the beginning of the school year. Instructional coaches
can continue the ongoing support related to the professional development offered
before the school year.
It is the researcher’s recommendation that districts adjust the teacher work
year to allow for ten professional development days prior to the start of school.
109
Furthermore districts should allocate additional resources to professional
development and instructional coaches. Additional funding in this manner may open
new ways to provide effective ongoing support for the struggling students.
Four: Four of the five schools in the study had difficulty with sustained
leadership. Two schools had new principals at the beginning of the 2009 school year
while two other schools had principals that started in 2008. The four principals cited
challenges with the staff support of the administration or challenges with leadership
stability.
In order to sustain student growth, a principal should have ample time to
affect change in the school. Principals should stay at schools for more than two
years to have an impact on the school. Additionally, districts should strive to find
transformative principals that can lead their staffs to achieve greater things as a
collective than as individuals. This approach to leadership changes the complexion
and context of the school. Transformational leadership shows promise for
empowering schools to succeed in times of uncertainty (Northouse, 2007).
Five: The research suggests that schools that most closely follow the EBM
recommendations perform better on the standardized test. Nonetheless, the
researcher would not advocate the use of block grants to unilaterally implement the
EBM at all California schools. The key to the success of the EBM is a district’s or
site’s committed adoption of the methodology. Mandating its implementation could
cause districts and sites to equate the EBM with other imposed change models,
which could potentially taint the possibility of the EBM’s wholesale embrace by the
110
district or school that is commissioned to enact it, the result of which could be a
diminishment the EBM’s effectiveness. Thus the researcher recommends
disseminating as much valid research on the EBM as possible to district and site
leadership, providing those leaders the opportunity to decide if the Evidence Based
Model is feasible and worthwhile at their locales.
Suggestions for Future Research
Based on the data collected from five Southern California schools, the
following are suggestions for future research:
One: This study found that class sizes at the elementary level, kindergarten to
six grade, at the studied schools are larger than what is recommended in the
Evidence Based Model. Currently there is little substantive experimental design
research available on this topic. Research should be conducted in California schools
with high populations of English Learners and students at risks to investigate the
impact of class size.
Two: All five participating school principals indicated a need for
instructional coaches. Instructional coaches provide support for teachers trying to
meet the increasing demands of their profession in times of changing student
demographics, and aid in providing ongoing professional development. Research
needs to be conducted on methods schools can employ to reallocate resources to fund
the addition of instructional coaches at the schools.
Three: The data collected at the five schools demonstrate a connection
between leadership and school performance. A principal that does not understand
111
the culture and needs of the school may cause a disconnect between the principal and
staff. Often rifts impede a comprehensive instructional improvement effort. Little
research is available on the how and why good leadership works (Spillane,
Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). Further research needs to be conducted on how to
evaluate and select an effective leader, what makes them effective, and why.
Concluding Remarks
As the 2014 goal of 100 percent proficiency according to NCLB criteria
approaches, schools continue to struggle with proficiency. This is particularly
evident in schools with large populations of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged and
English Learner students. Compounding this problem is the economic crisis causing
a scarcity of educational resources in California. With the fast approaching NCLB
deadline and budget reductions, schools need to carefully examine resources
allocations to ensure that every student receives the instruction necessary to achieve
and surpass proficiency.
Although the findings and recommendations of this study are not
generalizable, it can help to inform practitioners and policymakers by providing
insight to how five Southern California elementary schools allocated resources to
improve student achievement.
112
REFERENCES

Adams, J. E. (1994). Spending school reform dollars in Kentucky: Familiar patterns
and new programs, but is this reform? Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 16(4), 375-390.

Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3),
259-287.

Barth, R., DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Eason-Watkins, B., Fullan, M.,
Lezotte, L., Reeves, D., Saphier, J., Schomoker, M., Sparks, D., and Stiggins,
R. (2005). On Common Ground: The Power of Professional Learning
Communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree (Formerly National Education
Service).

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: the strategies for taking charge. New
York: Harper & Row.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind
experience, and school: Expanded edition. Washington DC: The National
Academies Press.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Busch, C. & Odden, A. (1997). Special issue: Collection of school-level finance
data. Journal of Education Finance, 22(3).

California Department of Education (2007). Overview of California’s 2006 Similar
Schools Ranks Based on the API. Retrieved August 19, 2010, from
www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/simschl06b.pdf.

California Department of Finance. Glossary of Budgetary Terms. Retrieved July 11,
2009, from www.dof.ca.gov/html/bud_docs/glossary.pdf.

Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, Georgia: CEP Press.

Coon, Art. “Separate And Unequal: Serrano Played an Important Role in
Development of School-District Policy.” www.findlaw.com, accessed July
28, 2009. library.findlaw.com/1999/Dec/1/129939.html.

Cuban, L. (1993). How teacher taught: Constancy and change in american
classrooms 1890-1990. New York: Teacher College Press.
113
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.

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

Educational Data Partnership [Ed-Data] (2010). Accessed July 2009, www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us.

Firestone, W. A., Goertz, M. E., Nagle, B., & Smelkinson, M. F. (1994). Where did
the $800 million go? The first years of New Jersey's quality education act.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(4), 359-347.

Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Fullan, M. (2003). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fullan, M. (1997). What's Worth Fighting For in the Principalship? New York:
Teachers College Press.

Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C., (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research.
Educational Psychologist, 36, pp. 45-56.

Goe, L. (2006). Evaluating a state-sponsored school improvement program through
an improved school finance lens. Journal of Education Finance, 31(4), 395-
419.

Guthrie, J. W., & Rothstein, R. (1999). Enabling Adequacy to Achieve Reality:
Translating Adequacy Into State School Finance Distribution Arrangements.
Equity and Adequacy in School Finance: Issues and Perspectives,
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 209-259.

Hanushek, E. (2006). Courting Failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges’
good intentions and harm our children. Stanford: Hoover Press.

Hanushek, E., et al. (1994). Making schools work: Improving performance and
controlling costs. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.

Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well qualified teachers can close
the gap. Education Trust Thinking K-16, 3 (2) 1-14
114
Jacobs, E., (1995) Reflective Practice and Anthropology in Culturally Diverse
Classroom, The Elementary School Journal 95(5), p. 451-463.

Jefferson, A. L. (2005). Student performance: Is more money the answer? Journal of
Education Finance, 31(2), 111-124.

Lee, J., and Wong, K.K. (2004) The Impact of Accountability on Racial and
Socioeconomic Equity: Considering Both School Resources and
Achievement Outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, December
21, 2004, 41: 797-832.

Legislative Analyst’s Office. “Proposition 98 Primer.” Legislative Analyst’s Office
newletter, February 2005. Digital archive accessed August 1, 2009.
www.lao.ca.gov/2005/prop_98_primer/prop_98_primer_020805.htm

Loeb, S. (2007, August 6). Difficulties of estimating the cost of achieving education
standards (Working Paper 23). Stanford: School Finance Redesign Project.

Kouzes, B. Z., & Posner, J. M. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get
extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bas
Inc.

Martin, Lisa. “Exploring the Gann Limit: Then and Now.” Cal-Tax Digest, July
2000. Digital archive accessed August 1, 2009.
www.caltax.org/member/digest/July2000/jul00-9.htm

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Associated for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R., Walters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R., Pikering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria,
VA: Associated for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Miles, K. H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Rethinking the allocation of teaching
resources: Some lessons from high performing schools. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(1), 9-29.

North Central Regional Education Laboratory. Professional Learning Community.
Retrieved July 28, 2009.
from www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/currclum/cu3lk22.htm.
115
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Oates, W. E. (1999). An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic
Literature, 37(3), 1120-1149.

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

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

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, 323-356.

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

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

Odden, A., Monk, D., Nakib, Y., & 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. O. (2004). School finance adequacy: The state role. Insights on Education
Policy, Practice, and Research, 16(march), 1-12.

Picus, L. O., Odden, A., Aportela, A. Mangan, M. T., and Goetz, M. (2008)
Implementing School Finance Adequacy: School Level Resource Use in
Wyoming Following Adequacy-Oriented Finance Reform.

116
Propositions 98 and 111 texts and abstracts. Library of University of California,
Hastings College of the Law. Digital archive accessed August 1, 2009.
library.uchastings.edu/cgi-
bin/starfinder/0?path=calprop.txt&id=webber&pass=webber&OK=OK.

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).

Schmoker, M. (2005). Here and now: Improving teaching and Learning. In R.
DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.). On common ground: The power of
professional learning communities (pp. 135-153). Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree (formerly National Education Service).

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating School
Leadership Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Educational Researcher,
30(3), p. 23-28.

United States Department of Education. Glossary of Terms – No Child Left Behind.
Retrieved July 11, 2009,
from www2.ed.gov/nclb/index/az/glossary.html?src=az#24.

United States Department of Education. Overview of the Comprehensive School
Reform Program. Retrieved July 11, 2009, from
www2.ed.gov/programs/compreform/2pager.html.

Verstegen, D. A. (2007). Has adequacy been achieved? A study of finances and
costs a decade after court-ordered reform. Journal of Education Finance,
32(3), 304-327.

Wilson, S. M. and Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of
professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary
professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209.

York, Anthony. “A brief Proposition 98 primer.” Capitol Weekly, March 5, 2009.
Digital archives accessed August 1, 2009.
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=y5z0o6l7wqlnbw&xid=xt8qwy
gzegdyti&done=.y5z0oo51av8nfc
117
APPENDIX A
CASE STUDY ONE
AA Elementary School: Instructional Improvement Strategies and Resource Use
AA Elementary School (AAES) is one of 52 elementary schools in the XX
Unified School District (XXUSD). Located in southern Los Angeles County, CA,
the XX Unified School District currently serves a total of approximately 90,000
students in grades K-12 with nine K-8, one K-12, six comprehensive high schools,
eight grades 6-8 middle schools, seventeen grades K-5 elementary schools, five
alternative education schools, four charter schools, one outdoor school, and an adult
education school. XXUSD is classified as a large urban district. AAES,
geographically classified by the Ed-Data website as being set in the urban fringe of a
large city, opened its doors in 1988, serving primarily the neighborhood in which it
resides.
AAES provides a total of 53,460 instructional minutes during its year round
180-day school calendar, marked by joint start times with staggered dismissal.
AAES has a modified the bell schedule for early dismissals on Thursdays for
professional development. Additionally, AAES opens its doors one Wednesday a
month for observation by faculty and administrators from other schools both within
and without the bounds of the district.
AAES’ 2009-2010 enrollment is 411 students in grades K-5, with the ethnic
distribution of students mirroring the community’s: 41.1% Hispanic, 29.4% Asian,
18% African American, 7.5% white, 1.9% Pacific Islander, 1.5% Filipino, 0.2%
American Indian, and 0.2% did not declare their ethnic background. Approximately
118
25% of AAES’ students are identified as English Learners (EL), whose primary
languages include: Spanish (22.4%), Vietnamese (4.9%), Urdu (3.5%), Korean
(3.1%) and Japanese (2.9%), with 5.5% of the EL group speaking languages other
than English that are not part of the noted linguistic groups.
AAES serves students coming dominantly from the neighborhood’s working
class communities. The school is set in an area surrounded by apartments,
condominiums and small single-family homes. The principal indicated that 10-12%
of the student population is permit students from surrounding schools; neighboring
schools have had issues with gang violence and low test scores.
AAES, as a Title I school-wide funds recipient, has seen the percentage of
students qualifying for free or reduced lunches steadily grow; in the 2009-2010
academic year, 85% of students qualified, markedly higher than the district average
of 68%. Approximately 8% more AAES students qualified for school lunches in
2009 than 2006. Figure A1 illustrates the growth in the population of reduced or free
lunch qualifying students.

Figure A1 – AAES Percent Free and Reduced Lunch for Academic Years 2005-2009

Although the percent of free and reduced lunch students at AAES has
increased over the past five years, longitudinal data from the California Department
of Education reveal that AAES’ Academic Performance Index (API) has remained
high. AAES has met the 800 API target as well as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
The goal for the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is to surpass an API threshold
score for both the student population as a whole and statistically significant
subgroups. Most of AAES’ student population has exceeded the 800 API
benchmark. The 2008-2009 API indices indicate a decrease in test scores as a school
and in all statistically significant subgroups. Figure A2 illustrates the school-wide
API compared to the API for all statistically significant subgroups.

119
Figure A2 – AAES API Scores for Academic Years 2005-2009

The school has performed well on the API index, however it has had
challenges sustaining growth. School-wide API gained 20 index points in 2006 and
24 index points in 2007. Then, in 2008 and 2009 API scores fell 8 and 17 points
respectively.
Table A1 – AAES API Scores for Academic Years 2005-2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
2005-2009
All Students 813 833 857 849 832 +19
Asian 846 846 883 878 829 -17
Hispanic or Latino 779 815 837 822 812 +33
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
797 822 851 835 821 +24
English
Learner
793 821 838 840 779 -14
Hispanic/Asian
Gap
67 31 45 56 17
120

121
In the analysis of five year API data, the school-wide API has increased by
19 points. Hispanic or Latino and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students have
increased their API by 33 and 24 index points respectively, reflecting growth that
surpasses the school-wide total. Asians and English learners, however, have net
losses of -17 and -14 respectively. Noteworthy is that the gap between the Asians
and Hispanic subgroup has narrowed since 2005, reaching a low of 17 points in
2009. It should be noted, however, that this is due in part to the fall in API score
among AAES’ Asian students.
Although test scores dipped in the 2008 and 2009 school years, AAES has
maintained a rank of 10 on the Similar Schools Ranking. The Similar Schools Ranks
clusters 100 schools with like demographics and categorizes them relative to each
other based on these demographic factors. The schools are gathered in deciles and
scored on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being best. Since the Similar Schools Ranks is
based on a group of 100 schools, the top ten schools will earn a rank of 10; the
lowest ten schools will earn a rank of 1. Table A2 details the Similar Schools Ranks’
decile ratings.

122
Table A2 – Similar Schools Ranks Decile Rating Scale
Highest Scoring Elementary School 100

Decile 10

90

Decile 9

80

Decile 8

70

Decile 7

60

Decile 6

50

Decile 5

40

Decile 4

30

Decile 3

20

Decile 2

10

Lowest Scoring Elementary School 1
Decile 1

AAES’ Similar Schools Rank of 10 puts the site in the top 10% of schools of
like demographics. On the Statewide Ranking, AAES is in the top 30% with a rank
of 7. Table A3 illustrates AAES’ Similar Schools Ranking for the academic period
2005-2009.

123
Table A3 – AAES Similar Schools Ranking for Academic Years 2005-2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Statewide Rank 8 8 9 8 7
Similar Schools Rank 10 10 10 10 10

AAES’ Statewide Rank has been declining. From an apex of 9 in 2007,
AAES’ rank has dropped one decile each subsequent year and is currently at 7.
Nevertheless, AAES falls in the top three deciles, or the top 30%, of all schools in
the statewide ranks.
In an effort to improve academic achievement AAES has adopted Response
to Intervention (RTI), Professional Learning Communities (PLC), and offers
opportunities for others schools to be mentored by their site. Additionally, AAES
fought district adoption of the Open Court Reading and Harcourt curricula in both
Language Arts and Math. AAES has received many awards for outstanding school
performance. The next section details the steps AAES is taking in employing these
and other models and programs to ensure growth in and improvement of student
academic achievement.
Curriculum and Instruction
Response to Intervention (RTI)
The AAES has collaboratively developed a RTI model to address the needs
of students not attaining proficiency on the California Standards Test (CST). RTI’s
fundamental principles involve high quality instruction combined with frequent
124
assessments and data-based decision making. Many Thursday minimum days are
used for reviewing case studies in the RTI model.
There are three tiers in the RTI pyramid of interventions. Tier I, the broadest
and basic, is a school-wide intervention supporting all students at the site. Affecting
core instruction, Tier I is the most broadly preventative and proactive program,
addressing the needs of 80-90% of the site’s student population. Some students,
however, require a second tier of intervention that provides additional supports for
those students who are in an at risk subgroup. Tier II interventions affect 5-10% of
the school’s student population. Tier III interventions affect approximately 1-5% of
the student body. Students in this tier often require intensive individual support as
they have not responded sufficiently to Tier I and II programs. In many cases, Tier
III groups include Special Education and Far Below Basic students who are taking
the California Modified Assessment (CMA).
AAES, being a Title I school with categorical funding and additional
financial support from a Cotsen Family Foundation grant, has directed funds for
English Language Arts (ELA) and math interventions for students ranked Basic,
Below Basic and Far Below Basic. The school has developed a school-wide reading
and writing focus for Tier I and Tier II students drawn from the Columbia Writing
and Reading Project and a math focus utilizing Cognitively Guided Instruction
(CGI).
AAES established a case study method for discussing the struggling student.
The protocol is to present, step out, and discuss. A teacher presents a student to
125
fellow faculty and their grade-alike peers, illustrating the case using anecdotal and
formal records data that support the analysis of the student. Additionally, the
presenting teacher must detail the classroom strategies utilized with the struggling
student. Then, the classroom teacher must step out of the presentation forum and
remain silent while their colleagues discuss the student. Following the discussion the
teacher steps back in to respond to the committee’s recommendations and disclose
the additional support that will be provided to the student. In certain cases, the team
may choose to place the struggling student in an intervention class. The intervention
program includes 30 minutes a day, 3 days a week, of protected RTI class time for
the struggling student.
Struggling students scoring Basic and Below Basic may also be identified for
this additional support in areas of weakness. These small group and individual
instructional pieces are implemented in six-week intervals with the goals of specific
skills instruction, additional practice, and preparation for the CST. Progress
monitoring is a key component and students are moved in and out of this
intervention at the beginning of each six-week cycle.
AAES staff has also targeted underperforming subgroups for specific ELA
skills and math instruction. In a further allocation of Title I and grant funds, a
computer lab teacher was hired for the 2009-2010 school year, with a goal of
meeting the student needs at all levels. Intervention classes are initiated to
concentrate on reading comprehension, writing and math.
126
The curriculum and instructional pieces are to help students attain the NCLB
goal of 100% proficiency by 2014. The instructional component is to differentiate
instruction to meet the varied needs of the students and to close the achievement gap.
Classes remediate instruction specific to the child’s needs in order to help students
recover and return to the school-wide instruction.
The Tier III K-5 students are in the Kindergarten Community of Learners
class or Special Education class. The Community of Learners class is a blended
Kindergarten class includes General Education and Special Education students.
AAES has three additional special education classes: pre-kindergarten and
kindergarten, primary, and intermediate. Students are included in the general
education classes as appropriate. The special education program is a collaboration of
the special education teacher, serving as the student’s caseworker, with selected
regular classroom teachers, para-educators, learning center aides, occupational
therapists, physical therapists, adaptive physical educators and speech teachers
present for pull out and push in services.
AAES has four credentialed special education teachers and eleven special
education aides. District special education support includes a full time speech
teacher and a half-time academic counselor services. The special education teachers,
along with appropriate Individual Education Plan (IEP) team members facilitate IEPs
and coordinate services for the special education student population.
Funds at AAES have been apportioned to include a full time computer
teacher, a full time classified aid, the 20% balance of the salary for one 5
th
grade
127
teacher (XXUSD contributes only 80% of the salary due to low enrollment), and a
bilingual, Spanish speaking aide for 3.75 hours a day. The bilingual aide offers EL
students individualized and small group instruction on specific skills in the students’
particular areas of difficulty. A sizeable financial commitment has been made to
professional development to improve instruction at AAES.
Professional Learning Community (PLC)
AAES spends a significant portion of their discretionary budget on
Professional Development through PLC. AAES modified their workweek to provide
a minimum of 50 minutes of teacher collaboration a week. Thursday PLC meetings
are largely based on teacher needs. Content items addressed are Cognitively Guided
Instruction (CGI), collaboration through PLC, and presenting case studies and
methods for supporting struggling students. Faculty meeting time is often devoted to
professional development to extend the PLC time as needed.
In the 2008-2009 school year professional development focused on the
Columbia Writing and Reading Project. In the 2009-2010 school year the focus has
been on developing Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) for math instruction. An
approach rather than a program, the focused instruction of CGI is based on the
learner’s way of thinking and problem solving in mathematics, and on valuing
conceptual understanding over computational skills. Five days of teacher training
centered on CGI at the start of the 2009-2010 school year. Once a month a
consultant, paid by the Cotsen Family Foundation, conducts two hours of CGI
mentoring, observations, and/or training. Teachers are central in making judgments
128
to determine a student’s conceptual understanding and problem solving capabilities.
Instruction is not based on a set program, but on the student’s knowledge and the
teacher’s assessment of the child’s level of understanding. Teachers must draw upon
a variety of practices to ensure student needs are met at all the levels.
AAES is considered a high performing urban school. They have been
acknowledged as a California Distinguished School in 2004 and 2008; a Title I
Academic Achievement Award Winner in 2006, 2007 and 2008; an XXUSD STAR
Award winner in 2005, 2006 and 2007; and on the XXUSD Academic Honor Roll in
2008. As a high achieving Title I school, AAES is in high demand as a
demonstration site. One Wednesday every month is dedicated for teachers and site
administrators from inside the district to visit and learn more about AAES; faculty
and site managers from other districts are also welcome to visit on these host
Wednesdays.
Use of Data
AAES has used data to drive collaborative efforts at the school. Teachers in
the various grade levels have met via PLC to set goals using data from benchmark
assessments to propel the classroom and intervention instruction. The case study
protocol provides a framework for conversations on effective teaching and tactics for
supporting struggling students. Teachers collect data and present it in their case
study. Collectively, they establish the specific area of need and establish a plan to
benchmark and measure student outcomes during a six- to eight-week period.
Students may be referred to a pull out class to get a double dose of instruction in
129
specific areas of need in reading, writing, or math. Students are pulled out for the
double dose of core instruction during non-core classes. Research based practices,
along with planning for differentiated instruction, are shared to help all learners
attain proficiency.
In 2003, AAES rejected the adoption of Open Court and applied for a waiver
to continue to utilize the Columbia Reading and Writing Project, an embedded
program at AAES since the inception of the project at Columbia University.
Meetings were held involving district directors, school administrators, and school
leaders to investigate the feasibility of continuing the Columbia Reading and Writing
Project at AAES. XXUSD established the protocol for moving forward with this
unprecedented request. The teacher leaders, supported by the site administrators,
pushed for the wavier as vital to providing high quality instruction for all students.
The district representatives agreed to support the wavier with the condition that the
teachers provide the district with a curriculum map aligning the Columbia Reading
and Writing Project with the California State Standards, assessments that align with
the district benchmark assessment, and that the school must maintain a high level of
performance on the CSTs.
AAES teachers worked tirelessly to generate the necessary documentation to
continue the use of the Columbia Reading and Writing Project. They are the only
school in the district to have a waiver to use a curriculum other than Open Court for
Language Arts. Along with this alternate language curriculum, AAES utilizes the
CGI mathematics in lieu of the California HSP Mathematics.
130
AAES has been and continues to be an innovative school where the teachers’
voice is highly valued and supported by the school administration and district
leaders. Often this grassroots mindset comes with the consequence of extra work,
such as reading professional journals and reflecting on one’s practice with the goal of
improving practice and improving student learning. When there has been a
mismatch between the site administration and staff, test scores, staff, and students
have suffered.
Leadership
The principal identified administrative turnover and fiscal instability as
significant factors contributing to the 8 and 17 point drop in API in 2008 and 2009
respectively. Since 2005 AAES has had four site administrators. The administrator
jokingly noted that at the end of this school year he will be longest reining principal
in 5 years. The lack of sustained leadership has caused divisions within the faculty.
A new site administrator was installed at AAES in 2004. The principal
remained at AAES for two years during which time she was able to sustain two years
of growth in API scores. The school-wide API in 2005 was 813, and rose to 833 in
2006. From the 800 API score she inherited at her appointment, API scores
improved 33 index points during her tenure.
The site administrator was promoted to the district’s Director of Special
Education. A new principal was hired in 2006 and left after one year. Following
that another principal was hired in 2007 and left after one year. The current
administrator cites a mismatch between the philosophy of administrators and staff as
131
a possible reason for the exits. School-wide API scores fell 8 points from 857 in
2007 to 849 in 2008.
The launch of the 2008-2009 academic year saw another change in site
leadership. Scores fell again 17 points to 832 in 2009. The principal cites a funding
downturn, fiscal and administrative instability, and the cumulative effects of rotating
site command as potential causes for the decrease in the API scores.
Comparison of AAES resource allocation to the Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model (Odden and Picus, 2008) is used to examine
AAES’ resources allocation. The Evidence Based Model (EBN) is an adequacy
model based on research strategies for improving student achievement that has
shown promise in studies. Table A4 provides a summary of the resource use at
AAES and its relation to the EBM’s prototypical elementary school. Although
similar in school configuration and enrollment, AAES’ resource allocation falls far
short of EBM recommendations. AAES has more needs based on the increased
number of students with disabilities, students in poverty, EL students, and minority
students while resources are generally 33%. Moreover, many programs
recommended in the EBM do not exist at AAES. One program the principal desired
initiating at AAES is adding an instructional coach to support collaboration and
professional development to improve instruction.

132
Table A4 – Resource Comparison: AA Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
AA
Elementary
School
AAES – EBM
Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS

School Configuration K-5
K-5 Same as EBM
Enrollment 432 411 5% Smaller
Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K-3 20
4-5 35
25% Larger
29% Larger
Full Day Kindergarten Yes No Less then EBM
Number of Teacher work days 190 +
10 days of PD
180+
5 days of PD
5% (10 days)
less than EBM
50% (5 days)
fewer
professional
development
days
Students with Disability 12% 16% 4% more
students with
disability
Students in poverty 50% 85% 35% more
students in
poverty
EL students 10% 25% 15% more EL
students
Minority students 30% 92%

62% more
Minority
students
RESOURCES
Core Teachers 24 19 26% fewer core
teachers
133
Table A4, Continued
Specialist teachers 20% more; 4.8 (based
on student population)
3.8 (based on
the number of
core teachers)
1 at AAES
Instructional
Facilitators/mentors
2.2 .2
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students: 2.16
0
Teachers for EL 1 for every 100: .96 0
74% fewer
specialist
teachers than
EBM
2 fewer
Instructional
Facilitators
/mentors
No Tutors

No EL
Teachers

Extended day 1.8 0 No Extended
day teachers
Summer School 1.8 0 No Summer
School
Learning Disabled student 3 3 Same as EBM
GATE student $25/student 0

No GATE
Budget
Substitutes 5% of all of the above 0 No site level
substitutes
Pupil Support 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.32
0

No Pupil
Support Staff
Non-instructional aides 2 0 None at AAES
Librarian/Media specialists 1 0 None at AAES
Principal 1 1 Same as EBM
School Site Secretary 2 2 Same as EBM
Professional Development instructional
facilitators, Planning &
prep time, 10 summer
days, $100/pupil for
other PD expenses –
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc
5 days of
planning and
prep time
$15,521
($37.76 per
pupil) other PD
expenses –
trainers,
conferences,
travel, etc
50% fewer PD
days than EBM
134
Table A4, Continued
Technology $250/pupil $240/pupil 4% less spent
on technology
Instructional materials $140/ pupil $11/pupil 92% less spent
on
instructional
materials
Student activities $200/pupil 0 None budgeted
at AAES

Table A5 lists the implementations of Odden et al.’s Ten Steps to Double
Performance at AAES. The school excelled in eight areas: administering a needs
assessments, setting ambitious goals, adopting a rigorous standards-based
curriculum, engaging in data based decision making, committing resources to
ongoing and effective professional development, providing multiple interventions for
struggling student, creating professional and collaborative school cultures, and high
family engagement. The other two – using instructional time efficiently and
empowering leaders to support school improvement – were average.
Table A5 – Implementation of Odden et al.’s Ten Steps to Double Performance at AA
Elementary School
Implementation Odden’s Strategies
Strong Average Weak
Notes
1) administer a needs
assessment
√

The teachers administer benchmark
assessments in language and math
every 4 to 6 weeks.
2) set high goals for
student performance
√

The school staff works to set
ambitious goals for the grade level
and for individual students. Adopted
texts align with the philosophy of
setting high goals based on the
child’s individual needs

135
Table A5, Continued
3) adopt a rigorous,
standards-based
curriculum
√

Although the school does not utilize
the state adopted texts, the teachers
researched CGI and Columbia
Readers and Writers Project and
created their own curriculum map
and standards alignment grid. The
school is very vested in the standards
based curriculum.
4) engage in data-
driven decision making
√

The staff regularly engages in data-
based decision making utilizing their
case study protocol and benchmark
assessment data.
5) commit resources in
ongoing and effective
professional
development
√

Professional development is a core
value to the principal and staff. A
review of resource allocation reveals
resources are committed to
professional development.
6) focus instructional
time efficiently
√
Teachers use instructional time
efficiently, however the principal
does not supervise instructional time.
7) provide multiple
interventions for
struggling students
√

The school provides a variety of
programs to support the struggling
students before, during and after
school.
8) create professional
learning communities
√

The staff is dedicated to one another
and to the students. They use PLC as
a forum to foster collaboration and
professional development
9) empower leaders to
support instructional
improvement
√
The administrator empowers teacher
leaders to support instructional
improvement, reflecting the
principal’s belief that the teachers
who work with students daily know
what is best for students. The new
principal tenure in still in its infancy.
He is still recovering from the
residual effects of the prior
administrators and developing as an
instructional leader.
10) Family engagement

√

The administrator indicates that
family engagement is a strength. The
community ties have and continue to
support the school. It is a very close-
knit community with a commitment
to kids and trust in the school.

136
Future Implications
AAES has encountered a downward trend in API, a skyrocketing jump in free
and reduced lunch students, and unstable, revolving administration the last few
years. Although schools are not able to control the number of disadvantaged
students in attendance at a particular site, administrative consistency and effective
instruction is in the hands of the school and school district. Now that a principal is in
place with similar views about instruction, focused leadership, and a commitment to
struggling students, the trend can be reversed. Student data and core instruction must
be at the center of this improvement effort. CGI was the focus of professional
development in 2009-2010; next year should focus on CST results and evaluating
how the instruction can ameliorate the effects of poverty. This school’s essence is its
grass root culture that works hard to attain its desired goal. If the desired goal is API
score improvement, the pieces are in place to attain it.
137
APPENDIX B
CASE STUDY TWO

BB Elementary School: Instructional Improvement Strategies and Resource Use
BB Elementary School (BBES) is one of 19 elementary schools in the ZZ
Unified School District. Located in southeast Los Angeles County, CA. ZZ Unified
School District currently serves a total of approximately 20,789 students in grades K-
12 with four comprehensive high schools, five grades 6-8 middle schools, nineteen
grades K-5/6 elementary schools, one alternative education school, and one
continuation school. BBES opened its doors in 1972, serving primarily the
immediate neighborhood that surrounds it. BBES provides a total of 54,595
instructional minutes during its traditional 179-day school calendar, which features
joint start and dismissal times of 9:00 and 3:05 across all grades.
BBES’ 2009-2010 enrollment is 410 students in grades K-6, with the ethnic
distribution of students reflecting that of the community: 9.3% Asian, 15.4% African
American, 56.1% Hispanic, 6.3% white. The balance of the student body is made up
of Filipino, Pacific Islander students and students who did not declare their ancestry.
Of this student population, approximately 22% of students are identified as English
Learners (EL), whose primary languages include: Spanish (25.9%), Korean (3.7%),
Arabic (1.1%), Tagalog (10.7%), Khmer (0.7%) and Korean (1.1%), with 34.4% of
the EL group speaking languages other than English that are part of the noted
linguistic groups.
BBES serves students coming dominantly from the lower middle class and
socioeconomically disadvantaged families. The school is located within one block
138
of an intrastate highway and two major streets. Parents in this dominantly working
class neighborhood are typically laborers with limited education experience, and
multigenerational families sharing single family homes, apartment, and
condominiums with extended families are not uncommon.
The principal indicated that the developer who designed and constructed the
neighborhood surrounding BBES constructed an identical neighborhood a few miles
away; she states that the homes in that adjacent neighborhood are valued between
$100,000 and $150,000 more than homes in the BBES neighborhood. She attributes
this discrepancy in home values to the low API scores at the school. BBES’ API
score stands at 762; the two neighboring schools in the district have scores of 826
and 872. Homes in the surrounding area are comparable in square footage and
design, however the school the areas feed into—coupled with the neighborhood’s
proximity to major thoroughfares and traffic routes—could be a contributor to the
disparity in home values.
Class Size Reduction (CSR) began in California in 1996. Schools were given
additional funds to lower primary class sizes to 20-to-1. While many school districts
took advantage of the additional resources available through CSR, the program did
not fully fund 20-to-1 class expenses. BBES lowered class sizes K-3 to 20-to-1, but
had to increase class sizes in the 2009-2010 academic year to 22-to-1 in
kindergarten, 23-to-1 in first grade, and 24-to-1 in both second and third grades due
to budget constraints. Twenty-four students is the threshold for Class Size Reduction
at which schools will continue to receive CSR funds yet are subject to penalties for
exceeding 20 students per classroom. The current economic crisis has had an impact
on both the school and members of the community it serves.
BBES is a Title I school that has seen the percentage of students qualifying
for free and reduced lunch decline between 2005 to 2007 (66.2% in 2005; 63.3% in
2006, 57.5% in 2007), plateau in 2007-2008 academic year (57.4%), then increase to
60.7% in 2009. The number of students that qualified in 2009 was dramatically
higher than the district average of 41.1%. Approximately 3.3% more students
qualified for free or reduced school lunches in 2009 than in 2005. Figure B1
illustrates the growth in the population of reduced or free lunch qualifying students.
Figure B1 – BBES Percent Free and Reduced Lunch 2005-2009

Longitudinal data from the California Department of Education reveal that
BBES’ Academic Performance Index (API) has increased by 12 points from 2005 to
2009. The goal for No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is to surpass an API threshold
score for both the student population as a whole and statistically significant
139
subgroups. BBES’ full student population has not met 800 API benchmark nor has it
consistently made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) from 2005 to 2009. Although
AYP criteria were met in 2009 it has not been met in 3 of the last 5 years. Table B1
details BBES’ annual AYP success status.
Table B1 – BBES AYP Status 2005-2009
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2008-2009 2009-2010
No No Yes No Yes

Following four years of API scores, BBES’ scores have cycled through
alternating years of growth and decline. This up-and-down trend continues to be an
area of concern. Interestingly, all subgroups have gone up and down in test scores
synchronously.
Figure B2 – BBES API Scores for Academic Years 2005-2009

140
141
In 2005 the API gap between the school-wide and English Learner subgroups
was 45, in 2006 the gap escalated to 73 points, in 2007 the gap was at its highest
point of 82, in 2008 it was down a small amount to 75, and decreased again to 42
points in 2009. The school-wide API and the statistically significant subgroups have
increased their API scores when compared to the score from 2005. Even more
dramatic is the increase in API score from 2008 to 2009; school-wide growth 20,
Hispanic/Latino 36, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 45, and the EL 53 points.
See Table B2.
Table B2 – BBES API Scores 2005-2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
2005-2009

School-wide 750 732 761 742 762 +12
Hispanic or Latino 719 689 711 692 728 +9
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
705 689 717 682 727 +22
English
Learner
705 659 679 667 720 +15
EL / Schoolwide
Gap
45 73 82 75 42

The principal cited site level administrative problems as a possible cause for
the fluctuating test scores. She believes she was transferred from a neighboring
“High Performing” school to bring administrative stability and positive attitude to
make the 800 benchmark attainable. The principal attributes the commitment to
assessment as a possible reason for increase API.
BBES has made gains in school-wide API with statistically significant
subgroups making good progress; the Similar Schools Rank has remained in the
142
bottom four deciles, with a high of 4 in the 2005 and 2007 school years and a low of
2 in 2006. It has held at a rank of 3 in 2008 and 2009.
The Similar Schools Ranks clusters 100 schools with like demographics and
rates them relative to each other based on these demographic factors. The schools
are gathered in deciles and scored on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being best. Table B3
details the Similar Schools Ranks’ decile ratings.
Table B3 – Similar Schools Ranks Decile Rating Scale
Highest Scoring Elementary School 100

Decile 10

90

Decile 9

80

Decile 8

70

Decile 7

60

Decile 6

50

Decile 5

40

Decile 4

30

Decile 3

20

Decile 2

10

Lowest Scoring Elementary School 1
Decile 1

143
Since the Similar Schools Ranks is based on a group of 100 schools, the top
ten schools will earn a rank of 10; the lowest ten schools will earn a rank of 1.
BBES’ Similar Schools Rank of 3 in 2009 puts the site in the bottom 30% of schools
of like demographics. On the Statewide Ranking, BBES fares somewhat better with
a score of 4. Table B4 illustrates BBES’ Statewide and Similar Schools Ranking for
the period 2005-2009.
Table B4 – BBES Statewide and Similar Schools Ranking 2005-2009
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Statewide Rank 6 4 5 4 4
Similar Schools Rank 4 2 4 3 3

BBES falls in the bottom four deciles, or the bottom 40%, of all schools in
the statewide rankings. In 2005 it earned its highest mark of 6, in 2006 dropped to 4,
2007 increased slightly to 5, then has remained at 4 in 2008 and 2009. Both the
Statewide and Similar Schools Rank stayed the same in 2008 and 2009.
In an effort to improve academic achievement BBES has adopted district-
wide Response to Intervention (RTI) and Professional Learning Communities (PLC).
The next section details the steps BBES is taking in employing these and other
models and programs to ensure growth and improvement of student academic
achievement.

144
Curriculum and Instruction
Response to Intervention (RTI)
In a district led effort to meet the academic needs of all students, the district
supported Response to Intervention (RTI) program was initiated at BBES. BBES
collaboratively developed a RTI model to address the needs of students not attaining
proficiency on the California Standards Test (CST). RTI’s fundamental principles
involve high quality instruction combined with frequent assessments and data-based
decision making.
There are three tiers in the RTI pyramid of interventions. Tier I, the broadest
and basic, is a school-wide intervention supporting all students at the site. Affecting
core instruction, Tier I is the most broadly preventative and proactive program,
addressing the needs of 80-90% of the site’s student population. Some students,
however, require a second tier of intervention that provides additional supports for
those students who are in an at-risk subgroup. Tier II interventions affect 5-10% of
the school’s student population. Tier III interventions affect approximately 1-5% of
the student body. Students in this tier often require intensive individual support as
they have not responded sufficiently to Tier I and II programs. In many cases, Tier
III groups include Special Education and Far Below Basic students who are taking
the California Modified Assessment (CMA).
BBES, being a school-wide Title I school with categorical funding, has
directed funds for interventions for ELA and Math for students ranked Basic, Below
Basic and Far Below Basic. The school has developed a school-wide reading focus
145
for Tier I students based on the Accelerated Reader program. Reading
comprehension has largely been the focus of Tier II students, with programs like
Horizon Corrective Reading and Reading Gateway being utilized. Struggling
readers and students scoring Basic and Below Basic are identified for these
additional resources. These small group and individual instructional pieces are
implemented in four- to six-week intervals with the goal of specific skills instruction,
additional practice, and preparation for the CST. Progress monitoring is a key
component and students are moved in and out of this intervention every four- to six-
weeks.
The staff at BBES has targeted struggling students for specific skills
instruction in English Language Arts (ELA). In a further utilization of Title I funds,
two intervention teachers have been hired for the 2009-2010 school year, with a rise
in the test results for as the instructional goal. Classes are set-up based on each
child’s specific area of need with the focus on reading comprehension. The two
credentialed teachers offer the struggling students a double dose of core instruction
as needed.
The curriculum and instructional pieces are to help students attain the NCLB
goal of 100% proficiency by 2014. The instructional component is to differentiate
instruction to meet the varied needs of the students and to attain proficiency. Classes
remediate instruction specific to the child’s needs in order to help students recover
and return to the school-wide instruction. All instructional materials utilized in the
classes are district approved and aligned to the state standards.
146
Many of the Tier III K-5 students are in one of the two special education
classrooms at BBES. Special Day Class is a self-contained classroom with students
displaying mild to moderate learning disabilities. Students are mainstreamed as
appropriate or as directed by their Individualized Educational Plan (IEP). The
resource model is a self-contained classroom with students with mild learning
disabilities. This is a collaborative program with the Resource Specialist (RSP)
teacher as the caseworker. Students from the RSP and SDC may be mainstreamed to
a selected regular classroom teacher. Para-educators, learning center aides,
occupational therapists, physical therapists, adaptive physical special education
teachers, two SDC aids, one RSP aide, three para-educators are part of the BBES
special education team. District support for special education includes a speech
teacher. The SDC or RSP teacher, along with appropriate Individual Education Plan
(IEP) team members, facilitate IEPs and coordinate services for the special education
student population.
Professional Learning Community (PLC)
The principal has made a commitment to develop Professional Learning
Communities (PLC). Each week teachers have 1.5 hours built into the school day to
collaborate. Collaboration is not during core instructional time. Teachers meet
during the physical education, computer lab, social studies, and science blocks. Title
I funds have been utilized to hire two credential computer lab teachers and an aide to
supervise children during PLC meetings. Additionally, the two RTI intervention
teachers may supervise students as their schedule permits.
147
During the meetings teachers must fill out an accountability sheet created by
the principal. One of these documents is called the Collaborative Planning Sheet that
includes the instructional plan for the month, discussion notes (called ASAP),
planned activities lists, closing thoughts (called Cooling Down), and share activities
and lessons that worked or didn’t work and why. Collaborative Time Power
Standards is another accountability form that must be submitted to the principal.
Teachers must look at lessons and dissect the power standards and describe what
“proficient” performance looks like. The last form is the Data Analysis form that
must be given to the principal. After the assessments are given to the student every
six- to eight-weeks, teachers must track the whole class performance and use data to
modify instruction. Teachers must target an area of need, make curriculum changes
if needed (possibly go to the essential standard), cite the instructional strategies
utilized and evaluate the assessment techniques. All forms must be worked on
collaboratively and submitted to the principal.
Use of Data
BBES has used data to drive collaborative efforts at the school. Teachers in
all grade levels have been asked to collect student data on a record sheet for
discussion during PLC. Teachers work collaboratively to set goals using SMART
(Specific, Measurable, Agreed upon, Realistic, Time based) Goal framework. PLC
meetings encourage conversations on effective teaching and tactics for supporting
struggling students. Teachers use their collected data as a springboard for
determining instructional goals and any necessary intervention strategies. Before
148
students are referred for intervention, teachers will often informally discuss
instructional strategies utilized in the classroom. Collectively, they establish the
specific area of need and establish a plan to benchmark and measure student
outcomes during a four- to six-week period. Successful practices are shared along
with planning for differentiated instruction to help all learners attain proficiency and
beyond.
Technology is another piece to the instructional puzzle. The two computer
teachers address the needs of struggling students as revealed in the Data Director.
Data Director is an on-line data management application that allows educators to
disaggregate student achievement information. Teachers were directed to use these
data to drive their instruction. The two computer teachers also use the Data Director
and collaboration notes to create lessons for the students of their areas of weakness.
Leadership
The principal identified administrative turnover and fiscal instability as
significant factors contributing to the school unstable API scores from 2005 to 2009.
The focus of BBES’s PLC has been to increase test scores with the goal of meeting
NCLB 100% proficiency target by 2014. A new principal has been brought into
BBES with the goal of developing a strong instructional program, with the use of
data as a springboard for discussion, to improve test scores. The principal was
drawn from a neighboring “high performing” school. She is an experienced, well-
respected administrator that has led improvement efforts at other elementary school
149
sites. Her experiences in special education have made her versed in strategies to
improve student performance at every level.
The principal has brought a vision, direction and goal to BBES, which was
lacking at BBES. Additionally, the principal has brought a defined methodology as a
means to achieving BBES’ new goals. Her authoritative leadership style, however,
is mismatched with her desire to foster a collaborative atmosphere with and among
her faculty. If continued, that dichotomy could prove counterproductive to
developing a unified pursuit of BBES’ achievement goals.
Comparison of BBES resource allocation to the Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) will be used to examine
how resources are allocated in BBES. The Evidence Based Model (EBN) is an
adequacy model based on research-based strategies for improving student
achievement which has shown promise in studies. Table B5 provides a summary of
the resource use at BBES and its relation to the EBM’s prototypical elementary
school.
Although similar in school configuration and enrollment, BBES’ resource
allocation falls far short of the recommendations in the EBM. BBES has more needs
based on the increased number of students in poverty, EL students, and minority
students while resources are generally much less. Moreover, many programs
recommended in the EBM do not exist at BBES. One program the principal desired
initiating at BBES is the addition of an instructional coach to support collaboration
and professional development to improve instruction.
150
Table B5 – Resource Comparison: BB Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
BB
Elementary
School
BBES – EBM
Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS

School Configuration K-5 K-6 One more
grade than
EBM
Enrollment 432 410 6% Smaller
Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K-3 20
4-5 30
33% Larger
20% Larger
Full Day Kindergarten Yes Yes Same EBM
Number of Teacher work days 190 +
10 days of PD
179+
5 days of PD
6% (11 days)
less than EBM
50% (5 days)
fewer
professional
development
days
Students with Disability 12% 4% 8% fewer
students with
disability
Students in poverty 50% 61% 11% more
students in
poverty
EL students 10% 22% 12% more EL
students
Minority students 30% 94%

64% more
Minority
students
RESOURCES
Core Teachers 24 22 3 more teachers
151
Table B5, Continued
Specialist teachers 20% more; 4.8 (based
on student population)
4.4 (based on
the number of
core teachers)
2 at BBES
Instructional
Facilitators/mentors
2.2 0
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students: 2.16
0
Teachers for EL 1 for every 100: .96 0
55% fewer
specialist
teachers than
EBM
No
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
No Tutors

No EL
Teachers

Extended day 1.8 0 No Extended
day teachers
Summer School 1.8 0 No Summer
School
Learning Disabled student 3 2 33% fewer
Learning
Disabled
teachers
GATE student $25/student 0

No GATE
Budget
Substitutes 5% of all of the above 0 No site level
substitutes
Pupil Support 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.32
0

No Pupil
Support Staff
Non-instructional aides 2 2 Same as EBM
Librarian/Media specialists 1 0 None at BBES
Principal 1 1 Same as EBM
School Site Secretary 2 2 Same as EBM
Professional Development instructional
facilitators, Planning &
prep time, 10 summer
days, $100/pupil for
other PD expenses –
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc
5 days of
planning and
prep time

50% fewer PD
days than EBM
152
Table B5, Continued
Technology $250/pupil $201.28/pupil 20% less spent
on technology
Instructional materials $140/ pupil $54.56/pupil 60% less spent
on
instructional
materials
Student activities $200/pupil 0 None budgeted
at BBES

Table B6 lists the implementations of Odden et al.’s Ten Steps to Double
Performance at BBES. The school excelled in five areas: needs assessment
administration, standards-based curriculum adoption, data-driven decision making,
resource commitment for professional development and multiple intervention
provisions for struggling students. The other five – high student performance goals,
instruction time efficiency, PLC creation, instructional improvement support, and
family engagement – were average.
Table B6 – Implementation of Odden et al.’s Ten Steps to Double Performance at BB
Elementary School
Implementation Odden’s Strategies
Strong Average Weak
Notes
1) administer a needs
assessment

√
The principal administered needs
assessments and scheduled deadlines
for reports on all students. A more
detailed report must be created for the
struggling students with detailed
information on the areas of weakness,
interventions attempted, and data
related to assessments.
2) set high goals for
student performance

√
The principal has a clear vision for
students performance, however there
was no mention of staff buy in.
3) adopt a rigorous,
standards-based
curriculum
√

The teachers all follow state
approved, district-adopted curricula,
and follow the pacing guide provided
by the district to teach the standards-
based courses of study.
153
Table B6, Continued
4) engage in data-
driven decision-
making

√
The school has been engaging in data
driven decision-making. The
principal has set up a rigorous 4-6
week deadline for data reports. Along
with the data teachers must submit a
data sheet on how they are addressing
areas of weakness.
5) commit resources in
ongoing and effective
professional
development

√
The principal has committed resources
to professional development. Two
computer teachers and an aide were
hired to give teachers time for
professional development. The
principal has also gone out to find
professional development services to
support her staff. The principal cites
this is an area that has been negatively
impacted by budget reductions.
6) focus instructional
time efficiently

√
The use of instructional time appears
to be acceptable, however the
principal does not monitor the
teachers’ use of instructional time.
She conducts occasional walk
arounds.
7) provide multiple
interventions for
struggling students
√

The school provides a variety of
programs to support the struggling
students during school.
8) create professional
learning communities

√
The strategy of collaboration to create
professional learning communities is
an area in which BBES is still
developing.
9) empower leaders to
support instructional
improvement

√
The principal is still developing a
rapport with the staff and is seeking
support for instructional improvement.
10) Family
engagement

√
The administrator allocates time and
resources for family engagement.

Future Implications
BBES has encountered difficulty sustaining API growth. In response to this a
new principal has been put into place to helm the improvement effort. The principal
is very clear and specific about her vision to work toward the 2014 NCLB goal of
100% proficiency. She is developing her framework for improving student
performance by being very clear about her expectations, commitment to struggling
154
students, and the use of data to drive instruction with core instruction must be at the
center of this improvement effort. Many of the pieces are in place to improve
student performance. As the practices become more and extension of teacher
practice rather than an additional to teacher practices BBES’ student achievement
may continue to grow.
155
APPENDIX C
CASE STUDY THREE

CC Elementary School: Instructional Improvement Strategies and Resource Use
CC Elementary School (CCES) is one of 17 elementary schools in the WW
Unified School District. Located in southern Los Angeles County, CA, the WW
Unified School District currently serves a total of approximately 25,300 students in
grades K-12 with four comprehensive high schools, eight grades 6-8 middle schools,
seventeen grades K-5 elementary schools, two alternative education schools, and one
each continuation and alternative schools. CCES opened its doors in 1954, serving
primarily the neighborhood in which it resides.
CCES provides a total of 56,160 instructional minutes during its traditional
180-day school calendar, marked by staggered start times of 8:50 for pre-
kindergarten, kindergarten and grades 4 and 5, and 8:59 for grades 1-3, with joint
3:12 dismissal (pre-k and kindergarten are dismissed at 1:50). In response to a
grassroots teacher initiative in the 2006-2007 school year, CCES adopted teacher-led
professional development program, initially modifying the bell schedule for early
Tuesday dismissals to allocate time for the program; in the 2008-2009 academic
year, early dismissal was shifted by WWUSD to Wednesdays to synchronize with
the district-wide adoption of the Professional Learning Community (PLC) program.
Because of budget constraints in the 2009-2010 academic year, WWUSD further
synchronized bell schedules across the district to harmonize bus schedules and
maximize efficiencies.
156
Class Size Reduction began in California in 1996. Schools were given
additional funds to lower primary class sizes to 20-to-1. While many school districts
took advantage of the additional resources available through CSR, the program did
not fully fund 20-to-1 class expenses. Budget cuts in the 2009-2010 academic year
forced CCES to increase class sizes in kindergarten to third grade from 20-to-1 to
24-to-1. Twenty-four students is the threshold for Class Size Reduction at which
schools will continue to receive CSR funds yet are subject to penalties for exceeding
20 students per classroom. Recently, the WWUSD school board approved another
class size increase to 30-to-1 in kindergarten to third grade, and to 26-to-1 in the
upper grades. Thus, WWUSD is no longer receiving CSR funds. The current
economic crisis has had an impact on both the school and members of the
community it serves.
CCES’ 2009-2010 enrollment is 438 students in grades K-5, with the ethnic
distribution of students reflecting that of the community: 31% Asian, 30% Hispanic,
18% white. The balance of the student body is comprised of Filipino, African
American and Pacific Islander students and students who did not declare their
heritages. Approximately 26% of CCES’ students are identified as English Learners
(EL), whose primary languages include: Spanish (10.8%), Vietnamese (4.9%), Urdu
(3.5%), Korean (3.1%) and Japanese (2.9%), with 5.5% of the EL group speaking
languages other than English that are not part of the noted linguistic groups.
CCES serves students coming dominantly from the middle and lower middle
classes. The school is set in an area surrounded by low-income housing, and
multigenerational families sharing apartments with extended families are not
uncommon. The principal indicated there has been an increase in the Urdu speaking
student population over the last few years.
With the exception of 2005, CCES, as a Title I school-wide funds recipient,
has seen the percentage of students qualifying for free or reduced lunches steadily
grow; in the 2009-2010 academic year, 50% of students qualified, dramatically
higher than the district average of 18%. Approximately 10% more CCES students
qualified for school lunches in 2009 than 2006. Figure C1 illustrates the growth in
the population of reduced or free lunch qualifying students.
Figure C1 – CCES Percent Free and Reduced Lunch for Academic Years 2005-2009
Percent Free and Reduced Lunch
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Although the percent of free and reduced lunch students at CCES has
increased over the past five years, longitudinal data from the California Department
of Education reveal that CCES’ Academic Performance Index (API) has also
increased by nine points from 2005 to 2009. The goal for the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) is to surpass an API threshold score for both the student population as a
157
whole and statistically significant subgroups. CCES’ full student population has
consistently exceeded the 800 API benchmark, including a significant one-year gain
of 32 index points from 800 in 2008 to 832 in 2009. Figure C2 illustrates the school-
wide API compared to the API for all statistically significant subgroups.
Figure C2 – CCES API Scores for Academic Years 2005-2009

The school’s subgroups, however, have struggled to achieve the 800 API
goal. While Asian and EL subpopulations have made significant gains in the past
five years, the achievement gap between Hispanics and Asians, illustrated in the
differences between the subgroups’ API scores, has increased over time. Table C1
presents CCES’ API score from 2005 to 2009.

158
159
Table C1 – CCES API Scores for Academic Years 2005-2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
2005-2009
All Students 823 824 810 800 832 +9
Asian 857 880 875 852 904 +47
Hispanic 768 785 768 760 750 -18
Low SES 793 787 754 763 789 -4
English
Learner
804 782 766 781 837 +33
Students w/
Disabilities
* * * 677 711 +34
Hispanic/Asian
Gap
-55 -95 -107 -92 -154
*Note: Not a statistically significant subgroup
In the analysis of five year API data, the school-wide API has increased by 9
points. Asians, English Learners and students with disabilities have also increased
their API scores by 47, 33 and 34 points respectively, reflecting growth that
surpassed the school-wide total. Hispanic and Low Socioeconomic Status (SES)
students, however, have net losses of -18 and -4 respectively. Noteworthy is that the
gap between the Asians and Hispanic subgroups has effectively widened in the past
five years, reaching a high of 154 points.
While CCES has made gains in school-wide API and with some statistically
significant subgroups, the Similar Schools Rank has been declining. From an apex
of eight in 2006, CCES’ rank has dropped to a Similar Schools Rank of three two
years later.
The Similar Schools Ranks clusters 100 schools with like demographics and
classifies them relative to each other based on these demographic factors. The
schools are gathered in deciles and scored on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being best.
160
Since the Similar Schools Ranks is based on a group of 100 schools, the top ten
schools will earn a rank of 10; the lowest ten schools will earn a rank of 1. Table C2
details the Similar Schools Ranks’ decile ratings.
Table C2 – Similar Schools Ranks Decile Rating Scale
Highest Scoring Elementary School 100

Decile 10

90

Decile 9

80

Decile 8

70

Decile 7

60

Decile 6

50

Decile 5

40

Decile 4

30

Decile 3

20

Decile 2

10

Lowest Scoring Elementary School 1
Decile 1

CCES’ Similar Schools Rank of 3 puts the site in the bottom 30% of schools
of like demographics. On the Statewide Ranking, CCES fares better with a score of
161
7. Table C3 illustrates CCES’ Similar Schools Ranking for the academic period
2005-2009.
Table C3 – CCES Similar Schools Ranking for Academic Years 2005-2009
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Statewide Rank 8 8 7 7 7
Similar Schools Rank 7 8 4 3 7

CCES falls in the top three deciles, or the top 30%, of all schools in the
statewide ranks. In relation to similar schools, however, CCES is struggling, making
it only to the third decile in 2008.
On the surface, CCES has demonstrated Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
growth, met the 800 API target, and increased the percent Proficient or Advanced on
the California Standards Test (CST). CCES increased its API score by 32 points
from 800 in 2008 to 832 in 2009. These growths notwithstanding, some of the
subgroups have struggled. Along with the widening achievement gap between the
Asian and Hispanic subgroups the low SES subgroups has also struggled with
proficiency based on CST results. With the exception of 2007, AYP has been met
every since 2005.
In an effort to improve academic achievement CCES has adopted district-
wide Response to Intervention (RTI) and Standards-Based Report Cards (SBRC).
Additionally, CCES was instrumental in developing and inaugurating Professional
Learning Communities (PLC) in the district. The next section details the steps
162
CCES is taking in employing these and other models and programs to ensure growth
in and improvement of student academic achievement.
Curriculum and Instruction
Response to Intervention (RTI)
In a district-led budget management effort that called for the reduction of the
number of students tested for special education and to support struggling learners at
every level, CCES pioneered the district-supported Response to Intervention (RTI)
program in 2007. CCES collaboratively developed a RTI model to address the needs
of students not attaining proficiency on the CST. RTI’s fundamental principles
involve high quality instruction combined with frequent assessments and data-based
decision making.
There are three tiers in the RTI pyramid of interventions. Tier I, the broadest
and basic, is a school-wide intervention supporting all students at the site. Affecting
core instruction, Tier I is the most broadly preventative and proactive program,
addressing the needs of 80-90% of the site’s student population. Some students,
however, require a second tier of intervention that provides additional supports for
those students who are in an at risk subgroup. Tier II interventions affect 5-10% of
the school’s student population. Tier III interventions affect approximately 1-5% of
the student body. Students in this tier often require intensive individual support as
they have not responded sufficiently to Tier I and II programs. In many cases, Tier
III groups include Special Education and Far Below Basic students who are taking
the California Modified Assessment (CMA).
163
CCES, being a school-wide Title I site with categorical funding, has directed
funds for English Language Arts (ELA) interventions for students ranked Basic,
Below Basic and Far Below Basic. The school has developed a school-wide writing
focus for Tier I students drawn from Lucy Calkins’ Writer’s Workshop method.
Reading comprehension has largely been the focus of Tier II students, with programs
like Reading Recovery and guided reading being employed. Struggling readers and
students scoring Basic and Below Basic are identified for these additional resources.
These small group and individual instructional pieces are implemented in six-week
intervals with the goals of specific skills instruction, additional practice, and
preparation for the CST. Progress monitoring is a key component and students are
moved in and out of this intervention at the beginning of each six-week cycle.
CCES staff has also targeted the English Learner (EL) population for specific
ELA skills instruction. In a further utilization of Title I funds, an English Language
Development (ELD) teacher was hired for the 2009-2010 school year, with a rise in
the test results for the Level 1 and 2 English Language Learners as the instructional
goal. Classes are established based on EL level with Hampton Brown’s Into English
course being implemented for the instruction, concentrating on vocabulary
development, reading comprehension and writing.
The curriculum and instructional pieces are to help students attain the NCLB
goal of 100% proficiency by 2014. The instructional component is to differentiate
instruction to meet the varied needs of the students and to close the achievement gap.
Classes remediate instruction specific to the child’s needs in order to help students
164
recover and return to the school-wide instruction. All instructional materials utilized
in the classes are the state and district approved curricula for Language Arts and
Math, are aligned to the state standards, and all support classes are taught by
credentialed teachers.
The Tier III K-5 students are in a full inclusion / learning center model as
enacted by the district. Under the district initiative all Resource and Special Day
Class (SDC) students are included in the general education classrooms. As CCES
does not have a separate Resource or SDC class, the five blind county students that
attend are also fully included. The learning center model is a collaborative program
with the learning center teacher as the case worker for the child with selected regular
classroom teachers, para-educators, learning center aides, occupational therapists,
physical therapists, adaptive physical educators and speech teachers present for pull
out and push in services. Two credentialed learning center teachers, two learning
center aides, four para-educators are part of the CCES learning center. District
learning center support includes four full days of speech, two days of counselor
services and two days of school psychologist services weekly at CCES. The learning
center teacher, along with appropriate Individual Education Plan (IEP) team
members facilitate IEPs and coordinate services for the special education student
population.
Title I funds at CCES have been apportioned to hire two full-time certified
teachers to support struggling students. One position aids Tier II intervention
students using the Reading Recovery program. The other position is split, with half
165
of the time allotted to Reading Recovery, the other half to ELD for the Levels 1 and
2 EL students. Both posts offer the EL or struggling student individualized and
small group instruction on specific skills in the students’ particular areas of
difficulty.
Title I funding also offers additional before and after school tutoring by a
certified teacher. Students not meeting proficiency within the context of the Tier I
interventions are introduced to small group tutoring sessions to get additional help in
reading or writing. The goal of these before and after school sessions is to work with
at-risk students on the core subject of reading. Funding provides the teachers with
the district’s hourly rate for tutoring students.
In the 2008-2009 school year the district offered emergency immigrant
emersion summer school half-days for ten days. Beyond this, CCES drew on Title I
monies to provide its own summer program. The program offered two two-hour
English sessions each day, four days a week, for two weeks. Eight certified teachers
were hired for the 105 students in attendance. Students were selected by teacher
recommendation, along with scores in the basic close-to-proficient range on the 2008
CST. The program’s goal was to keep students moving forward rather than
regressing in their skills during the summer.
Professional Learning Community (PLC)
In 2005 CCES pioneered the development of the Professional Learning
Community (PLC) in the district. To facilitate a move toward PLC, CCES was able
to secure 100% staff endorsement of their effort to modify their workweek to provide
166
50 minutes of teacher collaboration once a week. The Tuesday schedule was
shortened to offer teachers the 50 minutes to work in collaborative groups. During
weekly PLC meetings, teachers work on developing teacher-led topics of interest.
The content of the PLC meetings was propelled by teacher needs, however the
leadership committee, in conjunction with the site administrator, determined the
content and agenda for the meeting. PLC content items addressed Standards Based
Report Cards (SBRC), collaboration, and methods for supporting struggling students.
Preparation to spread PLC district-wide began in 2007, and CCES worked
closely with the district in its effort to develop the district-wide PLC roll-out. The
district’s elementary school schedule was adjusted in January 2008 to allow 45
minutes of teacher collaboration every Wednesday. PLC discussions were largely
founded on site needs and district-directed topics. Early PLCs addressed Lucy
Calkins’ Writers Workshop, differentiation, the Sally Ride Institute, and RTI.
The union and the WWUSD school district negotiated five professional
development days as part of the teachers’ contract. The use of professional
development days is outlined in Table C4.
Table C4 – 5 Professional Development Day Uses
Debrief on principals institute
Sept
Discussion of best scores
Grade level collaboration
Sept
Goal setting time
Sally Ride Institute (a.m.)
Oct
ELD Workshop (p.m.)
Feb
Marzano all day PD on using data to
inform instruction
June tbd

167
District supported training included Sheltered Instruction Observation
Protocol (SIOP) strategies and best practices for the classroom teacher. One teacher
from each grade level from each elementary school was invited to district
professional development meetings monthly starting in the fall of 2006 in order to
improve their professional practice. Teachers developed curriculum maps and lesson
plans to implement at their sites. This program was cut due to budget constraints in
2008 and is currently dormant.
Another district support professional development program is Conceptual
Understanding and Problem Solving (CUPS), launched around 2006. Like SIOP,
one teacher from each grade level at each elementary site in the district was invited
to learn about the program from the district and spearhead it at their home sites. This
arithmetic rooted professional development program focused on valuing conceptual
understanding over computational skills, where teachers were asked to create
formative assessments to determine a student’s conceptual understanding and
problem solving capabilities. This program, too, was suspended in 2008.
Use of Data
CCES has used data to drive collaborative efforts at the school. Teachers in
the various grade levels have met via PLC to set objectives using SMART (Specific,
Measurable, Agreed upon, Realistic, Time based) Goals. PLC meetings encourage
conversations on effective teaching and tactics for supporting struggling students.
Teachers collect data and use it as a springboard for determining instructional goals.
Collectively, they establish the specific area of need and establish a plan to
168
benchmark and measure student outcomes during a six- to eight-week period.
Successful practices, along with planning for differentiated instruction, are shared to
help all learners attain and exceed proficiency.
The central focus of PLC discussions has been on student achievement data.
At the beginning of each school year the district office presents all Title I school
principals and school leaders with longitudinal data based on CST scores. The
district provides the school sites with trend data, the district-wide goals as well as the
schools’ own AYP targets for the upcoming academic year, outlines the work that
the needs to be done. This one-week meeting among Title I schools offers district
leaders, principals, and school managers an opportunity to discuss and strategize
successful plans and tactics.
The director of curriculum provided the teachers a pacing guide and new
computer based software to track student progress, optional formative and
summative assessments every six to eight weeks.
In 2005, as a forerunner to Professional Learning Communities, a tremendous
amount of work was done to make protected weekly collaboration time possible.
Meetings were held involving district directors, school administrators, and teachers’
union and school leaders. Representatives established the protocol for moving
forward with this schedule change process. The teacher leaders, supported by the
site administrators, pushed for PLC as vital to providing high quality instruction for
all students. The union and the district representatives agreed that a super majority
of parents must accept early-out Tuesdays and that 100% of teachers must support
169
the schedule changes to accommodate PLC implementation. The schedule change
was approved by the parents and by 100% of the teachers in 2004. The PLC meeting
began at the start of the 2005 academic year.
CCES teachers thence have been instrumental in getting PLCs in all 17
district elementary schools. They have provided a tremendous amount of
professional development to the district and to other elementary schools in the
district. The district established PLCs district-wide in 2007, synchronizing the
elementary school schedule in the district so that PLCs can meet on Wednesdays.
In addition to weekly professional development during academic year PLCs,
site administrators meet in a weeklong summer institute where district and site-
specific achievement scores are analyzed. Administrators were instructed on how to
interpret API, AYP, benchmark and other data to inform instructional decisions at
each school.
Standards Based Report Card (SBRC)
In a district-led effort to align instruction and assessments among all
elementary schools district-wide, district officials formed a steering committee to
investigate Standards Based Report Cards (SBRC). The SBRC committee began
meeting in Fall 2007 to conduct a need assessment related to SBRC. The committee
included principals, teachers from all of the district’s elementary sites, tech support
staff, union representatives, and the Directors of Elementary Schools and
Curriculum. Each school had a minimum of two representatives, and each grade
level had two delegates.
170
The school board approved the SBRC pilot program to be initiated at four
sites in December 2008. At the principals meeting, site administrators were asked to
see if their staffs would be willing to pilot SBRC. CCES unanimously accepted the
challenge. The committee, along with teacher leaders, began developing
assessments and rubrics to refine a SBRC. PLC and district Professional
Development days were devoted to SBRC design. Title I funds were utilized to offer
substitute time to grade levels to discuss the implementations of the new report
cards.
Several meetings were conducted by both the district and CCES to inform
parents regarding the pilot of SBRC. Meetings were well attended and question-and-
answer forums afforded parents the opportunity to have their concerns and questions
addressed.
CCES saw a 32 point increase in API at the end of the 2008-2009 academic
year. The other three pilot schools had similar increases in API, and all four pilot
schools’ API score gains were greater than other schools’ in the district. Although
the district would like to see this program expand gradually district-wide, the 2009
budget crisis put the program on hold. Rather than broadening the program to
another four schools, the school board elected to hold the program at the initial four
pilot schools. Table C5 and C6 details the changes in Proficiency Levels from 2008-
2009 disaggregated by SBRC schools and non-SBRC Schools for ELA and Math.

171
Table C5 – Proficiency Levels for School-Wide SBRC and Non-SBRC School in ELA

Non
SBRC
avg. %
change
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
SBRC
avg. %
change
1 2 3 4
2008 67.0 65 72 72 74 57 79 71 56 73 68 74 52 58 61.3 71 50 60 64
2009 70.6 69 72 74 67 62 82 79 63 76 77 73 62 63 71 79 66 65 74
Change 3.6 4 0 2 -7 5 3 8 7 3 9 -1 10 5 9.8 8 16 5 10

Table C6 – Proficiency Levels for School-Wide SBRC and Non-SBRC School in
Math

Non
SBRC
avg. %
change
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
SBRC
avg. %
change
1 2 3 4
2008 76.1 75 85 76 73 64 83 80 67 82 82 81 61 77 70.5 80 58 67 77
2009 77.5 75 81 78 69 73 86 82 71 82 85 84 64 78 75.8 83 67 71 82
Change 1.4 4 0 2 -7 5 3 8 7 3 9 -1 10 5 5.3 3 9 4 5

The table reveals SBRC schools improved proficiency percentages at a
higher rate than non-SBRC schools when comparing CST data from 2008-2009.
When comparing the 2008 to 2009 ELA proficiency data, non-SBRC schools
improved their proficiency rate by 3.6%. SBRC schools improved their ELA scores
by 9.8%. In math, the data shows non-SBRC school improved their proficiency rates
by 1.4% and SBRC schools improved by 5.3%. The principal does not attributes the
increased proficiency results based on the district’s adoption of SBRC but states it
the rich dialogue created about instruction, the collaboration of teachers, and
alignment of assessments to the standards that improved proficiency rates.
Comparison of CCES resource allocation to the Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) is used to examine
CCES’ resources allocation. The Evidence Based Model (EBM) is an adequacy
model which has shown promise in studies and is based on research strategies for
improving student achievement. Table C7 provides a summary of the resource use at
172
CCES and its relation to the EBM’s prototypical elementary school. Although
similar in school configuration and enrollment, CCES’ resource allocation falls far
short of EBM recommendations. CCES has more needs based on the increased
number of students with disabilities, students in poverty, EL students, and minority
students while resources are generally 33%. Moreover, many programs
recommended in the EBM do not exist at CCES. One program the principal desired
initiating at CCES is the addition of an instructional coach to support collaboration
and professional development to improve instruction.
Table C7 – Resource Comparison: CC Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
CC
Elementary
School
CCES – EBM
Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS

School Configuration K-5 K-5 Same as EBM
Enrollment 432 438 1% Larger
Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K-3 24
4-5 33
60% Larger
40% Larger
Full Day Kindergarten Yes Yes Same as EBM
Number of Teacher work days 190 +
10 days of PD
180+
5 days of PD
5% (10 days)
less than EBM
50% (5 days)
fewer
professional
development
days
Students with Disability 12% 16% 4% more
students with
disability
Students in poverty 50% 53% 3% more
students in
poverty
EL students 10% 22% 12% more EL
students
173
Table C7, Continued
Minority students 30% 82%

52% more
Minority
students
RESOURCES
Core Teachers 24 16 33% fewer core
teachers
Specialist teachers 20% more; 4.8 (based
on student population)
3.2 (based on
the number of
core teachers)
1.7 at CCES
Instructional
Facilitators/mentors
2.2 0
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students: 2.16
0
Teachers for EL 1 for every 100: .96 .5
35% fewer
specialist
teachers than
EBM
2 fewer
Instructional
Facilitators
/mentors
No Tutors

52% fewer EL
Teachers than
EBM

Extended day 1.8 0 No Extended
day teachers
Summer School 1.8 4 2.2 times more
than the EBM
Learning Disabled student 3 2 33% fewer
Learning
Disabled
teachers
GATE student $25/student 0

No site level
GATE Budget
Substitutes 5% of all of the above 0 No site level
substitutes
Pupil Support 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.32
0

No Pupil
Support Staff
Non-instructional aides 2 0 None at CCES
Librarian/Media specialists 1 0 None at CCES
Principal 1 1 Same as EBM
School Site Secretary 2 1 50% fewer
School site
Secretary staff
than EBM
174
Table C7, Continued
Professional Development instructional
facilitators, Planning &
prep time, 10 summer
days, $100/pupil for
other PD expenses –
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc
5 days of
planning and
prep time
$40,921
($91.76 per
pupil) other PD
expenses –
trainers,
conferences,
travel, etc
50% fewer PD
days than EBM
Technology $250/pupil $46/pupil 82% less spent
on technology
Instructional materials $140/ pupil $85/pupil 40% less spent
on
instructional
materials
Student activities $200/pupil 0 None budgeted
at CCES

Table C8 lists the implementations of Odden’s 10 Steps at CCES. The
school excelled in four areas: analyzing student data, implementing effective
curriculum and instructional program, providing extra help for struggling students
and creating professional and collaborative school cultures. The other six – setting
ambitious goals, using benchmark and formative assessments, employing ongoing
professional development, using instructional time efficiently, using research based
and proven strategies, and investing in human capital – were average.

175
Table C8 – Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps at CC Elementary School
Implementation Odden’s Strategies
Strong Average Weak
Notes
1) administer a needs
assessment
√
During weekly PLC meetings teachers
regularly analyze student achievement
data and discuss how to meet the needs
of the struggling student.
2) set high goals for
student performance
√
The school staff works to set ambitious
goals for the grade level and for
individual students, however the
principal has not actively pursued
school-wide goals as part of his
leadership agenda.
3) adopt a rigorous,
standards-based
curriculum
√
The teachers all follow state approved,
district adopted curricula, and follow the
pacing guide provided by the district to
teach the standards based course of
study.
4) engage in data-
driven decision
making
√
The school has been instrumental in
developing SBRC for the district using
and creating benchmark and formative
assessments.
5) commit resources
in ongoing and
effective professional
development
√
Teachers collaborate during PLC on a
regular basis, however there is no plan
for ongoing professional development,
nor is there accountability built into the
PLC. Additionally, PLC participation is
mandatory, and the allotted 45 minute
meeting time hinders its effectiveness.
6) focus instructional
time efficiently
√
With a strong focus on writing, the use
of instructional time appears to be
acceptable, however the principal does
not monitor the teachers’ use of
instructional time.
7) provide multiple
interventions for
struggling students
√
The school provides a variety of
programs to support the struggling
students before, during and after school.
8) create professional
learning communities
√
The school seems very willing to work
collaboratively to create professional
learning communities.
9) empower leaders
to support
instructional
improvement
√
The administrator empowers teacher
leaders to support instructional
improvement, reflecting the principal’s
belief that the teachers who work with
students daily know what is best for
students.
10) Family
engagement

√
The administrator admits that family
participation is an area of difficulty, and
is committed to allocating more funds to
improve family engagement.

176
Future Implications
As the fiscal constraints of California’s financial crisis continue to impact
public schools, further cuts loom for the 2010-2011 school year. Most likely to be
impacted by the cuts are academic support, professional development, class sizes,
and intervention staff. CCES is utilizing Title I funds to offer reading and math
interventions as well as hourly teachers after school to support the struggling student.
As the financial crisis affects households, students’ needs may outpace the funds that
can support them. Targeted use of the funding for developing teacher instruction
within the new context of increased poverty, large class sizes, and fewer funding
avenues is necessary to successfully meet the needs of the students.
177
APPENDIX D
CASE STUDY FOUR

DD Elementary School: Instructional Improvement Strategies and Resource Use
DD Elementary School (DDES) is one of 6 elementary schools in the YY
Unified School District. Located in southern Los Angeles County, CA, the YY
Unified School District currently serves a total of approximately 6,241 students in
grades K-12 with one charter high school, 2 grades 6-8 middle schools, and six
grades K-5 elementary schools. DDES serves the neighborhood in which it resides.
DDES opened its doors in 1949, with additional buildings constructed in 1951 and
1959. DDES began a thorough modernization project in 2002, spending a total of
$3,986,866 to upgrade the facility. The improvements were completed at the end of
2004.
DDES provides a total of 55,815 instructional minutes during its traditional
183-day school calendar, marked by a joint 8:30 start time with staggered dismissals
of 11:52 for ‘early bird’ kindergarten, 2:22 for ‘late bird’ kindergarten, 2:40 for
grades 1-3 and 3:00 for the upper grades. In response to a district led effort to
expand professional development, DDES adopted professional development program
utilizing the Professional Development Community model, modifying the bell
schedule for early Thursday dismissals to allocate time for the program.
DDES’ 2009-2010 enrollment is 764 students in grades K-5, with the ethnic
distribution of students reflecting that of the community: 8.5% Asian, 7.8% African
American, 74.9% Hispanic, 3.8% white. The balance of the student body is
comprised of Filipino, Pacific Islander students and students who did not declare
178
their heritages. Approximately 58.5% of DDES’ students are identified as English
Learners (EL), whose primary languages include: Spanish (50.3%), Vietnamese
(5%), Arabic (1.6), Urdu (0.9%) and Tagalog (0.1%); 0.5% of the EL group speak
languages other than English that are not part of the noted linguistic groups.
DDES serves students coming predominantly from the lower and lower
middle classes. Categorized by the Ed-Data website as Urban Fringe of a Large
City, the school is set in an area surrounded by low-income housing, apartments, and
small single-family homes. Multigenerational families sharing residences is not
uncommon.
DDES, as a Title I school-wide funds recipient, has seen the percentage of
students qualifying for free or reduced lunches consistently hover between 80% and
85% since 2005. In the 2008-2009 academic year, 83.3% of DDES’ student
population was eligible for free and reduced lunch program, higher than the district
average of 78.4%. Figure D1 illustrates the percentage of DDES students qualifying
for reduced or free lunch.

Figure D1 – DDES Percent Free and Reduced Lunch for Academic Years 2005-2009

While the percent of free and reduced lunch students at DDES has trended
downward over the past five years, longitudinal data from the California Department
of Education reveal that DDES’ Academic Performance Index (API) has increased
62 points from 2005 to 2009. The goal for the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is
to surpass an API threshold score for both the student population as a whole and
statistically significant subgroups. DDES’ student population has not met the API
benchmark. Figure D2 illustrates the school-wide API compared to the API for all
statistically significant subgroups.

179
Figure D2 – DDES API Scores for Academic Years 2005-2009

The school, as a whole, has struggled to achieve the 800 API goal. DDES
has made significant gains in student achievement, and that the school is progressing
evenly with all groups is noteworthy. There is a very slight difference in API scores
between the school-wide index and the indices for all the significant subgroups.
Table D1 presents DDES’ API score from 2005 to 2009.
Table D1 – DDES API Scores for Academic Years 2005-2009
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Change
2005-2009
All Students 680 691 719 707 742 +62
Hispanic 665 679 708 688 731 +66
Low SES 670 681 702 699 738 +68
English
Learner
663 666 705 692 730 +67
School-
wide/EL
17 25 14 15 12

180
181
In the analysis of five year API data, the school-wide API has increased by
62 points. Hispanic/Latino, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, and EL students
have increased their API scores by 66, 68 and 67 points respectively. Notable is that
the school-wide API increase is in-line with the increases in all statistically
significant subgroups. Furthermore the gap between the school-wide API total
(highest score) and the lowest performing subgroup in 2009 is only 12 index points.
While DDES has made gains in school-wide API and the statistically
significant subgroups, the Similar Schools Rank continues to be low. DDES
continues struggle at the bottom 4 deciles of the Similar Schools Ranking.
The Similar Schools Ranks clusters 100 schools with like demographics and
classifies them relative to each other based on these demographic factors. The
schools are gathered in deciles and scored on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being best.
Since the Similar Schools Ranks is based on a group of 100 schools, the top ten
schools will earn a rank of 10; the lowest ten schools will earn a rank of 1. Table D2
details the Similar Schools Ranks’ decile ratings.

182
Table D2 – Similar Schools Ranks Decile Rating Scale
Highest Scoring Elementary School 100

Decile 10

90

Decile 9

80

Decile 8

70

Decile 7

60

Decile 6

50

Decile 5

40

Decile 4

30

Decile 3

20

Decile 2

10

Lowest Scoring Elementary School 1
Decile 1

DDES’ Similar Schools Rank of 4 puts the site in the bottom 40% of schools
of like demographics. On the Statewide Ranking, DDES fares a little worse with a
score of 3. Table D3 illustrates DDES’ Similar Schools Ranking for the academic
period 2005-2009.

183
Table D3 – DDES Similar Schools Ranking for Academic Years 2005-2009
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Statewide Rank 3 3 3 2 3
Similar Schools Rank 3 2 4 3 4

DDES falls in the bottom three deciles, or the bottom 30%, of all schools in
the statewide ranks. The school is struggling in both the Similar Schools and
Statewide rankings falling in the bottom deciles in both rankings.
With the exception of 2007, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) has been met
every year since 2005. DDES has demonstrated AYP growth most years, is making
progress toward the API target, and increased the percent Proficient or Advanced on
the California Standards Test (CST). These growths notwithstanding, DDES
continues to be a struggling school. Though the achievement gap between school-
wide API scores and the statically significant subgroups is small, 38% of the students
scored proficient or advanced in Language Arts on the CST in 2009. Slightly higher
are the math scores where 57% of the students score proficient or advanced on the
CST in 2009. Figures D3 and D4 illustrate the percentage of proficient and
advanced students in ELA and Math for AAES, the District, and State based on the
2009 CST.

Figure D3 – DDES 2009 Percent Proficient or Advanced in ELA (CST)

Figure D4 – DDES Percent Proficient or Advanced in Math (CST)

In an effort to improve academic achievement DDES is utilizing Response to
Intervention (RTI) framework. Additionally, DDES is continuing their work with
developing Professional Learning Communities (PLC). The next section details the
184
185
steps DDES is taking in employing these and other models and programs to ensure
growth in and improvement of student academic achievement.
Curriculum and Instruction
Response to Intervention (RTI)
In a district-led effort to improve instruction for struggling learners at every
level, DDES pioneered the district-supported Response to Intervention (RTI)
program. DDES is utilizing the RTI model to address the needs of students not
attaining proficiency on the CST. RTI’s fundamental principles involve high quality
instruction combined with frequent assessments and data-based decision making.
There are three tiers in the RTI pyramid of interventions. Tier I, the broadest
and basic, is a school-wide intervention supporting all students at the site. Affecting
core instruction, Tier I is the most broadly preventative and proactive program,
addressing the needs of 80-90% of the site’s student population. Some students,
however, require a second tier of intervention that provides additional supports for
those students who are in an at risk subgroup. Tier II interventions affect 5-10% of
the school’s student population. Tier III interventions affect approximately 1-5% of
the student body. Students in this tier often require intensive individual support as
they have not responded sufficiently to Tier I and II programs. In many cases, Tier
III groups include Special Education and Far Below Basic students who are taking
the California Modified Assessment (CMA).
DDES, being a school-wide Title I site with categorical funding, has directed
funds for English Language Arts (ELA) interventions for students ranked Basic,
186
Below Basic and Far Below Basic. Reading comprehension has largely been the
focus of Tier II students, with lessons included in the Houghton Mifflin textbook.
An 18-hour a week intervention teacher was hired for the 2009-2010 academic year
to address the needs of struggling readers and students scoring Basic and Below
Basic. Resources include, but not limited to, small group and individual instruction
implemented in six-week intervals with the goals of specific skills instruction,
additional practice, and preparation for the CST. Progress monitoring is a key
component and students are moved in and out of this intervention at the beginning of
each six-week cycle.
DDES staff has also targeted the English Learner (EL) population for specific
ELA skills instruction. In a further utilization of Title I and EL funds, an English
Language Development (ELD) teacher was hired for the 2009-2010 school year,
with a rise in the test results for the Level 1 and 2 English Language Learners as the
instructional goal. Classes are established based on the EL student’s performance on
the benchmark assessments. Instruction concentrating on vocabulary development,
reading comprehension and writing is the focus during the 6-week sessions.
Intervention and ELD classes remediate instruction specific to the child’s needs in
order to help students recover and return to the school-wide instruction.
Title I funding also offers additional before- and after-school tutoring by a
certified teacher. Students not meeting proficiency within the context of the Tier I
interventions are introduced to small group tutoring sessions to get additional help in
reading or writing. The goal of these before- and after-school sessions is to work
187
with at-risk students on the core subject of reading. Funding provides the teachers
with the district’s hourly rate for tutoring students.
The curriculum and instructional pieces are to help students attain the NCLB
goal of 100% proficiency by 2014. The instructional component is to differentiate
instruction to meet the varied needs of the students and meet the 800 API score on
the CST. All instructional materials utilized in the classes are district approved and
aligned to the state standards, and credentialed teachers teach all support classes.
State approved curricula utilized for Language Arts is Houghton-Mifflin and math is
Envision.
The Tier III K-5 students with IEP’s have access to the learning center.
While some schools in the district have Special Day Class (SDC), DDES employs
the learning center model. Under the district initiative all students are included in the
general education classrooms and go to the learning center for support in areas of
difficulty. The learning center model is a collaborative program whereby the
learning center
teacher is the caseworker for the child with selected regular classroom teachers, para-
educators, learning center aides, occupational therapists, physical therapists, adaptive
physical educators and speech teachers present for pull out and push in services.
One credentialed learning center teacher, two aids and five para-educators are part of
the DDES learning center. District learning center support includes full time speech
teacher and two non-instructional resource specialists at DDES. The learning center
188
teacher, along with appropriate Individual Education Plan (IEP) team members
facilitate IEPs and coordinate services for the special education student population.
Professional Learning Community (PLC)
The Thursday schedule was shortened to offer teachers 45 minutes to work in
collaborative groups. During weekly PLC meetings, teachers worked on improving
instruction at DDES. The principal, who determined the content and agenda for the
meetings, propelled the content of the PLC meetings. PLC content items addressed
collaboration, RTI, and methods for supporting struggling students.
YYUSD school district has negotiated two professional development days at
the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year as part of the teachers’ contract. One
day is devoted to district needs, the other day is for site level training. The district
PD day was utilized for training on the Envison math adoption. The second
professional development day involved grade level meetings to backwards plan for
the 2009-2010 school year. The principal is new to DDES and is committed to PLC,
however she has had some difficulty with the staff commitment to PLC.
Use of Data
DDES has used and continues to use data to drive collaborative efforts at the
school. The district calendar includes the benchmark testing schedule and all data
must be submitted to the district and principal using the School City software.
School City collects and analyzes student data, then generates reports related to
proficiency on the standards addressed. The principal collected the School City
189
student data from the DDES faculty every six- to eight-weeks, and expected
educators to address the needs of struggling students as revealed in the data analysis.
Teachers were directed to use these data to drive their instruction. Since the
YYUSD regulated testing dates and assessments, district-wide comparisons could be
made within classrooms at DDES as well as with classrooms in other schools in the
district. The School City software allows the teacher to use the data to generate
SMART (Specific, Measurable, Agreed upon, Realistic, Time based) Goals.
School City data was often utilized during PLC meetings encourage
conversations on effective teaching and tactics for supporting struggling students.
Teachers collected data and used it as a springboard for determining instructional
goals. Collectively, they established the specific area of need and formulated a plan
to benchmark and measure student outcomes during a six- to eight-week period.
Practices that have been successful in the classroom, along with planning for
differentiated instruction, are shared to help all learners attain and exceed
proficiency.
Leadership
The current principal began her administration at the beginning of the 2009-
2010 school year. Having 10 years of experience at a neighboring program
improvement elementary school, she was brought in to bolster test scores at DDES.
As a results oriented principal, she has made very clear her goal of attaining the 800
API score. She collects the data reports every 6-8 week in both Language Arts and
Math from School City. As long as proficiency targets are made, she does not feel
190
administrative intervention is necessary; if proficiency falls short of its targets, the
principals feels teachers should begin to utilize the RTI framework to meet the needs
of the struggling students. Additionally, PLC time offers teachers the protected time
to collaborate and share successful strategies to improve student learning.
The principal cites the lack of collegiality among the staff as an area of
relative weakness at the school. DDES hosts several high quality teachers, however
their effective instructional strategies stay within their classrooms. Goals for the
school involve developing relationships and fostering collegial professional
development by implementing the Dufour’s PLC model. Through PLC the principal
hopes the curtains come down and that effective instructional strategies will be
incorporated school-wide to improve instruction and raise test scores.
Comparison of DDES resource allocation to the Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) is used to examine
DDES’ resources allocation. The Evidence Based Model (EBM) is an adequacy
model based on research strategies for improving student achievement, which has
shown promise in studies. Table D4 provides a summary of DDES’ resource use and
its relation to the EBM’s prototypical elementary school. Although similar in school
configuration and enrollment, DDES’ resource allocation falls far short of the EBM
recommendations. While DDES has more needs based on the increased number of
students in poverty, EL students, and minority students, its allocated resources were
less. Moreover, many programs recommended in the EBM do not exist at DDES.
One program the principal desired initiating at DDES is the addition of an
191
instructional coach to support collaboration and professional development to
improve instruction.
Table D4 – Resource Comparison: DD Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
DD
Elementary
School
DDES – EBM
Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS

School Configuration K-5 K-5 Same as EBM
Enrollment 432 742 42% Larger
Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K-3 20
4-5 30
25% Larger
17% Larger
Full Day Kindergarten Yes No Less then EBM
Number of Teacher work days 190 +
10 days of PD
183+
2 days of PD
4% less than
EBM
80% fewer
professional
development
days
Students with Disability 12% 9% 3% fewer
students with
disability
Students in poverty 50% 88% 38% more
students in
poverty
EL students 10% 58% 48% more EL
students
Minority students 30% 96%

66% more
Minority
students
RESOURCES
Core Teachers 24 31 33% fewer core
teachers
192
Table D4, Continued
Specialist teachers 20% more; 4.8 (based
on student population)
6.2 (based on
the number of
core teachers)
0.6 at DDES
Instructional
Facilitators/mentors
2.2 0
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students: 2.16
0
Teachers for EL 1 for every 100: .96 4.3 (base on the
number of EL
students) 1 at
DDES
90% fewer
specialist
teachers than
EBM
No
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
No Tutors

77% fewer EL
Teachers than
EBM

Extended day 1.8 0 None at DDES
Summer School 1.8 0 None at DDES
Learning Disabled student 3 1 66% less than
EBM
GATE student $25/student 0

No site level
GATE Budget
Substitutes 5% of all of the above 0 No site level
substitutes
Pupil Support 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.32
0

No Pupil
Support Staff
Non-instructional aides 2 0 None at DDES
Librarian/Media specialists 1 0 None at DDES
Principal 1 1 Same as EBM
School Site Secretary 2 2 Same as EBM
Professional Development instructional
facilitators, Planning &
prep time, 10 summer
days, $100/pupil for
other PD expenses –
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc
2 days of
planning and
prep time. Paid
by district
80% fewer PD
days than EBM
193
Table D4, Continued
Technology $250/pupil $45.49/pupil 82% less spent
on technology
Instructional materials $140/ pupil Not disclosed
Student activities $200/pupil 0 None budgeted
at DDES

Table D5 lists the implementations of Odden et al.’s Ten Steps to Double
Performance at DDES. The school excelled in two areas: adoption of a rigorous
standards-based curriculum and the provision of extra help for struggling students.
The other four – administering needs assessment, using instructional time efficiently,
creating PLC, and family engagement – were average. Setting high goals for student
performance, engaging in data based decision-making, committing resources to
ongoing professional development, and empowering leaders to support instructional
improvement – were weak.
Table D5 – Implementation of Odden et al.’s Ten Steps to Double Performance at
DD Elementary School
Implementation Odden’s Strategies
Strong Average Weak
Notes
1) administer a needs
assessment

√
The district mandates dates for
benchmark assessments. Results from the
benchmark assessment serve a needs
assessment.
2) set high goals for
student performance

√
The principal set the high goal as 800 on
the API. The plan is unclear as to how
she will meet this goal.
3) adopt a rigorous,
standards-based
curriculum
√

The teachers all follow state approved,
district adopted curricula, and follow the
pacing guide provided by the district to
teach the standards based course of study.
194
Table D5, Continued
4) engage in data-
driven decision making

√
The school uses School City is used as a
platform for data driven decision-making,
however there are no protocols in place to
use data to drive instruction.
5) commit resources in
ongoing and effective
professional
development

√
Teachers collaborate during PLC on a
regular basis, however there is no plan for
ongoing professional development, nor is
there accountability built into the PLC.
Additionally, PLC participation is
mandatory, and the allotted 45 minute
meeting time hinders its effectiveness.
6) focus instructional
time efficiently

√
Instructional time, on paper, is focused on
core subjects. There is no accountability
protocol in place to monitor and verify
that instructional minutes are used to their
maximum efficiencies.
7) provide multiple
interventions for
struggling students

√

The school provides a variety of
programs to support the struggling
students before, during and after school.
8) create professional
learning communities

√
The PLC program is still in its infancy at
this point and the staff shows hesitancies
about working collaboratively.
9) empower leaders to
support instructional
improvement

√
As a new principal, she is still working on
developing leaders at the school to
improve instruction.
10) Family engagement

√
DDES has several opportunities for
parent involvement.

Future Implications
As a low performing school, improving a school’s API score is relatively
easy. Now that the goal is to meet the 800 threshold for API the improvement effort
may be more challenging. The school must collectively move toward improving
instruction and addressing the needs of the struggling students to meet the API score
goal. The principal can utilize PLCs to bring the staff together develop teacher
leaders to offer high quality instruction to all the students at DDES.
195
APPENDIX E
CASE STUDY FIVE
EE Elementary School: Instructional Improvement Strategies and Resource Use
EE Elementary School (EEES) is one of 17 elementary schools in the WW
Unified School District. Located in southern Los Angeles County, CA, WW Unified
School District currently serves a total of approximately 25,300 students in grades K-
12 with four comprehensive high schools, eight grades 6-8 middle schools, seventeen
grades K-5 elementary schools, two alternative education schools, and one each
continuation and alternative schools. EEES opened its doors in 1957, serving
primarily the immediate neighborhood that surrounds it.
EEES provides a total of 55,404 instructional minutes during its traditional
180-day school calendar, which features a joint 8:50 start time with staggered
dismissal of 1:50 for kindergarten, 3:03 for grades 1-3 and 3:12 for the upper grades.
In response to a district led initiative to implement Professional Learning
Communities, EEES adopted a teacher led professional development program; the
site’s bell schedule was modified in January of the 2008-2009 school year for early
Wednesday dismissal to allocate time for the program. Budget constraints in the
2009-2010 academic year forced WWUSD to further revise the bell schedules across
the district to harmonize bus schedules and maximize efficiencies.
EEES’ 2009-2010 enrollment is 611 students in grades K-5, with the ethnic
distribution of students reflecting that of the community: 18% Asian, 25% Hispanic,
23% white. The balance of the student body is made up of Filipino, African
American and Pacific Islander students and students who did not declare their
196
ancestry. Of this student population, approximately 25% of students are identified as
English Learners (EL), whose primary languages include: Spanish (11.9%), Urdu
(2.3%), Japanese (1.3%), Vietnamese (1.1%), and Korean (1.1%) with 7.2% of the
EL group speaking languages other than English that are not part of the noted
linguistic groups.
EEES serves students coming dominantly from the middle and lower middle
classes. A petroleum refinery and many plant nurseries are prominent fixtures in the
neighboring area. Parents in this dominantly working class neighborhood are
typically laborers with limited education experience, and multigenerational families
sharing apartments with extended families are not uncommon. The principal
indicated there has been an increase in both the free and reduced lunch subgroup and
the number of high performing students electing to transfer to other schools in the
district that have more affluent student populations.
Class Size Reduction began in California in 1996. Schools were given
additional funds to lower primary class sizes to 20-to-1. While many school districts
took advantage of the additional resources available through CSR, the program did
not fully fund 20-to-1 class expenses. Budget cuts in the 2009-2010 academic year
forced EEES to increase class sizes in kindergarten to third grade from 20-to-1 to 24-
to-1. Twenty-four students is the threshold for Class Size Reduction at which
schools will continue to receive CSR funds yet are subject to penalties for exceeding
20 students per classroom. Recently, the WWUSD school board approved another
class size increase to 30-to-1 in kindergarten to third grade, and to 33-to-1 in the
upper grades. Thus, WWUSD is no longer receiving CSR funds. The current
economic crisis has had an impact on both the school and members of the
community it serves.
EEES is a Targeted Title I school that has seen the percentage of students
qualifying for free or reduced lunches growing; in the 2009-2010 academic year,
36.8% of students qualified, dramatically higher than the district average of 18%.
Approximately 6% more students qualified for free or reduced school lunches in
2009 than in 2005. With the increase of students qualifying for free or reduced
lunch, EEES is in the process of applying for school-wide Title I funding for the
2010-2011 school year. Figure E1 illustrates the growth in the population of reduced
or free lunch qualifying students.
Figure E1 – EEES Percent Free and Reduced Lunch 2000-2009

Although the percent of free and reduced lunch students at EEES has
increased over the past five years, longitudinal data from the California Department
of Education reveal that EEES’ Academic Performance Index (API) has also
197
198
increased by 23 points from 2005 to 2009. The goal for the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) is to surpass an API threshold score for both the student population as a
whole and statistically significant subgroups. EEES’ full student population has
consistently exceeded the 800 API benchmark, including a significant one-year gain
of 22 index points from 845 in 2006 to 867 in 2007. Noteworthy is the 22 point gain
made in school-wide API in the 2006-2007 school year. Figure E5.2 reveals all
statically significant subgroups made gains and the achievement gap between Asians
and Hispanics was at the all time low of 49 points. Additionally, they have
consistently met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) from 2005 to 2009.
Following four years of growth, EEES’ API scores declined in 2008-2009 by
19 points from 873 in 2008 to 854 in 2009. Moreover, the achievement gap between
the Asian and Hispanic subgroups continues to be an area of concern. In 2005 the
API gap between the Asian and Hispanic subgroups was 79 points; in 2008 the gap
escalated to 86 points, then in 2007 was down to 49 points, yet increased again to 79
points in 2009. The low SES subgroup has also struggled with proficiency rates;
since this subgroup became statistically significant in 2006, their API dropped 32
points from a high of 822 in 2008 to 790 in 2009.
Furthermore, the school’s English Learner subgroup’s API scores have
continued to decline while other groups have improved. Although Asian, Hispanic
or Latino, White (not Hispanic), and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
subpopulations have made gains in the past five years, the EL population has gone
down 48 points since 2007 when it became a statistically significant subgroup. See
Figure E2.
Figure E2 – EEES API Scores 2005-2009

The achievement gap between Asians and three subgroups remain an issue.
The Asian and Hispanic or Latino gap has hovered between 70-80 index points from
a low of 49 points in 2007. The Asian and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged gap
was 97 points in 2009 and the Asian/EL gap ballooned to 73 points in 2009. Table
E1 presents EEES’ API score from 2005 to 2009.

199
200
Table E1 – EEES API Scores 2005-2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Change
2005-
2009

School-wide 831 845 867 873 854 +23
Asian 878 887 899 907 887 +9
Hispanic or Latino 799 801 850 836 808 +9
White
(not Hispanic)
831 866 870 888 874 +43
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
* 764 816 822 790 *+26
English
Learner
* * 862 834 814 *-48
Students w/
Disabilities
* 700 * * * *
Hispanic/Asian Gap -79 -86 -49 -71 -79
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged/Asia
n Gap
* -123 -83 -85 -97
EL/Asian Gap * * -37 -73 -73
* Note: Not a statistically significant subgroup
In the analysis of five year API data, the school-wide API has increased by
23 points. Asian, Hispanic or Latino, White (not Hispanic), and Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged have also increased their API scores by 9, 9, 43, and 26 points
respectively. The White (non Hispanic) and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
population reflected growth that surpassed the school-wide total. English Learners,
however, have net loss of -48 between 2007 (when the EL population became a
significant subgroup) and 2009.
Several changes may have negatively impacted EEES’ school-wide
performance, reflected in a 19 point drop in API from 2008 to 2009. The principal
cited a new site leadership, combined with program cuts, as possible causes for the
decline in API scores.
EEES has made gains in school-wide API with most statistically significant
subgroups making good progress; the Similar Schools Rank has remained in the top
201
three deciles, to a high of 10 in the 2006 and 2007 school years from a low of 5 in
2005. It currently has a rank of 7.
The Similar Schools Ranks clusters 100 schools with like demographics and
rates them relative to each other based on these demographic factors. The schools
are gathered in deciles and scored on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being best. Table E2
details the Similar Schools Ranks’ decile ratings.
Table E2 – Similar Schools Ranks Decile Rating Scale
Highest Scoring Elementary School 100

Decile 10

90

Decile 9

80

Decile 8

70

Decile 7

60

Decile 6

50

Decile 5

40

Decile 4

30

Decile 3

20

Decile 2

10

Lowest Scoring Elementary School 1
Decile 1

202
Since the Similar Schools Ranks is based on a group of 100 schools, the top
ten schools will earn a rank of 10; the lowest ten schools will earn a rank of 1.
EEES’ Similar Schools Rank of 7 in 2009 puts the site in the top 30% of schools of
like demographics. On the Statewide Ranking, EEES fares somewhat better with a
score of 8. Table E3 illustrates EEES’ Similar Schools Ranking for the period 2005-
2009.
Table E3 – EEES Similar Schools Ranking 2005-2009
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Statewide Rank 8 8 9 9 8
Similar Schools Rank 5 7 10 10 7

EEES falls in the top two deciles, or the top 20%, of all schools in the
statewide ranks. In relation to similar schools ranking it falls in the top 30%. The
school fares slightly better on the statewide rank. Both the Statewide and Similar
Schools Rank declined in 2009.
In an effort to improve academic achievement EEES has adopted district-
wide Response to Intervention (RTI). The next section details the steps EEES is
taking in employing these and other models and programs to ensure growth and
improvement of student academic achievement.
Curriculum and Instruction
Response to Intervention (RTI)
In a district led effort to meet the academic needs of all students, the district
supported Response to Intervention (RTI) program was initiated at EEES in 2007.
203
EEES collaboratively developed a RTI model to address the needs of students not
attaining proficiency on the California Standards Test (CST). RTI’s fundamental
principles involve high quality instruction combined with frequent assessments and
data-based decision making.
There are three tiers in the RTI pyramid of interventions. Tier I, the broadest
and basic, is a school-wide intervention supporting all students at the site. Affecting
core instruction, Tier I is the most broadly preventative and proactive program,
addressing the needs of 80-90% of the site’s student population. Some students,
however, require a second tier of intervention that provides additional supports for
those students who are in an at-risk subgroup. Tier II interventions affect 5-10% of
the school’s student population. Tier III interventions affect approximately 1-5% of
the student body. Students in this tier often require intensive individual support as
they have not responded sufficiently to Tier I and II programs. In many cases, Tier
III groups include Special Education and Far Below Basic students who are taking
the California Modified Assessment (CMA).
EEES, being a Targeted Title I school with categorical funding, has directed
funds for interventions for ELA and Math for students ranked Basic, Below Basic
and Far Below Basic. The school has developed a school-wide reading focus for
Tier I students based on the Guided Reading method. Reading comprehension has
largely been the focus of Tier II students, with programs like Reading Recovering
and guided reading being employed. Struggling readers and students scoring Basic
and Below Basic are identified for these additional resources. These small group and
204
individual instructional pieces are implemented in six-week intervals with the goal of
specific skills instruction, additional practice, and preparation for the CST. Progress
monitoring is a key component and students are moved in and out of this
intervention every six weeks.
The staff at EEES has also targeted the English Learner (EL) population for
specific skills instruction for English Language Arts (ELA). In a further utilization
of Title I funds, an English Language Development (ELD) teacher has been hired for
the 2009-2010 school year, with a rise in the test results for the Level 1 and 2
English Language Learners as the instructional goal. Classes are set-up based on EL
level with the focus on vocabulary development, reading comprehension and writing.
Hampton Brown’s Into English course has been adopted for the instruction. All
support classes are taught by credentialed teachers.
Another instructional piece that attends to the English Learner has been the
focus on academic vocabulary. This is a step moving away from the rote instruction
of sight words to a focus on academic vocabulary that is critical for understanding
academic content. Considerable resources have been allocated for school-wide
professional development on academic vocabulary. The entire staff was present at
an all day Pikering workshop on academic vocabulary on February’s professional
development day. Substitute days have been budgeted for grade level collaboration
related to academic vocabulary along with PLC meetings devoted to this topic.
The curriculum and instructional pieces are to help students attain the NCLB
goal of 100% proficiency by 2014. The instructional component is to differentiate
205
instruction to meet the varied needs of the students and to close the achievement gap.
Classes remediate instruction specific to the child’s needs in order to help students
recover and return to the school-wide instruction. All instructional materials utilized
in the classes are district approved and aligned to the state standards.
The Tier III K-5 students are in a full inclusion / learning center model as
implemented by the district. Under the district initiative all Resource and Special
Day Class (SDC) students are included in the general education classrooms. As
EEES does not have a separate Resource or SDC class. The learning center model is
a collaborative program with the learning center teacher as the case worker for the
child with selected regular classroom teachers, para-educators, learning center aides,
occupational therapists, physical therapists, adaptive physical educators and speech
teachers present for pull out and push in services. Two credentialed learning center
teachers, two learning center aides, four para-educators are part of the EEES learning
center. District learning center support includes four full days of speech, two days of
counselor services and two days of school psychologist services weekly at EEES.
The learning center teacher, along with appropriate Individual Education Plan (IEP)
team members facilitate IEPs and coordinate services for the special education
student population.
Title I funds at EEES have been employed to hire two full-time certified
teachers to support struggling students. One position aids Tier II intervention
students using the Reading Recovery program. The other position is split, with half
of the time allotted to Reading Recovery, the other half to ELD for the Levels 1 and
206
2 EL students. Both posts offer the EL or struggling student individualized and
small group instruction on specific skills in the students’ particular areas of
difficulty.
Title I funding also offers additional before- and after-school tutoring by a
certified teacher. Students not meeting proficiency within the context of the Tier I
interventions are introduced to small group tutoring sessions to receive additional
help in reading or writing. The goal of these before- and after-school sessions is to
work with at-risk students on the core subject of reading. Funding provides the
teachers with the district’s hourly rate for tutoring students.
In the 2008-2009 school year the district offered emergency immigrant
emersion summer school half-days for ten days. Beyond this, EEES drew on Title I
monies to provide its own summer program. The program offered an hour and a half
English language development session each day for two weeks. Students were
selected by EL status as funding was from the EL budget. The program’s goal was
to keep students moving forward rather than regressing in their skills during the
summer. Another program offered to EL and Title I students was the summer jump-
start program, supported by EL and Title I funds and allocated to those student
subgroups. Students received two weeks of instruction to ensure they adequately
prepare for the first official day of school.
Professional Learning Community (PLC)
Professional Learning Communities began at EEES in January of 2008. The
district’s elementary school schedule was adjusted in January 2008 to allow 45
207
minutes of protected teacher collaboration time every Wednesday. During weekly
PLC meetings, teachers work on teacher-led topics of interest. The content of the
PLC meetings was propelled by teacher needs, while the agenda for the meeting was
determined by the leadership committee, in conjunction with the principal. PLC
content items addressed Standards Based Report Cards (SBRC), collaboration, and
techniques for supporting struggling students.
PLC discussions have been largely based on site needs and district-directed
topics. Early PLCs addressed Guided Reading, differentiation, the Sally Ride
Institute, and RTI. EEES’ RTI was based on a district led effort to cut costs by
reducing the number of students tested for special education and to support
struggling learners at every level. Recently PLC time has been devoted to working
with the struggling student and English Learner through academic vocabulary.
Leadership
The principal identified administrative turnover and fiscal instability as
significant factors contributing to the 19 point drop in API from 2008 to 2009. Since
2005 EEES has had three new principals. The lack of sustained leadership has
caused divisions within the faculty.
A new principal was installed at EEES in 2004, the same year that the
WWUSD began utilizing Success Maker Enterprises, a standards- and research-
based computer program, to improve student achievement. School-wide API scores
in 2005 increased to 831 and rose again in 2006 to 845. Under this principal, and
with the use of Success Maker, API scores improved 14 index points.
208
The principal was promoted to a high school prinicpalship, and a new
principal began in 2006. The new principal was a data consultant, bringing a new
data-driven plan to the school. Concurrently, WWUSD began to utilize Edusoft, a
computer application to collect and analyze student data that enables teachers to
create assessment and collect data on the district server. The data would then be
disaggregated to reveal trends to inform instruction. The principal collected the
Edusoft student data sheets from the EEES faculty every six- to eight-weeks, and
expected educators to address the needs of struggling students as revealed in the
Edusoft analysis. The principal hired a part-time classified employee to create
reports for the teachers from the benchmark assessments and through the Edusoft
analysis. Teachers were directed to use these data to drive their instruction. During
this time school-wide API scores gained 22 index points, from 845 in 2006 to 867 in
2007. EEES’ API scores grew another 6 points in 2008 to 873.
The launch of the 2008-2009 academic year saw another change in site
leadership. API scores in 2009 dropped 19 points. The principal cites a funding
downturn and the cumulative effects of rotating site stewardship as potential causes
for the decrease in the API index. Budget cuts forced the dismissal of the
certificated employee who created the reports for the faculty. Benchmark testing and
the use of Edusoft became optional. Teachers were still asked to use data to drive
instruction, however the principal did not review the reports every six- to eight-
weeks.

209
Use of Data
EEES has used data to drive collaborative efforts at the school. Teachers in
all grade levels have been asked to collect student data on a record sheet for
discussion during PLC. Teachers work collaboratively to set goals using SMART
(Specific, Measurable, Agreed upon, Realistic, Time based) Goal framework. PLC
meetings encourage conversations on effective teaching and tactics for supporting
struggling students. Teachers use their collected data as a springboard for
determining instructional goals and any necessary intervention strategies. Before
students are referred for intervention, teachers will often informally discuss
instructional strategies utilized in the classroom. Collectively, they establish the
specific area of need and establish a plan to benchmark and measure student
outcomes during a six- to eight-week period. Successful practices are shared along
with planning for differentiated instruction to help all learners attain proficiency and
beyond.
The central focus of PLC discussions has been on student achievement data.
At the beginning of each school year the district office presents all Title I school
principals and school leaders with longitudinal data based on CST scores. The
district provides the school sites with trend data and outlines the work that the needs
to be done. This one-week meeting among Title I schools offers district leaders,
principals, and school managers an opportunity to discuss and strategize successful
plans and tactics. Schools are presented with the district-wide goals as well as their
own AYP targets for the upcoming academic year. The director of curriculum
210
provided the teachers a pacing guide and new computer based software to track
student progress, optional formative and summative assessments every six- to eight-
weeks.
In addition to weekly professional development during PLCs, the site
administrators meet in a summer institute. During the weeklong meeting site
administrators take an in depth look at district and site specific achievement scores.
Administrators were instructed on how to interpret API, AYP, benchmark and other
data to inform instructional decisions at each school. The use of 5 professional
development days is outlined in Table E4.
Table E4 Professional Development Day Uses
Debrief on principals institute
Sept
Discussion of best scores
Grade level collaboration
Sept
Goal setting time
Sally Ride Institute (a.m.)
Oct
ELD Workshop (p.m.)
Feb
Pikering all day PD on using academic
vocabulary to boost learning for EL
students
June Tbd

District supported training included Sheltered Instruction Observation
Protocol (SIOP) strategies and best practices for the classroom teacher. One teacher
from each grade level from each elementary school was invited to district
professional development meetings in order to improve their professional practice.
Teachers developed curriculum maps and lesson plans to implement at their sites.
This program was cut due to budget constraints in 2008 and is currently dormant.
211
Another district support professional development program is Conceptual
Understanding and Problem Solving (CUPS). Like SIOP, one teacher from each
grade level at each elementary site in the district was invited to learn about the
program from the district and spearhead it at their home sites. This arithmetic rooted
professional development program focused on valuing conceptual understanding
over computational skills, where teachers were asked to create formative assessments
to determine a student’s conceptual understanding and problem solving capabilities.
This program, too, was suspended in 2008.
Comparison of EEES resource allocation to the Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) will be used to examine
how resources are allocated in EEES. The Evidence Based Model (EBN) is an
adequacy model based on research based strategies for improving student
achievement which has shown promise in studies. Table E5 provides a summary of
the resource use at EEES and its relation to the EBM’s prototypical elementary
school.
Although similar in school configuration and enrollment, EEES’ resource
allocation falls far short of the recommendations in the EBM. EEES has more needs
based on the increased number of students with disabilities, students in poverty, EL
students, and minority students while resources are generally 33%. Moreover, many
programs recommended in the EBM do not exist at EEES. One program EEES’
principal desired initiating is the addition of an instructional coach to support
collaboration and professional development to improve instruction.
212
Table E5 – Resource Comparison: EE Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools
EE
Elementary
School
EEES – EBM
Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS

School Configuration K-5 K-5 Same as EBM
Enrollment 432 611 41% Larger
Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K-3 24
4-5 33
60% Larger
40% Larger
Full Day Kindergarten Yes Yes Less then EBM
Number of Teacher work days 190 +
10 days of PD
180+
5 days of PD
5% (10 days)
less than EBM
50% (5 days)
fewer
professional
development
days
Students with Disability 12% 14% 2% more
students with
disability
Students in poverty 50% 36% 14% fewer
students in
poverty
EL students 10% 22% 12% more EL
students
Minority students 30% 77%

47% more
Minority
students
RESOURCES
Core Teachers 24 32 More core
teachers,
however the
EBM would
call for 3 more
teachers based
on the
increased
school size
213
Table E5, Continued
Specialist teachers 20% more; 4.8 (based
on student population)
6.4 (based on
the number of
core teachers)
1.5 at EEES
Instructional
Facilitators/mentors
2.2 0
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students: 2.16
0
Teachers for EL 1 for every 100: .96 1.3 (based on
the number of
EL students)
0.66 at EEES
77% fewer
specialist
teachers than
EBM
No
Instructional
Facilitators
/mentors
No Tutors

50% fewer EL
Teachers than
EBM

Extended day 1.8 0 No Extended
day teachers
Summer School 1.8 2 2.2 times more
than the EBM
Learning Disabled student 3 2 33% fewer
Learning
Disabled
teachers
GATE student $25/student 0

No site level
GATE Budget
Substitutes 5% of all of the above 0 No site level
substitutes
Pupil Support 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.32
0

No Pupil
Support Staff
Non-instructional aides 2 0 None at EEES
Librarian/Media specialists 1 0 None at EEES
Principal 1 1 Same as EBM
School Site Secretary 2 1 50% fewer
School site
Secretary staff
than EBM
Professional Development instructional
facilitators, Planning &
prep time, 10 summer
days, $100/pupil for
other PD expenses –
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc
5 days of
planning and
prep time
$40,921
($91.76 per
pupil) other PD
expenses –
trainers,
conferences,
travel, etc
50% fewer PD
days than EBM
214
Table E5, Continued
Technology $250/pupil $201.28/pupil 20% less spent
on technology
Instructional materials $140/ pupil $54.56/pupil 60% less spent
on
instructional
materials
Student activities $200/pupil 0 None budgeted
at EEES

Table E6 lists the implementations of Odden et al.’s Ten Steps to Double
Performance at EEES. The school excelled in four areas: analyzing student data,
implementing effective curriculum and instructional program, providing extra help
for struggling students and creating professional and collaborative school cultures.
The other six – setting ambitious goals, using benchmark and formative assessments,
employing ongoing professional development, using instructional time efficiently,
using research based and proven strategies, and investing in human capital – were
average.
Table E6 – Implementation of Odden et al.’s Ten Steps to Double Performance at EE
Elementary School
Implementation Odden’s Strategies
Strong Average Weak
Notes
1) administer a needs
assessment
√
The previous administration rigorously
administered needs assessments and
scheduled deadlines for reports on
struggling students. New administration
and in part budget constraints limited the
implementation of this strategy in 2008-
2010 school year.
2) set high goals for
student performance

√
The school staff continues to work
collaboratively to develop a coherent and
clear vision of high goal for student
performance.
215
Table E6, Continued
3) adopt a rigorous,
standards-based
curriculum
√

The teachers all follow state approved,
district adopted curricula, and follow the
pacing guide provided by the district to
teach the standards based course of study.
4) engage in data-
driven decision
making
√
The school has been engaging in data
driven decision making, but not to the
same extent as with the previous
administration.
5) commit resources
in ongoing and
effective professional
development
√
Teachers collaborate during PLC on a
regular basis, however there is no plan for
ongoing professional development, nor is
there accountability built into the PLC.
Additionally, PLC participation is
mandatory, and the allotted 45 minute
meeting time hinders its effectiveness.
6) focus instructional
time efficiently
√
With a strong focus on writing, the use of
instructional time appears to be
acceptable, however the principal does
not monitor the teachers’ use of
instructional time.
7) provide multiple
interventions for
struggling students

√
The school provides a variety of
programs to support the struggling
students before, during and after school.
8) create professional
learning communities
√
The strategy of collaboration to create
professional learning communities is an
area in which EEES is still developing.
9) empower leaders
to support
instructional
improvement
√
The principal is still developing a rapport
with the staff and is seeking support for
instructional improvement. The
Leadership team is still in its beginning
stages.
10) Family
engagement

√
The principal allocates time and resources
for family engagement. This is an area of
strength for the school. Monthly coffee
with the principal is well attended and
used a social gathering as well an avenue
for parent education.

Future Implications
Strong school leadership and data based decision making helped to narrow
the achievement gap at EEES in 2007. New school leadership, budget constraints,
and community with struggling with the economic downturn are possible causes for
216
the recent decline in API scores. Additionally, with the increased number of free and
reduced lunch students, EEES student needs may grow more than the funds can
support them. With the new Federal guideline for School-wide Title I funding,
EEES is now eligible to become a School-wide Title I school, for which EEES is
applying with the backing of the site’s parent body. The allocation flexibility
afforded School-wide Title I money may allow EEES to once again institute
programs which have proven to be successful in the past, such as their data-based
decision making protocol from the 2006-2008 school years. Furthermore, as the new
administration begins to collaboratively develop the staff and informal leaders, EEES
may be able to make progress in improving its programs for the struggling students,
increasing API scores for the school and subgroups, and creating new communities
of practice through PLCs.
APPENDIX F
PRE-VISIT DOCUMENTS

Suggested text for letter of agreement to participate

[PRINTED ON RESEARCH SITE’S LETTERHEAD]

[DATE]

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

RE: [PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR’S NAME
STUDENT INVESTIGATOR’S NAME (IF APPLICABLE)
TITLE OF RESEARCH STUDY]

Dear UPIRB Chair:

This letter is to convey that I have reviewed the proposed research study entitled “---
-------“ being conducted by “-------------” from the University of Southern California.
I understand that research activities as described in the proposed research study will
occur at “-----------.” I give permission for the above investigator(s) to conduct their
study at this site. If you have any questions regarding this permission letter, please
contact me at “-------------“.

Sincerely,

[INSERT AUTHORIZED AGENT’S NAME (E.G., SCHOOL PRINCIPAL,
DIRECTOR, ETC.]
[INSERT TITLE]

217
218
APPENDIX G
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.

219
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.

APPENDIX H
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
220
221
interview should also be recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about
this person (E.g., phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes
sections, as well as what the data source is.

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

222
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

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
223
day begins at 8:30am and ends at 3:15pm, then the total length of the
school day is 405 minutes.)
I. Length of Instructional Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
present for instruction. This information should be available from the
school bell schedule or a school staff member. Subtract recess, lunch,
and passing periods time from the total minutes in the school day. This
calculation is different from how the state measures the “instructional
day.” (E.g., If the length of the school day is 405 minutes, and the
students have 20 minutes for lunch and 25 minutes for recess, then the
length of the instructional day is 360 minutes.)
J. Length of Mathematics Class: Number of minutes of mathematics class
periods per day. These include periods when students are specially
grouped for extended mathematics instruction. Report an average per
day length.
K. Length of Reading/English/LA Class: Number of minutes of reading,
English, and language arts (LA) class periods. These include periods
when students are specially grouped for extended literacy instruction.
(E.g., reading, writing, comprehension) Report an average per day
length.
L. Length of Science Class: Number of minutes of science class periods per
day. These include periods when students are specially grouped for
extended science instruction. Report an average per day length.
M. Length of Social Studies Class: Number of minutes of social studies and
history class periods per day. These include periods when students are
specially grouped for extended history or social studies instruction.
Report an average per day length.
N. AYP: This is a measure as to whether the school made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) during the previous school year (2007-08). Enter “Y” or
“N” or “NA.”
O. API

VI. Core Academic Teachers

The classroom teachers primarily responsible for teaching a school’s core
academic subjects of reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science,
history/social studies, and foreign language. In elementary schools, core
academic teachers consist of the teachers in the self-contained regular
education classrooms. Some elementary schools may also departmentalize
certain core subjects such as math or science, especially in the upper grades.
These teachers are also to be included as core teachers. In middle schools,
high schools, or any other departmentalized school, core teachers consist of
those teachers who are members of the English/language arts, mathematics,
science, social studies, and foreign language departments along with special
education or ESL/bilingual teachers who provide classes in these subjects.
224
The teachers should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. (E.g., a half-time teacher would be entered as 0.5) If
teachers are assigned to multiage classrooms, divide up the FTEs weighted
by students per each grade. Enter each teacher’s name that corresponds to
the FTEs entered in the corresponding notes fields. Indicate in parentheses if
the teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category. Example:
Grade 1: Matthew Perry (0.5), Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston;
Grade 2: David Schwimmer (0.25), 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.

225
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.
226
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.
227
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 2008.
GG. Summer School Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who
provided students with extra instructional time to achieve to the
standards in the regular curriculum during summer 2008.

X. Other Instructional Staff

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

A. Consultants (other than PD contracted services): Dollar amount for all
other consultants other than professional development contracted
services.
B. Building Substitutes: Number of FTE permanent substitutes.
228
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
estimated FTE amount depending on how much time they spend at the
school.
229
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.
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
230
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
grade, the page with that grade's sections will be displayed where you can
enter the individual class sizes.

231
APPENDIX I
DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL

School Profile
School Name School’s
State
ID Number

Address

City State
Zip
CA
Phone Fax

Website

NOTES:

232

School Contact (1)
Title
Principal
Honorific First Name Last
Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

School Contact (2)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

School Contact (3)
Title

Honorific First Name Last
Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

233

District Profile
District Name

District State ID

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:

234
District Contact (3)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:
School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment

Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment

Grade Span

Number of At-Risk Students*
*Collect from district
Number of ELL/Bilingual Students

Number of High Mobility Students*
*Collect from district
Number of Students Eligible for Free- and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL)

Total Number of Special Education Students (IEPs)

Number of Special Education Students (self-contained)

Total Length of School Day

Length of Instructional Day

Length of Mathematics Class

Length of Reading or English/LA Class

235

Length of Science Class

Length of Social Studies Class

Length of Foreign Language Class

AYP

NOTES:

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

236

Grade 12

English/Reading/L.A.

History/Soc. Studies

Math

Science

Foreign Language

NOTES:

Specialist and Elective Teachers
/Planning and Prep
FTEs
Art

Music

PE/Health

Drama

Technology

Career & Technical Education

Drivers Education

Study Hall

Athletics

237

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers Description:

NOTES

Library Staff FTEs
Librarian

Library Media Specialist

Library Aide

NOTES:
Extra Help I FTEs or Dollars ($)
Certified Teacher Tutors

Non-Certified Tutors

ISS Teachers

ISS Aides

Title I Teachers

Title I Aides

ELL Class Teachers

Aides for ELL

Gifted Program Teachers

Gifted Program Aides

Gifted Program Funds
$
238

Other Extra Help Teachers

Other Extra Help Teachers Funded with Federal
Dollars:

Other Extra Help Classified Staff

Other Extra Help Classified Staff Funded with
Federal Dollars:

NOTES:

Extra Help II FTEs
Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for severely disabled students)

Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers

Special Ed. Resource Room Teacher

Special Ed. Self-contained Aides

Special Ed. Inclusion Aides

Special Ed. Resource Room Aides

NOTES:

Extra Help III
Number of Extended Day Students

Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program
minutes
Teacher Contract Minutes per Week
minutes
Extended day Teachers

239

Extended Day Classified Staff

Description of Extended Day Classified Staff

Minutes per Week of Summer School
minutes
Length of Session (# of Weeks)
weeks
School’s Students Enrolled in Summer School

All Students in Summer School

Summer School Teachers

Summer School Classified Staff

NOTES:

Other Instructional Staff FTEs and Dollars ($)
Consultants
(other than pd contracted services)
$
Building substitutes and other substitutes

Other Teachers

Other Instructional Aides

Funds for Daily Subs

$
NOTES:

240

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:

Student Services FTEs
Guidance

Attendance/Dropout

Social Workers

Nurse

Parent advocate/community liaison

Psychologist

Speech/O.T./P.T.

241

Health Asst.

Non-teaching aides

Other Student Services

Description Of Other Student Services
Staff:

NOTES:

Administration FTEs
Principal

Assistant principal

Other Administrator

Description of Other Administrator:

Secretary

Clerical staff

Technology Coordinator/ I.T.

Security

Custodians

NOTES:

242

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

243
APPENDIX J
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?

244
6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a part
of your reform efforts? (E.g., Individualized instruction,
differentiated instruction, 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading
instruction)
• Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy?
• How did you know that the instructional strategies were being
implemented?
B. What were the resource pieces of the strategy? How long have the
resources been in place?

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

245
C. Was the improvement effort centrist (central office orchestrated) or
bottom up?

D. What type of instructional leadership was present?

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

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

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines how five diverse California elementary schools—two underperforming and three high achieving, with statistically significant subgroups of English Learner, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and minority students—have allocated resources to improve student achievement. The applied research contributes new information to the current body of knowledge regarding Adequacy Oriented School Finance Reform (Picus, Odden, Aportela, Mangan, & Goetz, 2008).

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Maunalani complex: a resource allocation study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Toyoda-Smart, Kumi (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 11/10/2010

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

Tag California public schools,case studies,elementary school,evidence based model,Los Angeles County,OAI-PMH Harvest,public education,resource allocation,school finance,school leadership

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email kdsmart@cox.net,kdsmart@me.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3524

Unique identifier UC1159007

Identifier etd-ToyodaSmart-4110 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-418068 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3524 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ToyodaSmart-4110.pdf

Dmrecord 418068

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Toyoda-Smart, Kumi

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