University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Resource allocation practices in relation to identified school reform strategies

(USC Thesis Other)

Resource allocation practices in relation to identified school reform strategies

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content i
RESOURCE ALLOCATION PRACTICES IN RELATION TO
IDENTIFIED SCHOOL REFORM STRATEGIES

by

Sheryl Lyn McDonald

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

May 2009

Copyright 2009 Sheryl Lyn McDonald
ii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I must acknowledge my friend and colleague, Dr. Deborah Granger,
without whom I would not have successfully completed my doctoral program. Thank you
from the bottom of my heart. The support of my cohort, my family, and my friends has
been invaluable during this journey, and I thank each of them for the words of
encouragement along the way. The same is true for my colleagues at work whose
frequent inquiries into my progress and offers of support when times were tough I found
to be invaluable. Special thanks to Linda MacDonell who planted the seed for pursuing
my doctorate through USC from the very first day I started working at the county. I must
also thank Dr. Lawrence Picus, my Dissertation Chair, for the continual feedback and
guidance throughout along with Dr. John Nelson and Dr. Guilbert Hentschke who helped
make the process meaningful and constructive in the midst of all the anxiety. To Renee
who helped format and to Steve who helped me see the light at the end of the tunnel, I
gratefully acknowledge your support in getting this done. Finally, I must say thanks to
my parents, who have always believed in me, supported me, and encouraged me to
accomplish the goals I have set for myself. I love you both.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii

List of Tables v

List of Figures vii

Abstract viii

Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Introduction 1
Purpose of the Study 6
Significance of the Study 7
Summary of Methodology 7
Limitations 8
Delimitations 8
Assumptions 9
Definitions 9

Chapter 2: Literature Review 12
Traditional Allocation of Resources in Schools 12
Research Based Reform Strategies 16
Professional Development and Collaboration 16
A Coherent, Standards-Based Curriculum and Data 23
Leadership 26
Connecting Resource Use to Improvements in Student Achievement 29

Chapter 3: Methodology 35
Research Questions 36
Design Summary 38
Participant and Settings: Boundaries and Purposeful Sampling 38
Method 40
Instruments 42

Chapter 4: Findings 45
Summary of Case Studies 46
SAIT Middle School-1 47
Non-SAIT Middle School-1 49
SAIT Middle School-2 50
Non-SAIT Middle School-2 53
SAIT Middle School-3 55
Background Data for Comparison Across Sample Schools 57
Student Achievement Data 59
iv
Current Instructional Reform Support Strategies at the Site Level 62
Eight Key Factors 64
Resources Used to Implement the School’s Instructional Improvement
Strategies and Comparisons to the Evidence-Based Model 72
Personnel Resources 72
Extra Help 77
Professional Development 81
Student Services 83
Administration 85
SAIT in Comparison to Non-SAIT Sites 86
The Impact of Resources on the Strategic Plan for Improvement 91

Chapter 5: Conclusions 93
Reform Strategies and Resource Allocation 96
Teacher Efficacy 96
Instructional Leadership 98
Lower Class Size 99
Improvement in Language Arts 100
General Conclusions 107
Possible Recommendations for the Evidence-Based Model 102
Implications for Future Study 105

References 107

Appendices
Appendix A School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators 113
Appendix B Cost Structure for Professional Development 115
Appendix C Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol 117
Appendix D Data Collection Codebook 120
Appendix E Data Collection Protocol 131
Appendix F Case Studies 143
SMS-1 143
SMS-2 161
SMS-3 178
NSMS-1 195
NSMS-2 213

v
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Nine Essential Program Components for Middle Schools 32
Table 4.1: API Rankings and Subgroup Growth at SMS-1 49
Table 4.2: 2004-2008 Significant Subgroup Populations for SMS-1
and NSMS-1 49

Table 4.3: API Rankings and Subgroup Growth at NSMS-1 50
Table 4.4: 2004-2008 Significant Subgroup Populations for SMS-2 51
Table 4.5: API Rankings and Subgroup Growth at SMS-2 52
Table 4.6: 2004-2008 Significant Subgroup Populations for NSMS-2 53
Table 4.7: API Rankings and Subgroup Growth at NSMS-2 54
Table 4.8: 2004-2008 Significant Subgroup Populations for SMS-3 55
Table 4.9: API Rankings and Subgroup Growth at SMS-3 57
Table 4.10: Demographic Subgroups and Percentage of Overall
Student Population 58

Table 4.11: Data for Comparison Across All Five Sites 59
Table 4.12: Average Percentage Increase of Students Proficient or Above
on CSTs in Language Arts and Mathematics 61

Table 4.13: Nine Essential Program Components for Middle Schools 63
Table 4.14: Number of Personnel Allocated to Core Content Areas 74
Table 4.15: Personnel Allocations in Comparison to Evidence-Based Model
Recommendations 76

Table 4.16: Extended Day Services and Evidence-Based Model
Recommendations 79

Table 4.17: Summer School Offerings in Comparison to the
Evidence-Based Model 80

vi
Table 4.18: Pupil Support Personnel in Comparison to the
Evidence-Based Model 84

Table 4.19: Administration Allocations in Comparison to the
Evidence-Based Model 86

vii
List of Figures
Figure 4.1: Percentage of Students Proficient or Above in Language Arts
on CSTs Including State Averages 60

Figure 4.2: Percentage of Students Proficient or Above in Mathematics
on CSTs Including State Averages 60
viii
Abstract
This study explored resource allocation patterns at California middle schools in
comparison to the Evidence-Based Model. Three schools completing the second year of
state sanctions (SAIT) were selected to determine how schools under watch allocate
resources. The remaining two were selected from the Similar Schools List from the state
to create matched pairs.
Resource allocation patterns were examined for personnel, extra help,
professional development, student services, and administration. All sites were in line with
or above the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) for professional development and
administration. The SAIT sites, which all have QEIA funding to support lower class size,
were above or close to the model for personnel while the two non-SAIT sites were
underfunded based on EBM recommendations. The student support category varied with
three sites above the EBM for guidance counselors and four sites below for other support
personnel. All were underfunded in the extra help category in the EBM with limited
resources allocated for certificated tutors and other academic supports through extended
day or summer school programs.
Strategies employed by the sites to improve student achievement were also
compared to eight key factors identified from the literature on school improvement as a
framework for analyzing reform efforts. On paper, all had fairly similar strategies in
place for improving student achievement with very different results. The highest
performing site in the study, on par with state averages for proficiency in language arts
and mathematics on state accountability measures (although still less than 50% of
ix
students proficient or above in these two areas) was the school with the fewest resources.
The site with the greatest resources was the lowest performing. Teacher efficacy and
instructional leadership were pivotal at the higher performing sites with strong teacher
leadership in professional development and support where lower performing sites used
more outside resources. Finally, lower class size alone did not equate to academic
success, and improvement in language arts lags behind mathematics at all sites.
1
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study
Introduction

The history of school funding over the last century is well documented as both
economic trends and political issues have influenced and impacted per pupil spending
across the nation. While there have been relative peaks and valleys throughout, the
general trend is clearly one of increased spending overall in terms of real expenditures on
education (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997; Picus & Fazal, 1996). The rising costs of both
instructional and non-instructional staff coupled with declining pupil-teacher and pupil-
staff ratios account for the lion’s share of growth in educational spending through the
1990s (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997; Picus & Fazal, 1996). While this general increase in
spending is evident, huge disparities exist across each of the states leaving a very unequal
allotment of funds per pupil with some states spending more than twice as much on
students in comparison to others (Barro, 1992; Picus & Fazal, 1996; U.S. Census
Bureau, 2008).
To address some of these inequities on the local and state level, a series of court
actions focused first on civil rights aspects of equal education and second on reducing the
spending gap between districts by setting minimal levels of guaranteed funding. In
California, for example, litigation around ensuring quality education for all students
preceded the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) findings in Mendez v. Westminster
(1947) where segregating Mexican and Mexican American children was found
unconstitutional. Later that same year, California Governor, Earl Warren, repealed the
remaining segregation statutes in California Education Code. These cases were
2
unsuccessful in terms of equalizing actual spending per pupil given the dependence on
local taxes as the primary source of education funding. Serrano v. Priest (1971) allowed
California courts to intervene once again in an attempt to reconcile disparities in per pupil
expenditures between high poverty and high wealth districts. In turn, a number of
Assembly/Senate Bills and Propositions have further defined the role of the state in
funding for K-12 education from revenue limits, lottery funds, and incentives for class
size reduction to limits on property tax rates and increases. (For more on the history of
school finance in California see Timar, 2006). While legally compliant in meeting
minimal levels of funding, large discrepancies still exist in spite of all that the courts and
state legislature have tried to do. In Orange County, California, as but one example,
district spending per pupil ranges from a low of $6,557 to a high of $10,525 (County of
Orange Health Care Agency, 2007). The missing link in discussions of school funding
has been the impact on student achievement. Is it truly a question of equalizing spending,
or is it a matter of providing an adequate education for all students, which may require
more or less spending per student depending on need?
Changes in the political climate related to issues of equity and accountability have
added additional considerations for school funding: the battery of legal cases involving
equal access on the grounds of race, gender, special needs, and language ability have
paved the way for mandated base-level spending per pupil while adding funding for
special needs students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Little was done to track the impact of these increased monies on student achievement,
which set the stage for current accountability legislation such as No Child Left Behind
3
(NCLB) where student outcomes on mandated assessments are now the primary
measurement of a schools’ effectiveness.
What has been relatively unclear and undocumented through this history,
however, is the relationship between increases in spending and improvement in overall
student achievement or lack thereof. Providing equal dollar amounts per pupil has not
resulted in dramatic increases in student achievement nor has it led to what is now
considered the goal of an “adequate” education for all students. This shift from equity in
per pupil spending to accountability for providing an adequate education is in direct
response to providing more money to schools without results in terms of achievement:
This example of an equitable system performing poorly led to a new legal and
policy view, now described as ‘adequacy’. Adequacy dovetails directly with
accountability…A ubiquitous outcome of accountability systems is an explicit
statement of the performance deficit– that is, how many students have not
reached proficiency by the state’s standards. The natural extension of this
finding of low student performance is an assessment of why this might be.
And the answer as asserted in the new round of court cases dealing with
adequacy is that resources are insufficient to support the achievement
standards. (Hanushek, 2006, p. xvi)

In attempts to ensure the noble goal of educating all students to high levels of
proficiency, the courts have now tried to define “adequate”, which has, however, been
problematic in that the typical solution involves spending more money without analyzing
the relationship between increased spending and student outcomes. In fact, examples
abound of both high performing schools with lower expenditures and low performing
schools with higher expenditures (see Walberg, 2006; Evers & Clopton, 2006). So, what
in fact is the connection between resource allocation and student performance? Given the
current fiscal situation in California, educators must strive to meet accountability goals
4
with less money, fewer resources, and a growing number of students needing additional
support services to reach “adequate” levels of proficiency as defined by the state of
California. It is critical for educators to harness resources in the most effective way
possible to target and support the identified needs of students from those struggling to
master standards to those needing challenge above and beyond.
Four models have emerged in an attempt to answer the question of how to allocate
resources for an adequate education: the cost function approach, successful
districts/schools, professional judgment panels, and the evidence-based or expert panel
approach (Guthrie & Rothstein, 1999; Odden & Picus, 2000; Hanushek, 2006; Rebel,
2007). The cost function approach “employs regression analysis with expenditure per
pupil as the dependent variable, and student and district characteristics as well as
performance levels desired, as the independent variables” (Odden, 2003, p. 6). After the
expense per pupil for an adequate education is determined, adjustments are made for
various factors including student need and diseconomies of scale.
The successful district/schools approach identifies sites with high levels of
standards mastery and sets “the adequacy level at the weighted average of the
expenditures per pupil of those districts” (Odden, 2003, p. 5). While there are other
criticisms of both approaches, the most problematic for the purposes of this study is that
neither of these models identifies which strategies led to improved student performance
making it difficult to transfer their success to similar schools or districts.
Both professional judgment panels and the Evidence-Based Model address this
issue by focusing on research-based strategies to increase student achievement that are
5
then assigned a cost value to determine per pupil expenditures. Panels may vary widely in
determining what mixture of school reform strategies will best serve any given school or
district and how to implement these best practices. Salary increases, class-size reduction,
or a program used with tremendous success in one school may or may not yield similar
results in another due to the multitude of confounding variables within the complicated
organizational structures of schools and districts. Furthermore, few professional judgment
panels attempt to link such strategies to actual student performance (Odden, 2003;
Hanushek, 2006), and some rely more heavily on the professional opinions of the
teachers and administrators directly benefiting from potential outcomes than research-
based practices (Hanushek, 2006).
The evidence-based approach differs from a professional judgment panel in that
the strategies for increasing student achievement are predetermined by the experts who
created the model in terms of the resources necessary to attain high levels of achievement
for all students. Developers of the approach have identified key components from the
research to ensure delivery of “a high-quality, comprehensive, schoolwide instructional
program” (Odden, 2003, p. 8), assigned cost values to these elements (including
additional support for special needs students, English learners, and those on Free and
Reduced Lunch), and aggregated these costs to a per pupil expenditure level with the goal
of improving student performance (Odden, 2003; Picus & Odden, 2008). According to
Hanushek, perhaps the most vocal critic of the evidence-based approach, and in fact all
the models presented here, developers identified elements from research to create a
fictitious model school and then determined funding allocations to implement their model
6
without making “use of the actual spending and achievement experiences of districts in
the specific state” (Hanushek, 2006, p. 262).

Purpose of the Study
Each model attempts to use what has worked in school reform based on research
or observed practice, and for issues of resource allocation, the real question becomes one
of how much is needed to implement recommendations from whichever model has been
used. The various approaches are quite different in determining how to set a cost for
implementation of instructional reform strategies. The purpose of this study is to compare
the resource allocation of five, middle school sites against the Evidence-Based Model
to determine how schools are spending their monies in relation to research-based
recommendations for effective school reform. As a subset of data, three of the schools
were selected for their status in relation to state sanctions to see if different patterns
emerge for state-monitored schools. To that end, the study will focus on four
research questions:
• What are current instructional improvement strategies at the school-level?
• How are actual resource patterns at the school sites aligned with or different
from the resource use strategies that are used in the Evidence-Based Model?
• How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
strategies? (instructional vision, plan, goals, etc.)
• How does the availability of resources affect the development and
implementation of the strategic plan?
7
Significance of the Study

Given the current fiscal crisis facing the state of California and its subsequent
impact on school funding, it is perhaps more crucial than ever to examine the relationship
between allocation of resources and reform initiatives designed to improve student
achievement. Sites cannot afford to spend money on or assign personnel to programs that
do not demonstrate measurable gains in the high stakes world of accountability. Findings
from this study may help to guide practitioners and/or administrators in making decisions
around scarce resources to best meet the goal of educating all students to higher levels of
proficiency. Of additional benefit, results may serve to inform policymakers in making
decisions around legislation and mandates regarding issues of school finance and
resource allocation to promote a more efficient use of educational resources at individual
school sites and the district level.

Summary of the Methodology

Both qualitative and quantitative data will be gathered in this mixed methods
study. Structured interviews and document analysis will yield quantitative data on basic
expenditures and resource allocation practices. Open-ended questions during the
interview process will illicit quantitative data to inform case studies for each of the
schools in identifying connections between reform strategies and resource allocation
patterns. Sites for the study were purposefully sampled to reduce the number of
confounding variables at play when interpreting the data. Five middle schools were
selected with four from the southern California area and one from northern California.
8
The first three sites were selected based on their status as SAIT (School Assistance and
Intervention Team) schools under state sanctions (see definitions for an explanation of
SAIT). Sites were evaluated in terms of size, English Learner population, number of
students on Free and Reduced Lunch, ethnicity, and API using the similar schools
ranking calculated by the state. A matched pair for each site was then determined based
on these same characteristics in order to explore the subset of data on SAIT schools to
non-SAIT schools all other factors being equal. One of the non-SAIT schools was a
match for two of the SAIT schools, which reduced the number of sites in the study from
the anticipated six to five.

Limitations
Data gathered for this study are limited to expenditures and resource allocations in
the 2008-2009 school year and are not longitudinal. Only school-level data were used, so
findings are not necessarily generalizable across districts.

Delimitations
Only public middle schools in California were considered for participation within
this study. Half of the schools were selected based on their status under SAIT, and the
remaining schools were matched in terms of various characteristics thus limiting the pool
of potential schools. Findings can only be generalized to California middle schools
meeting the same criteria used for selection within this study.

9
Assumptions
Underlying assumptions of this study include truthfulness in the interviews and
accuracy in data reporting from the site. Statistics and achievement data from the state
website were used to ensure consistency across the five sites although small differences
were sometimes apparent in identified percentages of students proficient and above on
state accountability measures in comparison to site reported data. It was assumed that
using state data as a consistent source of information would allow for more accuracy in
comparing information across all five sites.

Definitions
Accountability: States were required to develop accountability systems under No
Child Left Behind to measure student proficiency on state standards. For California, this
system is known as Standardized Testing And Reporting (STAR). Calculations are made
based on proficiency levels of students in various yearly assessments and reported in the
Academic Performance Index, which ranks schools based on overall performance and in
relation to schools sharing similar characteristics.
Adequacy: The concept of educating all students to a predetermined level of
proficiency as set by the state’s accountability system under No Child Left Behind.
Students with varying needs may require different levels of support in order to attain this
minimal level of proficiency.
10
API – Academic Performance Index: An annual ranking based on calculations
of student proficiency on yearly assessments as part of California’s overall
accountability system.
Categorical Funds: Monies available to sites based on specific, identified needs
and criteria coming from either state or federal funds. This includes, for example, federal
Title I monies allocated for Free and Reduced Lunch programs and professional
development funds under SB472 in the state of California and many more.
Equity: The concept of providing students with equal access to a quality education
through an even distribution of resources.
General Fund: The primary operating budget for school sites based on Average
Daily Attendance funding formulas in the state of California.
NCLB – No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Federal legislation proposed to
increase accountability for schools in reaching high levels of proficiency for all students.
QEIA – Quality Education Investment Act: Monies provided in a lottery
for underperforming schools to be disbursed over a seven year period of time for
the purposes of lowering class size and improving the quality of education for
struggling students.
SAIT – School Assistance and Intervention Team: Schools opting to receive state
funds under Immediate Intervention for Underperforming Schools (IIUSP) or High
Priority Schools Grant (HPSG) allocations are subject to state sanctions under SAIT if
unable to demonstrate significant growth on the API during a specified time period.
Originally, for IIUSP schools, this meant a minimum of one point on the API for two
11
consecutive years. For HPSG sites, schools must have two years of growth within a three-
year span for a combined minimum of ten points on the API. The SAIT process focuses
on nine Essential Program Components pulled from research on school improvement to
develop systems to ensure collaboration, instructional support in language arts and
mathematics, rigorous curriculum, data-driven instruction, professional development for
both administrators and teachers, and allocation of resources in alignment with identified
school goals.
Similar Schools Ranking: A secondary ranking provided to inform schools of
progress in comparison to 100 similar schools as defined by sixteen characteristics
identified by the state such as similar numbers of students in poverty, English learners,
similar ethnic breakdowns, etc. In essence, this ranking is designed to compare like
schools to better evaluate progress against challenges faced by sites with higher numbers
of students needing extra support for varied reasons.
12
Chapter 2: Literature Review

There are three sections in this chapter designed to explore the various themes in
the literature around general resource use, research-based reform strategies, and models
for connecting the allocation of resource use to improvements in student achievement
through identified best practices. The first section focuses on how schools traditionally
expend their resources as documented historically along with more recent changes caused
by increased accountability. The second section explores the wealth of information on
reform strategies designed to improve overall performance for students including support
services, instructional strategies, professional development, and other areas identified in
the research. The third section highlights two models developed to link the allocation of
resources with improved academic performance for students using various elements of
research identified around effective school reform: the Evidence-Based Model and the
School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) model, which were ultimately selected
to inform the study as a whole.

Traditional Allocation of Resources in Schools
In general, districts tend to spend 60% of their budgets on instruction for core and
other content areas including additional instruction for special needs students, English
learners, and support for underperforming students (Odden, 2007; see also Odden, Monk,
Nakib, & Picus, 1995; Picus & Fazal, 1995; Odden & Busch, 1998; and Picus, 2001 as
cited in Pan, Rudo, Schneider, & Smith-Hansen, 2003). The remaining 40% is typically
divided among other nondirect instructional supports including central and site
13
administration (10%), food, transportation, and miscellaneous services (10%), operation
and maintenance (10%), and instructional supports such as professional development,
student services, and curriculum design accounting for the remainder (10%) (Odden,
2007, pps. 1-2; see also Odden, et al., 1995, p. 4). Surprisingly, there has been little
variance in the percentages of monies expended in these broad categories over the last 50
years (Odden, 2007), which is somewhat misleading on the surface for two reasons. First,
discrepancies in per pupil spending across the nation and within states are well
documented (Barro, 1992; Picus, & Fazal, 1996; Public Education Finances, 2008). In
California, for example, even with judicial attempts to ensure equity in school funding
per pupil, the allowable band for compliance generates vastly different spending across
the state as documented most recently in the Getting Down to Facts project designed to
provide various stakeholders with “comprehensive information about the state’s school
finance and governance systems, and lay the groundwork for a conversation about needed
reforms” (2007, p. 1):
Differences in spending across California districts are substantial and not
systematically tied to costs, needs or demands. Despite a court-ordered school
finance equalization plan, there remains a wide variation in spending across
California school districts. The difference in total expenditures, excluding
capital outlays, in a district at the 25th percentile of spending and a district at
the 75
th
percentile of student weighted spending is more than $1,000 per
student. The system could still be considered equitable if spending patterns
effectively accounted for differences in local needs. In fact, however, district
poverty level, racial and ethnic makeup, urban status and district grade span
explain only a small portion of the variation in spending (Loeb, Bryck, &
Hanushek, 2007, p. 3)

It is important to note that while schools are still spending approximately 60% of their
funds on instruction, there have been and continue to be dramatic differences in what that
14
actual dollar amount adds up to in terms of student experience with huge variance in class
size ratios, support personnel, and other factors influencing overall student achievement,
which leads to the second reason these statistics can be misleading. While the 60% of
expenditures for instruction has remained relatively unchanged through the years, there
have been tremendous shifts within that category in terms of how funds are being
allocated. More is being spent to support struggling students and hire teachers outside
core academic content areas (Odden, 2007), which has the net effect of increasing the
number of certificated staff on site without necessarily reducing class size within core
courses: “since 1950, the proportion of school staff who are classified as teachers – of
whom all are not classroom teachers – has dropped from 70% to 53%...[with] about 43%
of staff regularly engaged in classroom teaching (National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future, 1996 as cited in Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1998, p. 10). This is in
stark contrast to the “60% to 80% of education staff in most European countries [who]
are classroom teachers” (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
1995 as cited in Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1998, p. 10).
The difference lies in the growing number of adults on a school campus who are
not in the classroom. These staff may provide support services for students, coach
teachers in instructional practice, or oversee specialized programs designed to target
specific student needs. In spite of continued growth in overall spending for education,
“the basic structure of schools has remained essentially the same across districts and over
time, with new resources added largely around the regular classroom rather than into it”
(Miles, 1997 as cited in Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1998, p. 10). Choices made by
15
districts and site administration with regard to allocating resources for instruction impact
the ultimate success of the student population they serve, and while in its infancy, there is
a growing body of research around the reform strategies embedded within schools who
outperform similar schools given the same demographic challenges and resources. Herein
lies the question plaguing most educators since heightened accountability under No Child
Left Behind: how does a site allocate existing resources more efficiently to meet the
increased expectation of attaining proficiency for all students?
Though revenues per pupil increased consistently over time, there has not
been a commensurate increase in student achievement, although more students
are being served in schools and performance at the basic levels has risen.
Although more services have been provided to students with special needs,
perhaps ensuring that overall achievement did not drop, the consistent rise in
spending per pupil was not accompanied by a similar rise in student
performance, at least over the past 30-40 years. The result means that current
education goals are not likely to be met without determining how better to use
school resources (Odden, 2007, p. 2).

Examining the various components of effective school reform strategies provides a
window into how similar schools with similar resources can often have very different
results in terms of overall academic achievement. Since some sites have found ways to
meet current educational goals by reorganizing existing resources, it is worth discussing
the research behind these strategies before exploring models for resource allocation that
provide guidelines for putting the 60% - 70% of instructional and instructional support
expenditures to better use.

16
Research-Based Reform Strategies
While there are a number of packaged models that combine various research-
based elements into a systematic approach designed to reform school practices, there are
critical structural features that seem to be common to most schools and districts that have
been successful in implementing reform initiatives to improve student achievement. Most
all include attention to a continuous cycle of improvement that involves collaborating
around data to improve practice along with continuous monitoring and adjusting to be
sure that strategies are effective in attaining the ultimate goal of proficiency for students
on identified standards of excellence (see DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many 2006; Fullan,
2005; Johnson, 2002; Schmoker, 2006). Professional development becomes a response to
identified gaps in student learning to find better ways to engage and support students in
meeting these high expectations. Each of these four key elements – professional
development, collaboration, standards, and data - will be explored in depth along with a
fifth element, leadership, to understand how successful reform initiatives hinge on
implementation of very clear practices outlined in the research on school reform.

Professional Development and Collaboration
Few would argue the importance of “high-quality professional development [as a
vital] part of any effective strategy to improve schools” (Miles, Odden, Fermanich, &
Archibald, 2004, p. 1; see also Fullan, Hill, and Crevola, 2006; Joyce & Showers, 2002),
and yet, not all professional development is equal. There are significant variances among
researchers in defining the basic characteristics of quality staff development. In analyzing
17
13 of the “better-known” lists, Guskey identified the ten most frequently named
categories, which include enhancing teacher knowledge of content and pedagogy,
promoting collegiality and collaboration, using student learning data, providing sufficient
time and other resources, building capacity, and the like (Guskey, 2003; see also Webb &
Norton, 2009). A more recent list developed by Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon
(2007) includes such areas as “follow-up and support for transfer of learning to the school
and classroom” and “long-range planning and development” (as cited in Webb & Norton,
2009, p. 174-175). One could argue that both of these elements are, in fact, represented in
various ways on Guskey’s list although not identified verbatim. What researchers can
agree on is the importance of student learning outcomes as the focus for systematic,
ongoing professional development (Elmore, 2002; Guskey, 2000; Guskey, 2003; Miles,
et al., 2004). They also agree that changes - typically small and incremental to begin with
and guided by an overarching vision - have to be made at both the individual and
organizational level where professional development is built into the everyday
responsibilities of the teachers (Guskey, 2000). With this in mind, the question facing
most districts is how to deliver their professional development program and then monitor
its effectiveness in improving student achievement.
There are a number of research-based characteristics for staff development that
have been successful in varying combinations. The first step for any organization is to
identify a guiding philosophy or vision that drives the ongoing professional development
system, and the second is to establish goals and objectives, which for education, most
often center around improving student achievement or closing the achievement gap
18
(Guskey, 2000; Webb & Norton, 2009). In Guskey’s analysis mentioned previously, he
found little agreement in the research on staff development in terms of “one right way”
since no single characteristic appeared on all lists (Webb & Norton, 2009; Guskey, 2003).
This by no means implies a lack of understanding around key components or
philosophies guiding quality professional growth opportunities. There are, in fact,
multiple models yielding impressive results in terms of improving student achievement
through the learning or ongoing growth of the adult individuals at the site. The context in
which staff development is to take place has a significant impact on the appropriateness
of any given strategy or component, which also explains the difficulty in trying to
identify “the one right answer” (Guskey, 1994, p. 7; see also DuFour, et al., 2006;
Marzano, et al., 2005; Sparks, G., 1983). While it may be difficult to find the magic
bullet if looking for a panacea for professional development, it is not hard to find basic
guiding principles that seem to be at the root of various successful reform strategies. In
fact, the research is consistent on one key element: “the right kind of continuous,
structured teacher collaboration improves the quality of teaching and pays big, often
immediate dividends in student learning and professional morale in virtually any setting”
(Schmoker, 2006, p. 177). With over twenty signatories to the above statement included
in Results Now, there is one important caution: researchers are referring to a very specific
concept in teacher collaboration that goes well beyond simply scheduling time for
teachers to talk or share ideas. It is perhaps easiest to see how the various characteristics
of effective professional development integrate within the broader concept of reform
strategies when examining how particular models have put the pieces together.
19
Breakthrough by Fullan, Hill, and Crevola (2006) outlines one successful model
used in a number of schools. The foundation of their three-pronged approach is
professional learning in service of personalization (differentiating instruction for
students) and precision (using assessments to guide student learning) in order to bring
about drastic change (Fullan, et al., 2006). One implication of this model in terms of staff
development is the need for professional learning communities, which are “crucial in
establishing cultures in which teachers learn from each other and school leaders and
teachers collaborate for continuous improvement” (Fullan, et al., 2006, p. 88; see also
DuFour, et al., 2006). This is clearly in line with the research on effective staff
development around promoting collegiality and collaboration (Guskey, 2003; National
Staff Development Council (NSDC), 2001; Schmoker, 2006). A second implication from
this model is the need for data on student learning to inform the teacher’s personalization
and precision in delivering the instructional program to increase student achievement.
This too is a well-documented component of both effective professional learning
communities and staff development programs: “one of the most powerful, high leverage
strategies for improving student learning available to schools is the creation of frequent,
common, high-quality formative assessments by teachers who are working
collaboratively to help a group of students develop agreed-upon knowledge and skills”
(DuFour, et al., 2006, p.55; see also Fullan, 2005; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Reeves,
2004; Schmoker, 2003; Stiggins, 2005).
Given this need for collaboration around student learning data, it should be no
surprise that “sufficient time and other resources” is second only to enhancing “teachers’
20
content and pedagogic knowledge” on Guskey’s top-ten list of characteristics for
effective professional development programs (Guskey, 2003, p.10). Echoed by Glickman,
Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (2007) who identify “administrative support, including
provision of time and other resources as well as involvement in program planning and
delivery” as key to successful professional development, a district and/or site must
determine the best context for structuring this necessary time (as cited in Webb &
Norton, 2009, p. 175). Providing common prep time; using parallel scheduling; adjusting
start and end times; sharing classes; scheduling group activities, events, and testing;
banking time; and using in-service and faculty meeting time wisely are just a few of the
commonly used practices that allow for implementation of many of the other key
elements in quality staff development that ultimately impact student achievement
(DuFour, et al., 2006, p. 97; see also NSDC, 2001). Establishing time for collaborative
groups to use “well-grounded information [to] identify strategies that are working, solve
problems, and determine the best use of resources” is an essential step in developing a
professional growth program designed to help close the achievement gap (Johnson,
2002, p. 36).
A professional learning community can “enhance teachers’ content and
pedagogic knowledge” through “modeling high-quality instruction” and “building
leadership capacity”, which round out the remaining elements of the most common
research-based practices (Guskey, 2003, p.10); however, the community’s effectiveness
is dependent on how the professional learning is structured. The model outlined in
Breakthrough focuses on professional learning to train teachers in data analysis to
21
identify needs and in pedagogy/methodology to then differentiate instruction to meet
these needs (Fullan, et al., 2006). Many schools have created collaborative time, but staff
discussions are not always centered on data analysis and collective inquiry, which will
not support the goal of student achievement (Johnson, 2002). If evaluated and aligned to
other reform initiatives, the professional learning community has the potential to become
a powerful vehicle for ongoing professional growth that encompasses many if not all of
the effective characteristics for staff development identified in the research while
allowing for flexibility in terms of the individual site-based context (Fullan, et al., 2006;
see also DuFour, et al., 2006; Guskey, 2003; Johnson, 2002).
Again, effective staff development plays out in slightly different ways due to
context or with variations of research-based practices in other models throughout much of
the literature on successful school reform initiatives. One variation or example worth
noting is the use of coaching to support both the content expertise of teachers within the
classroom and the pedagogics in terms of instructional practices that engage and support
all learners. While not necessarily embodied in a single individual whose sole job
responsibility is to provide coaching on a campus, coaching elements are critical to
helping teachers and students succeed. In a study done by John Ross, he found that
students of teachers with more coaching contacts than their peers “demonstrated greater
student achievement gains relative to students of teachers with less coaching” (Ross,
1992 as cited in Wells, Pearson, & Sousa, 2006, p. 16). This makes sense given the
research on implementation of professional development strategies with and without
coaching as a component of the overall training. In a study conducted by Joyce and
22
Showers (1980) and another by Bush (1984), about ten percent of teachers changed their
instructional practice after attending professional development opportunities. While
additional components of training such as demonstration and giving feedback slightly
increased the number of teachers who changed their pedagogy (still less than twenty
percent in total), all were in stark contrast to the staggering jump in effective
implementation of new strategies when coaching was added (upwards of eighty percent):
“coaching was determined to be the most critical component in long term use and
application of their professional development training” (Wells, Pearson, & Sousa,
2006, p. 17).
One of the most studied models of coaching is Cognitive Coaching
SM
developed
by Art Costa and Robert Garmston (2002). With more than ten studies exploring the
overall effectiveness of individuals trained in Cognitive Coaching
SM
and with over fifty
additional studies supporting various concepts within the overall training, it provides an
exemplar in understanding how coaching supports school reform efforts. Creating self-
directed learners is one of the key goals in Cognitive Coaching
SM
because this is, in
essence, the continuous learning cycle for the individual (Costa & Garmston, 2002).
Using structured maps for planning, reflecting, and problem resolving, individuals
engage in metacognition to evaluate their own effectiveness and monitor their progress in
reaching self-identified goals. These goals may include implementation of a new strategy,
behavior management, checking for understanding, or whatever else the teacher feels is
needed to improve their own practice. In the Cognitive Coaching
SM
model, content
expertise is shared with an individual when requested or if deemed necessary by the
23
coach, but there are very strict criteria for how to shift from the coach to the consultant so
as not to confuse the self-reflective process of Cognitive Coaching
SM
designed to create
self-directed learners with the more traditional role of coach as content expert who
provides professional development to fill gaps in teacher knowledge (Costa &
Garmston, 2002).
While not all successful reform models require an individual who takes on this
role in a formal capacity such as a literacy or math coach, the focus on collaboration and
the importance of collegiality imply many of the elements of coaching. Whether teachers
and/or administrators are able to coach each other as part of the collaborative process or a
coach is hired for the purpose of providing added expertise and support, coaching is
critical in trying to change behaviors in the classroom for more effective teaching and in
the school to build the collaborative communities proven to impact student achievement.

A Coherent, Standards-Based Curriculum and Data
If professional learning communities and other collaborative practices provide the
vehicle for improving instruction, a coherent curriculum must be the driving force behind
helping students achieve, and without data, it is impossible to know if students are truly
mastering identified learning goals. Marzano synthesized thirty-five years of research on
school effectiveness and then compared his findings across four additional research
studies to support his identification of five key factors at the school level for increasing
student performance including three germane to the discussion at hand: guaranteed and
24
viable curriculum, challenging goals and effective feedback, and collegiality and
professionalism (2003, p. 19).
Without identified standards, it is impossible to determine whether students are
receiving equitable instruction and support to prepare them for postsecondary endeavors.
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227) of 1994 provided federal funding
for states to develop high standards for which all students would be held accountable
through measuring progress and providing additional support as necessary to become
proficient. Further defined and structured under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
the current system of accountability was designed to ensure the success of all students in
meeting state-identified standards of proficiency by the year 2014. The stage was set for
challenging goals and learning outcomes for students, which – as documented in the
wealth of research on both goal setting/standards and expectations - has a direct and
positive impact on student achievement (Lipsey and Wilson, 1993; and Little, 1990 as
cited in Marzano 2003; see also O’Shea, 2005; Ormrod, 2006; Reeves, 1998; Schmoker,
1999; Stiggins, 2001). While there are criticisms of the standards movement in terms of
some state identified goals (too specific, too broad, too many), few would argue the
importance of clearly articulating goals in order to then measure progress to provide
feedback (Reeves, 2002, p. xv; see also Lyman & Villani, 2004; Marzano, 2003).
Feedback or data provides the vital measure of student progress toward attaining
identified learning outcomes, and should then provide the content for needed professional
development to change instructional practice. It is no surprise then that much of the
research on professional learning communities reiterates the importance of data in school
25
reform where PLCs “create an intensive focus on learning by clarifying exactly what
students are to learn and by monitoring each student’s learning on a timely basis”
(DuFour, et al., 2006, p. 43). The use of data is not limited to the teacher in the classroom
making instructional decisions. More often than not, schools beginning the arduous
process of implementing reform initiatives must use data to confront the brutal reality of
where they are in comparison to where they want to be in order to make decisions about
what needs to change (see Collins, 2001; Johnson, 2002; Reeves, 2000; Schmoker, 2006).
Another key use of data includes evaluation of the various reform strategies to determine
if in fact school and/or district-wide efforts are effective in improving student
achievement (see DuFour, et al., 2006; Guskey, 2000; Johnson, 2002; Marzano, 2003;
Schmoker, 2006). In the same way that teachers must look at student data to improve
practice and adjust strategies, schools and districts must look at school-level and district-
wide data to monitor progress toward their identified goals effectively.
Few would dispute the merits of the continuous learning cycle at the heart of most
successful reform strategies: look at data to determine needs; provide instruction for
students or professional development for teachers to impact learning; monitor progress
and adjust strategies as necessary to ensure growth (see DuFour, et al., 2006; Fullan,
2005; Johnson, 2002; Schmoker, 2001; Schmoker, 2006). The key to determining needs
and jumpstarting the process is a clearly articulated curriculum, in which everyone knows
the expectations or standards that must be achieved: yet, “in most schools…teachers do
not typically follow a common curriculum. [They] continue to enter a system that allows
them to teach largely what they want, regardless of importance or priority, at variance
26
with any kind of coherent or agreed-upon curriculum (Popham, 2004; Hess, 2004;
Berliner, 1984; Jacobs, 1997; Schmoker and Marzano, 1999 as cited in Schmoker, 2006).
Bar none, in case study after case study of successful schools that closed the achievement
gap, overcame issues of poverty, and successfully served English learner populations,
you will find attention to standards as the capstone directing professional development,
collaborative time, and data analysis among other things (Fullan; 2005; McRel, 2005;
Schmoker, 2001; Walberg, 2006).
If teachers lack either the time or the skills for collaboration around data analysis
and improved practice, it is difficult to create a standards-based system that holds
teachers accountable for the progress of all students toward proficiency. Where these four
key elements exist, multiple paths may lead to success given the varying contexts of the
schools or districts and the students they serve. An additional element critical for the
success of any change process is leadership and the vital role it plays in implementing
school-wide reform.

Leadership
At the heart of successful reform is quality leadership: in fact, “leadership could
be considered the single-most important aspect of school reform” (Marzano, 2003, p.
172; see also Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). And while researchers have
developed various lists outlining characteristics of effective leaders, there are again
contextual factors to the success of any given leadership model dependent on the
complex combination of school culture and climate, staff relationships, accountability
27
requirements, and the ability of the leadership within a district and/or on the school site to
navigate these waters in order to bring about change.
For School Leadership that Works (2005), Marzano, Waters, and McNulty
conducted a meta-analysis on the research around school leadership to identify twenty-
one responsibilities and their correlations to student achievement while further
categorizing them into the most critical for first versus second order change (incremental,
next step, relying on proven strategies versus innovative, new practices). A pattern of
strategies emerged in research on high-performing, high poverty schools done by Lyman
and Villani (2004, p. 103), and similar characteristics are outlined in the summary
findings of Darling-Hammond and Orphanos (2007) who examined successful leadership
development around six key standards: learning and instruction, developing quality
teaching and professional learning, organizational development, use of data, change
management, and leadership skills. It should not be surprising that many of these critical
factors are directly related to the four key components of successful reform strategies
already discussed.
Marzano concludes that leadership “influences virtually every aspect of the model
presented in” What Works in Schools and is a “necessary condition for effective reform”
(2003, p. 172). It is the responsibility of school leadership to create a climate where
proven strategies can be implemented, monitored, and adjusted to increase student
achievement. Systems must be in place for professional development, collaboration
among teachers, and the gathering and analysis of data as discussed previously. If
professional learning communities are to be developed or coaches hired, leadership must
28
make decisions about allocating resources for collaborative time, personnel, professional
development, and the like. The principal and other leaders must maintain hyper-vigilance
and single-mindedness in focusing on the site’s identified goals around student learning
(Marzano, 2003; Walberg, 2006). All of this, of course, is in addition to managing the
day-to-day responsibilities of running a school for the principal. Leaders within social
sector organizations like public schools must be able to function in what Collins
describes as the “complex governance and diffuse power structures common in
nonbusiness” where “no individual leader – not even the nominal chief executive – has
enough structural power to make the most important decisions by himself or herself”
(Collins, 2005, p. 11; see also Marzano, 2003). Other administrators, support personnel,
and teacher-leaders can and do play a pivotal role in implementing successful reform
strategies down to the classroom level. Thus building leadership capacity within a site
becomes fundamental to the success of any attempt to change current practices.
But perhaps one of the most critical job responsibilities of the principal or other site
administration is evaluation. Borrowing again from research comparing the private and
social sectors, it is critically important to have the right people on board; however, in
social sectors, “getting the wrong people off the bus can be more difficult than in a
business, [and] early assessment mechanisms turn out to be more important than hiring
mechanisms” (Collins, 2005, p. 15). In knowing the importance of teacher efficacy and
the direct role they play in achieving student learning outcomes, any attempts to improve
student achievement must attend to the quality of teachers and classroom instruction.
Among many research studies identified in Schmoker’s work, one by Odden & Kelly
29
(2002) “points to the unavoidable fact that ‘improved classroom instruction is the prime
factor to produce student achievement gains’” (as cited in Schmoker, 2006, p. 141; see
also Marzano et al., 2005). It is up to school leadership to ensure that necessary systems
are in place to address the well-documented factors in creating successful schools. The
challenge inherent in this process is the multitude of research-based strategies on the one
hand and the unique contextual elements to a given site on the other:
You’re looking for the recipe for how to get a school to be successful, but I think
running a school is an art form. You can give a recipe for making a film but it
would not make it the best film in town. You can follow the whole recipe but you
miss that other ingredient, which is the artistic part of it.
– BTO school principal (Perez & Socias, 2008, p. 17).

Embodied in good leadership is the ability to weave together the best possible
combination of practices to take full advantage of staff strengths while creating a system
of continual improvement in the quest to help all students succeed. How a principal
makes these decisions and then allocates resources to implement and monitor them
frames the final section of this chapter.

Connecting Resource Use To Improvements In Student Achievement
With all the knowledge around what works, an overwhelming number of schools
have failed to implement such practices to any significant degree: “why does knowledge
of what needs to be done so frequently fail to result in action or behavior that is
consistent with that knowledge?” (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000, p. 4 as cited in DuFour, et al.,
2006, p. 6). One response to this question historically has been that schools are
underfunded. While that may be true, it does not explain the growing number of schools
30
who are able to close the achievement gap without a huge influx of additional funds. It
also does not explain how schools with similar resources serving similar demographics
may have very different outcomes in terms of student achievement. For the purposes of
this study, the question is not so much one of how much funding an individual site has
but of how resources are allocated to achieve implementation of reform strategies. As
discussed in Chapter One, developers of the Evidence-Based Approach have identified
key components from the research to ensure delivery of “a high-quality, comprehensive,
schoolwide instructional program” (Odden, 2003, p. 8), assigned cost values to these
elements (including additional support for special needs students, English learners, and
those on Free and Reduced Lunch), and aggregated these costs to a per pupil expenditure
level with the goal of improving student performance (Odden, 2003; Odden & Picus,
2008). This generates a fictitious exemplar allowing for a comparison point to see how
one might allocate existing resources in alignment with the research-based strategies
incorporated into the model and the potential costs.
There are six instructional and three non-instructional expenditure elements
within the Evidence-Based Approach: core academic teachers, specialist or elective
teachers, extra help, professional development, other non-classroom instructional staff,
instructional materials and equipment, student support, administration, operations and
maintenance (Odden & Picus, 2008, pps. 18-20): “this framework also includes a set of
resource indicators, or contextual information about the school that gives further insight
into non-fiscal measures of resource use practices, such as class size” (p. 18). Core
academic teachers are funded at 15 to 1 for K-3 schools and 25 to 1 for grades 4-12.
31
Specialist teachers for electives, librarians, and the like are generated based on
percentages – 20% for elementary and middle with 33% for high school. In addition to
extended day and summer school opportunities, basic triggers for additional resources in
the model include extra support for higher populations of English learners (1 per 100 Els)
and special needs students including allocations for certificated tutors. Additional
considerations include specialized instruction in vocational and gifted education along
with trainers and coaches for professional development (Odden, Picus, Mangan, Goetz, &
Aportela, 2007, p. 6). Funding is also provided for ten days of professional development
beyond coaches and collaborative time generated through scheduling possibilities with
increased staff.
In exploring the research questions of this study, five California middle schools
will be compared to this model to see if similarities and differences exist in how these
sites have chosen to allocate resources in view of their identified reform strategies. In
part, this will help inform the model if in fact schools are found to be successful without
critical elements such as class size reduction, or the allotted number of additional coaches
and tutors for example. For schools that are underperforming, the model will shed light
on alternative ways to structure spending with the potential for greater success.
Of particular interest under the current accountability model for California
schools are those schools being monitored under state sanctions as part of School
Assistance and Intervention Teams (SAIT). Identified as underperforming and eligible to
receive a small pocket of additional funding, schools unable to make a single point of
growth on the Academic Performance Index for a two-year period of time are required to
32
partner with an external evaluator who then monitors implementation of the state’s nine
Essential Program Components designed to improve student achievement (California
Education Code). These include the use of:
State Board of Education (SBE)-adopted and standards-aligned instructional
materials including interventions, appropriate instructional time and pacing
schedules, professional development for teachers and administrators, assignment
of fully credentialed highly qualified teachers, use of data obtained from a student
achievement monitoring system, instructional support, teacher collaboration, and
fiscal support. (Essential Program Components, 2008)

There are clear connections between the components of the Evidence-Based model and
SAIT making the recommendations of the nine Essential Program Components one
potential reform strategy that could be funded using the Evidenced-Based Approach.
Table 2.1 provides more detail for the various requirements under SAIT.

TABLE 2.1
NINE ESSENTIAL PROGRAM COMPONENTS FOR MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Essential Program
Component
Description
1. Standards-
aligned
Instructional
Materials
Use of State Board of Education (SBE)-adopted (kindergarten through grade eight) or
standards-aligned (grade nine through twelve) English/reading/language arts and
mathematics instructional materials, including intervention materials
2. Instructional
Time

The school/district complies with and monitors implementation of instructional time for the
adopted programs for core English/reading/language arts, reading intervention, core
mathematics, as well as provides additional time for students needing mathematics
intervention. This time should be given priority and be protected from interruptions.
3. Instructional
Leadership
The district provides the school’s principal and vice-principal(s) with AB 430 Administrator
Training Program (ATP), Module 1, Leadership and Support of Student Instructional
Programs, through a SBE-authorized provider. Modules 2 and 3 are optional but
recommended. The training institute features the district’s adopted English/reading/language
arts program, or the English/reading/language arts intervention program, and the district’s
SBE-adopted mathematics program. The ATP, Module 1, includes 40 hours of training
institute in the district’s adopted E/R/LA core or E/R/LA intervention programs and
mathematics program, and also includes 40 hours of structured follow-up practicum.

33
TABLE 2.1, CONTINUED
Essential Program
Component
Description
4. Teacher
Qualifications
and
Professional
Development
Fully credentialed, highly qualified teachers by June 2007.

Requirements for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Teacher Compliance: Teachers of core
academic subjects must have: a bachelor’s degree; hold an appropriate credential or intern
certificate (must be currently enrolled in an approved California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing [CCTC] intern program); and demonstrate subject matter competence.

District provides teachers of English/reading/language arts and mathematics with the
appropriate AB 466 (SB 472, pending) Professional Development Program through a SBE-
authorized provider.

A majority of K-8 teachers attend AB 466 Professional Development Program (40 hours of
institute and 80 hours of practicum). The training features the district’s adopted core program
and/or intervention programs for English/reading/language arts and district’s adopted core
programs for mathematics for each teacher’s grade level and program.
5. Student
Achievement
Monitoring
System
The school/district has an assessment and monitoring system (e.g., every six to eight weeks)
which may include curriculum-embedded assessments available as part of the adopted
program. These assessments inform teachers and principals on student progress and
effectiveness of instruction in all English/reading/language arts and mathematics classrooms.
These curriculum-embedded assessments are based on the adopted English/reading/language
arts and mathematics programs. The purpose of these assessments is to provide timely data to
teachers and principals to make decisions that will improve instruction and student
achievement. In addition, they will provide a basis for the monitoring system.
6. Instructional
Assistance and
Teacher
Support

The schools/district provide instructional assistance and support to all teachers of
English/reading/language arts and mathematics. Elementary, middle, and ninth and tenth
grade English/reading/language arts and mathematics (Algebra 1, and remedial mathematics)
teachers receive ongoing support offered by the school and district. Possible options for
providing support include coaches/content experts who work inside the classroom to support
teachers and deepen the knowledge about the content and delivery of instruction, and
specialists who have experience coaching teachers and who are knowledgeable about the
adopted program.
7. Teacher
Collaboration
The school/district facilitates and supports teacher grade-level collaboration on a regular and
frequent basis for elementary, middle, and high school English/reading/language arts and
mathematics teachers to focus on the use of curriculum-embedded assessment data and data
review to strengthen implementation of the SBE-adopted English/reading/language arts and
mathematics programs. Time must be built into the calendar so that staff has regular
opportunities to meet by department and subject matter, review the results of embedded
assessments together, discuss the data in meaningful ways, examine the implications, make
instructional decisions, and plan lesson delivery (preferably two, one-hour meetings per
month).
8. Pacing and
Scheduling

The school/district prepares and distributes an annual district/schoolwide pacing schedule for
each grade level (K-8) for the English/reading/language arts and mathematics programs in
order for all teachers to know when and in what sequence each lesson is expected to be
taught to ensure content coverage.
9. Fiscal Support The general and categorical funds of the school or district are used appropriately to support
the English/reading/language arts and mathematics program goals in the school plan.
Taken from Essential Program Components, 2008
34
There are, however, some significant differences worth noting. First, SAIT does not
address class size reduction, although individual sites may have allocated resources to
fund additional staff, which may in turn allow for lower class sizes. Second, the primary
focus for improving student achievement is centered on language arts and mathematics
often to the exclusion of other core content areas and electives as choices are made
around scheduling and staff allocations. This may limit fiscal expenditures to identified
goals for language arts and mathematics where additional strategies for other content
areas may be better funded under the Evidence-Based Model.
Both allow for quality professional development and extra support for struggling
students along with coherent curriculum and data analysis: all key factors in successful
reform strategies. Where critics of the Evidence-Based Model have said it fails to use real
data or to ensure implementation of the suggested components as a fictitious school,
examining a subset of SAIT schools in comparison to non-SAIT schools may help
validate elements of the model since SAIT data is real and strictly monitored by an
external entity. In general, however, the goal of this study is to help determine just how
schools are allocating their resources in relation to improvement strategies and then
compare those findings to the Evidence-Based Model as guidance for options in
reallocating resources in more effective ways to promote student achievement.

35
Chapter 3: Methodology

The purpose of this study is to generate a knowledge base around resource
allocation practices at the school-site level through case studies of five middle schools in
California. As outlined earlier, the shift in focus from issues of equity (the same resources
provided to all students) to issues of adequacy (educating all students to high levels of
proficiency with a need to differentiate resources) requires a serious analysis of resource
allocation. Large increases in resources have not necessarily resulted in anticipated
improvements in student achievement (Hanushek, 2006; Odden, 2007; Walberg, 2006).
More and more schools and districts are falling into either state or federal sanctions for
receiving funding to improve without demonstrating gains on accountability measures.
Yet, some schools are able to beat the odds and close the achievement gap (Lyman &
Villani, 2004; Perez, Anand, Speroni, Parrish, Esra, Socias, & Gubbins, 2007).
The purpose of this study is to investigate what schools are doing with the
resources they have to meet identified school goals around increasing student
achievement. Additionally, resource allocation at school sites will be compared to the
Evidence-Based Model to determine how schools are spending their monies in relation
to research-based recommendations for effective school reform. Initial analysis will
help create knowledge in describing current practice while comparison to the Evidence-
Based Model may help guide practitioners and policymakers to distribute resources more
effectively.

36
Research Questions

This study is designed to address four basic research questions:

1) What are current instructional improvement strategies at the school-level?
Very little has been done to monitor the connections between resource allocation
and school improvement. All schools have identified goals, and yet few link school
spending and resource allocation directly to attainment of these goals. This first question
will paint a picture of current practice at the school site in terms of improvement
strategies identified to increase student achievement.

2) How are actual resource patterns at the school sites aligned with or different from the
resource use strategies that are used in the Evidence-Based Model?
The Evidence-Based Model provides an analysis of school resource allocation
based on categories identified in the research as effective strategies such as professional
development practices, coaching, class size, and support services for struggling students.
The goal of allocating resources based on the model is doubling student performance.
Comparing the strategies for school reform in use at the site to those identified in the
model will help define research elements that best support improved performance. In
other words, is the school high performing without elements of the model or vice versa?
Understanding this will help to validate and/or improve the model while providing
valuable information to school sites in terms of how resources are connected to
improvement practices, the basis for the third research question.

37
3) How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
strategies? (instructional vision, plan, goals, etc.)
This question provides the vehicle for addressing the applied research aspect of
the study in terms of new knowledge around how school sites actually harness their
resources to improve student achievement. Court cases and legislative actions have
historically focused on issues of equity to ensure equal resources for all students in the
form of per pupil spending and facilities issues. With the shift to accountability for all
students reaching high levels of proficiency and the need to differentiate resources
accordingly, it is critically important for schools to analyze how they allocate resources to
implement their improvement strategies with an eye toward monitoring the resulting
impact on student achievement.
4) How does the availability of resources affect the development and implementation of
the instructional improvement plan?
Given the current context of the state budget in California and the impending cuts
in fiscal resources to schools in the 2008-09 school year, this research question becomes
pivotal in providing critical information to schools, districts, and policymakers around
improving academic achievement using resources in the most effective way. The
Evidence-Based Model will provide the added bonus of reallocating all resources based
on triggers in the model around best practices for doubling achievement. Stakeholders
can use this information to determine more effective ways to allocate resources or to
understand where shortfalls in funding may exist in comparison to current practices.

38
Design Summary

This is a mixed methods study in which quantitative data around resource
allocation will be gathered in addition to qualitative data to develop case studies for each
of five middle schools in California. To ensure consistency in gathering quantitative data
across all schools in the parallel studies, all researchers will be trained on both interview
and document review protocols outlined below. Quantitative data from the structured
interviews and documents will then be entered into a web-based system to facilitate
access for all students. Researchers will use a common format for qualitative case studies
of each school to provide supporting evidence for the quantitative data. Sampling
choices, methodology for the process and procedures used in the study, and
instrumentation are further detailed below.

Participants and Settings: Boundaries and Purposeful Sampling

The focus of this study will be in-depth analysis of resource allocation toward
identified improvement strategies at the school-site level for five California middle
schools. One of the nine Essential Program Components under guidelines for the School
Assistance and Intervention Teams (SAIT) outlined previously is the connection of fiscal
resources to school goals identified in the Single School Plan. For this reason, three of the
middle schools selected will be identified SAIT schools to determine if under state
mandate these schools are more likely to link resource allocation to improvement
strategies in comparison to the non-SAIT middle schools. Given time and resource
restrictions, a homogeneous sampling of middle schools will be used while stratifying the
sample to explore if the subgroup of SAIT schools, with an explicit mandate to link fiscal
39
resources to identified strategies for school improvement, allocate resources in a
significantly different way to comparison schools. It will also be noteworthy if this subset
of SAIT schools allocates resources more in line with recommendations of the Evidence-
Based Approach since many of the requirements parallel recommendations of the model.
All SAIT schools will be matched to non-SAIT schools for similar rankings in terms of
the Academic Performance Index (API), free and reduced lunch percentages, ethnic
make-up, number of English Learners, and the special education population in order to
describe the impact of decisions around resources on similar populations.
The researcher requested a master list of middle schools that have been through or
are currently in the SAIT process from the Intervention Assistance Office at the
California Department of Education. From this list of forty-seven sites, nine schools were
identified as completing their second year of monitoring with seven in the Southern
California area. These sites were contacted by phone initially to determine interest in
participating in the study. Letters outlining the parameters of the study and time
involvement were sent to both the Principal of the site and the Superintendent of the
district. Of the seven sites in southern California, two declined to participate. The
remaining five were then notified to schedule time in the Fall of 2008 for the interview
process and collection of documents outlined in Appendices C and E. Once the sample of
SAIT schools was identified, middle schools in southern California with similar API
rankings, ethnic background, free and reduced lunch percentages, and English learner
populations were identified as potential matched pairs. Calls were made to schools that
most closely matched the selected SAIT sites from their list of Similar Schools generated
40
through the API. Site Principals and Superintendents were notified and time scheduled in
the Fall of 2008 for interviews and document collection after the IRB process was
completed in August, 2008.
The study was to include a total of ten schools originally, but two of the SAIT
schools pulled out after the data gathering process had begun. A third was unable to
participate due to district protocols requiring almost two months for approval to
participate in research studies, which would have jeopardized the completion of the study
as a whole. One of the two SAIT schools from the original list of nine sites completing a
second year of the process (though not in southern California) turned out to be a match
for one of the non-SAIT schools already visited as part of a matched pair. The site agreed
to be a part of the study, and so, there are three SAIT schools with two non-SAIT schools
in total, with one non-SAIT school on the Similar Schools list for two of the SAIT sites.
As part of parallel research projects, approximately seventy schools will
ultimately be analyzed adding a wealth of data to the knowledge base of how schools
currently expend their resources. This will allow for additional comparisons across a
larger heterogeneous sampling as well. Generalizability of results to California schools
beyond the scope of those within this study can only be determined after analysis of all
samples within the parallel research being conducted if like-characteristics to pull data
sets emerge with enough sample size to increase statistical power.

Method

Information was gathered through interviews and document review as outlined in
a training manual adapted from earlier work in Wyoming (Picus, et al., 2008) for use in
41
this study to evaluate school-level resource allocation based on a framework developed
by Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003) to track school-level expenditures
(see Appendix A). This framework includes school characteristics, non-fiscal resource
patterns such as instructional minutes and class size, staffing allocations for core subjects,
electives, and various types of support for students including those used in various
support programs, and both site and district level administration (Picus, et al., 2008). The
complete School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators (Appendix A) includes
all elements of the framework developed be Odden et al. (2003), which formed the
foundation for protocols developed for this study.
To best address the needs of schools in California, however, some of the
interview questions were modified by those conducting parallel research during the
course of this study to ensure consistency across multiple schools and researchers while
surfacing some of the unique challenges facing California schools within the sample.
Modification of interview questions was done during two days of training on the protocol
in June of 2008 by Michelle Mangan, PhD., manager of the state-wide Arkansas and
Wyoming studies using the Evidence-Based Model (Mangan, 2007; Picus et al., 2008). A
common codebook, data collection and entry guidelines, interview protocols, and
calibration on all instruments were a part of the June 2008 training. The study itself, in
partial fulfillment of requirements for an Ed.D. through the Rossier School of Education
at the University of Southern California, is under the guidance of Lawrence O. Picus,
PhD., co-developer of the Evidence-Based Model and Dissertation Chair.

42
Instruments
Once training was completed, interviews and document collection were
conducted by the researcher in one, three to four hour session with the site Principal
and/or other school leadership. The common codebook developed during training was
used to ensure a consistent process for both collection of data during the interview
process and entry of data upon completion. Data gathering was aligned to seven
instructional categories outlined in the framework: “core academic teachers, specialist
and elective teachers, extra support staff such as tutors and resource room instructors,
professional development staff and financial resources, other non-classroom instructional
staff, instructional materials and equipment, and student support staff (Picus, Odden,
Aportela, Mangan, & Goetz, 2008, p. 7). Two additional non-instructional categories
were analyzed as well: administration and operations and maintenance.
The interview protocol included both open and close-ended questions in the
categories outlined from the framework above developed by Odden, et al. (2003) to illicit
school reform strategies and their connection to student achievement. The complete
protocol is provided in Appendix C, but sample open-ended questions include:
• What has the content focus of your improvement process been?
• What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a part of your
reform efforts?
• What type of instructional leadership was present?

43
Close-ended questions on quantitative data for the site were also gathered in categories
such as instructional minutes for the day and specific courses, class size, numbers of
students in special populations such as English learners, free and reduced lunch, and
special education (see Appendix D and Appendix E for the complete protocol).
In addition to interview questions and document review around the School
Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators in Appendix A (Odden, et al., 2003), the
Professional Development Cost Framework developed by Odden, Archibald, Fermanich,
and Gallagher (2002) was followed to calculate the overall cost of professional
development (Appendix B). It is often difficult to determine the true costs of professional
development since expenditures may cross over various fiscal categories. Following the
Professional Development Cost Framework (Odden, et al., 2002) allowed for a more
accurate and consistent accounting of resource allocation related to professional
development regardless of individual site and district practices for monitoring
professional development costs. Data necessary for analysis using this framework was
also gathered during the interview process and document review.
Similar protocols were used by Picus, et al. in studies of schools in Wyoming
(2008), Wisconsin (2007), and Washington (2006), and Mangan, Odden, and Picus
(pending publication, 2008) in Arkansas, which allows for potential analysis of broader
data sets at some future point as additional schools are studied using these protocols.
Document analysis of school budgets, master schedules, and categorical
expenditures was done in addition to interviews with site principals following the data
gathering protocols outlined in the training manual (see Appendices C, D, and E). Data
44
was then analyzed through the lens of the Evidence-Based Model to compare resource
use to identified best practices around school reform. Case studies were written around
resource use patterns and trends identified in all middle schools sampled and evaluated
for marked differences between the subset of SAIT schools in comparison to non-SAIT
schools within the sample.
Both quantitative and qualitative data from interviews and document analysis was
sorted and categorized based on templates for the protocol to organize and reflect on
general patterns and trends from an initial read of the data (Cresswell, 2003). The
qualitative case studies allow for detailed description of the sites while following the
clearly articulated protocols to ensure common themes for analysis across all schools
within the study (Cresswell, 2003). Comparison to the Evidence-Based Model also
provided consistent criteria from which to examine and categorize data for analysis. A
case study template was provided as part of training so that data from parallel research
studies can be cross-stitched where appropriate to strengthen findings. While not
currently available, data from other schools sampled by researchers within the thematic
dissertation cohort can be analyzed in the future to broaden the scope of the findings and
add to interpretations of the data as outlined in Chapter 4 (Cresswell, 2003).
45
Chapter 4: Findings

The purpose of this study was to explore the following research questions through
interviews and document review at five middle schools in the state of California in order
to build knowledge around how site level allocation of resources is impacting overall
student achievement:
• What are current instructional improvement strategies at the school-level?
• How are actual resource patterns at the school sites aligned with or different
from the resource use strategies that are used in the Evidence-Based Model?
• How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
strategies? (instructional vision, plan, goals, etc.)
• How does the availability of resources affect the development and
implementation of the strategic plan?
In depth interviews were conducted in addition to a review of critical documents using
protocols to ensure consistency of data gathered over the multiple sites. Schools were
selected based on their status as SAIT (described below) with matched non-SAIT sites
determined for comparison purposes using the Similar Schools list calculated by the state
and size of school as factors for matching. Sites are identified as SMS for SAIT Middle
School and NSMS for Non-SAIT Middle School with a corresponding number to identify
the matched pairing. Brief summaries of the five individual case studies are provided here
in addition to an aggregate of findings from the five sites where patterns and trends
emerged. Complete case studies are located in Appendix F. After the Summary of Case
Studies and the Background Data for Comparison Across Sample Schools, a summary of
46
the instructional reform strategies employed at the various sites is discussed using the
framework of eight critical elements identified in the Washington Learns: Successful
Districts Study (Lawrence O. Picus and Associates, 2006) and used in the extended case
studies for comparison purposes. A complete copy of this study can be found at:
www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/SuccessfulDistReport9-11-06Final.pdf
Following this section, comparisons to the Evidence-Based Model are outlined to
identify resource allocation trends across all five sites and where variations exist. An
additional section outlines patterns for the SAIT sites within the study versus the non-
SAIT sites with a brief discussion of how resource allocations impact the overall
implementation of the strategic plan to conclude the findings.

Summary of Case Studies
For the purposes of confidentiality, references to school and district names have
been eliminated for sites involved in the study. Schools are identified as School
Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT) or non-SAIT with a corresponding number for
comparison purposes. Schools opting to receive state funds under Immediate Intervention
for Underperforming Schools (IIUSP) or High Priority Schools Grant (HPSG) allocations
are subject to state sanctions under SAIT if unable to demonstrate significant growth on
the API during a specified time period. The SAIT process focuses on nine Essential
Program Components (EPCs) pulled from research on school improvement to develop
systems to ensure collaboration, instructional support in language arts and mathematics,
rigorous curriculum, data-driven instruction, professional development for both
47
administrators and teachers, and allocation of resources in alignment with identified
school goals. These schools were selected for the study and matched against non-SAIT
schools to see if there were any differences in overall performance based on
implementation of the nine EPCs. Much of the same research grounds the Evidence-
Based Model, and with additional funding from the state for these sites, they are
potentially closer in funding to recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model than
other schools within California.
Characteristics of the individual sites and or districts that might compromise the
confidential nature of the study have been avoided, and all approximations are rounded to
the nearest fifty for overall school populations or nearest decimal for percentages.
General information about the sites and their respective districts is presented below as
background information with aggregated data around California Standards Test (CST)
performance, instructional strategies, and resource allocation provided in the comparison
section of the findings.

SAIT Middle School -1
SAIT Middle School-1 (SMS-1) is located in one of the largest, urban districts
within southern California. SMS-1 serves over 57,000 students pre K-12th grade with
approximately 40 elementary schools and another 25 middle and high schools in addition
to a number of alternative education and charter sites. Just over 70% of schools within the
district are in Program Improvement (PI) with the district as a whole in Year 3 of PI.
SMS-1 is a Year 5 Program Improvement school with approximately 1,400 students.
48
Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) funds allowed for class size reduction in
language arts this year for a 25-1 ratio. If QEIA funds continue to be available for SMS-1
given the current budget situation, the school will lower class sizes in mathematics next
year, followed by all science and social studies classes over the next few years.
There are just over 5,000 special education students within the district and over
1,175 in grades 6th-8th. SMS-1 has 150 special needs students, which is roughly 11% of
the overall population at the site for the 2008-’09 school year. 75 of these students are in
self-contained classrooms for the instructional day. Of the 1,400 students at SMS-1,
approximately 34% of students are in 6th grade, 33% are in 7th, and 33% are in
8th grade.
Efforts for improving overall student performance seem to have had a positive
impact on student achievement in the last four years as evidenced in their subgroup
growth and growth for all students, which is shown in Table 4.1 along with the site’s
overall API rankings. The district had to move students previously categorized as special
education for state testing into the general testing population in 2006, which may have
significantly attributed to the negative growth in that year.

49
TABLE 4.1
API RANKINGS AND SUBGROUP GROWTH AT SMS-1
API School Results
SMS-1 2005 2006 2007 2008
Statewide API Rank 1 1 1 1
Similar Schools Rank 4 6 4 6

Subgroups Actual API Change
All students 26 -14 25 31
Hispanic 29 -15 23 31
English Learners No data
available
0 15 25
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 28 -13 21 32
Taken from www.cde.ca.gov

Non-SAIT Middle School -1
Non-SAIT Middle School-1 (NSMS-1) is in the same district as SMS-1 described
above. Demographically speaking, the students within the district and at the two sites
(SMS-1 and NSMS-1) are described in Table 4.2.

TABLE 4.2
2004-2008 SIGNIFICANT SUBGROUP POPULATIONS FOR SMS-1 AND NSMS-1
District SMS-1 NSMS-1
Free and Reduced
Lunch
78% 85% 89%
English Learners 56% 89% 53%
Hispanic 92% 96% 98%
Taken from 2007 – 2008 Ed-Data Site Report for SMS-1 and NSMS-1 (www.ed-data.k-12.ca.us)

Also in Year 5 of Program Improvement, the overall student population at NSMS-
1 is 1,750. NSMS-1 has 175 special needs students, which is roughly 10% of the overall
50
population at the site for the 2008-’09 school year. Of the 1,750 students at NSMS-1,
approximately 33% of students are in 6th grade, 36% are in 7th, and 31% are in
8th grade.
Efforts for improving overall student performance seem to have had a positive
impact on student achievement as evidenced in their API rankings and subgroup growth
over the last four years, minus a drop in the 2006 scores, which are shown in Table 4.3.
Again, the negative growth in 2006 may be directly attributable to the movement of
students previously classified under special education to the general testing population
that year.

TABLE 4.3
API RANKINGS AND SUBGROUP GROWTH AT NSMS-1
API School Results
NSMS-1 2005 2006 2007 2008
Statewide API Rank 2 4 4 4
Similar Schools Rank 7 10 10 10

Subgroups Actual API Change
All students 76 -12 12 28
Hispanic 76 -15 14 26
English Learners No data
available
-7 5 21
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 77 -12 12 28
Taken from www.cde.ca.gov

SAIT Middle School -2
SAIT Middle School -2 (SMS-2) is located in one of the most densely populated
metropolitan areas within the state of California. This northern California district serves
51
over 55,000 students pre K-12th grade with over 70 elementary schools and 35 middle
and high schools in addition to various alternative education and charter sites. Twenty-
five percent of schools within the district are in Program Improvement (PI) with the
district as a whole in Year 2 of PI. SMS-2 is a Year 5 PI school with approximately
450 students.
Demographically speaking, the students within the district and at the SMS-2 site
are described in Table 4.4. SMS-2 typically has a higher number of students than the
district percentage for each of the significant subgroups within the site.

TABLE 4.4
2004-2008 SIGNIFICANT SUBGROUP POPULATIONS FOR SMS-2
District SMS-2
Free and Reduced Lunch 54% 64%
English Learners 30% 48%
Hispanic 23% 59%
African American 13% 21%
Taken from 2007 – 2008 Ed-Data Site Report for SMS-2 (www.ed-data.k-12.ca.us)

There are just over 6,000 special education students within the district and over 1,500 in
grades 6th-8th. SMS-2 has approximately 50 special needs students, which is roughly
12% of the overall population for the 2008-’09 school year. There are 450 students at
SMS-2 with 25% of students in 6th, 34% in 7th, and 41% in 8th grade.
Efforts for improving overall student performance seem to have mixed results
with significant growth often followed by significant decline (or vice versa) as evidenced
in their API rankings and subgroup growth over the last four years shown in Table 4.5.
52
TABLE 4.5
API RANKINGS AND SUBGROUP GROWTH AT SMS-2
API School Results
SMS-2 2005 2006 2007 2008
Statewide API Rank 2 1 1 1
Similar Schools Rank 2 1 5 2

Subgroups Actual API Change
All students -23 -4 15 -6
Hispanic -14 -11 3 -1
African American -31 24 43 -47
English Learners Data not
available
11 -4 10
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged -25 12 11 -9
Taken from www.cde.ca.gov

In July of 2008, a new principal was hired for SMS-2. He has 11 years of experience as a
principal with over 33 years in education as a whole. With the overall growth on the API
of 15 points in the previous year, the site only needed a single point of growth in 2008 in
order to exit the SAIT process. If there is positive growth in the coming year, the school
will be able to meet the requirements to exit SAIT: ten points growth over three years
with at least two years of positive growth. With new instructional leadership at the site
and the structural pieces in place for school reform (i.e. collaborative time, low class
sizes, professional development, etc.), the new principal can now focus on instructional
improvements to move the school forward.

53
Non-SAIT Middle School -2
Non-SAIT Middle School-2 (NSMS-2) is part of the largest district within the
geographic region it serves with over 25,000 students pre-K – 12th grade. This urban
district in southern California encompasses over eleven square miles with 20 elementary
schools, four K-8 schools, six middle schools, four comprehensive high schools, and one
alternative high school in addition to several programs meeting the special needs of other
targeted student populations. An additional 30,000 students are serviced through
programs supporting adult education.
Demographically speaking, the students within the district and at the NSMS-2 site
are described in Table 4.6.

TABLE 4.6
2004-2008 SIGNIFICANT SUBGROUP POPULATIONS FOR NSMS-2
District NSMS-2
Free and Reduced Lunch 58% 80%
English Learners 27% 42%
Hispanic 77% 90%
Taken from 2007 – 2008 Ed-Data Site Report for NSMS-2 (www.ed-data.k-12.ca.us)

The district has approximately 350 special education students in grades seven and eight
with 17% attending NSMS-2. Special needs students in self-contained classrooms
account for 4% of the special education population at NSMS-2 while overall student
enrollment sits just shy of 400. It is important to note that the school was a 6-8 middle
school up until the 2006-’07 school year. As part of the overall plan to improve the
school, the sixth grade was removed from the site, which reduced the population by
54
approximately a third. This helps to explain some of the differences in achievement
between the two years prior and the two years after the sixth grade was eliminated and a
new administration was brought on board. Both the current Principal and Assistant
Principal were moved to this middle school at that two year mark with the goal of turning
the school around. NSMS-2, a Year 5 Program Improvement site, was struggling in a
district with only 21% of schools in Program Improvement.
While meeting both criteria for participation rate and API growth under AYP,
NSMS-2 has not met the proficiency targets outlined under AYP for language arts and
mathematics nor has the district as a whole. The subgroup score that consistently
underperformed AYP targets was the English learner population. API data for the site
including the significant subgroup populations is provided in Table 4.7.

TABLE 4.7
API RANKINGS AND SUBGROUP GROWTH AT NSMS-2
API School Results
NSMS-2 2005 2006 2007 2008
Statewide API Rank 3 3 3 3
Similar Schools Rank 7 6 7 9

Subgroups Actual API Change
All students 7 15 24 23
Hispanic 7 12 28 27
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged -1 17 18 33
English Learners Data not
available
-5 23 30
Taken from www.cde.ca.gov

55
SAIT Middle School -3
SAIT Middle School-3 (SMS-3) is located in one of the largest urban districts
within southern California serving over 130,000 students. There are over 220 schools
within the district including more than 115 elementary schools, over 50 middle and high
schools, and an additional 50 charter and/or alternative schools. Approximately 25% of
schools within the district are in Program Improvement (PI) including SMS-3, which is a
Year 5 PI site.
Demographically speaking, the students within the district and at the SMS-3 site
are described in Table 4.8.

TABLE 4.8
2004-2008 SIGNIFICANT SUBGROUP POPULATIONS FOR SMS-3
District SMS-3
Free and Reduced Lunch 62% 91%
English Learners 30% 50%
Hispanic 44% 57%
Asian 9% 22%
Taken from 2007 – 2008 Ed-Data Site Report for SMS-3 (www.ed-data.k-12.ca.us)

There are almost 17,000 special education students within the district and just shy of
4,000 special needs students within grades 6th-8th. SMS-3 has approximately 200 special
needs students, which is roughly 22% of the overall population at the site for the 2008-
’09 school year. There are approximately 900 students at SMS-3 for the current year with
32% of students in 6th grade, 35% in 7th, and 33% in 8th grade. It is important to note
that SMS-3 was recently reconfigured due to budget constraints. When the school first
56
entered Year 5 of Program Improvement, part of the restructuring efforts included
reducing the size of the school to approximately 400 students. The move to create smaller
schools was to be subsidized through some state monies, but the district never received
any funding. The separate schools maintained one budget until the district could no
longer support the sites, so SMS-3 has returned to its original configuration and size.
Data used for this case study reflects the portion of the school maintaining the original
school code and PI status. While the percentages of students have remained fairly
constant in terms of demographics and student achievement, the site had approximately
400 students for both the 2005-’06 and 2006-’07 school years with over 1,000 in 2004-
’05 and over 900 for the 2007-’08 and current year (2008-’09).
Efforts for improving overall student performance seem to have mixed results
with growth often followed by decline (or vice versa) as evidenced in their API rankings
and subgroup growth over the last four years as shown in Table 4.9. It is important to
keep the population shifts in mind when analyzing the data.
The data from 2007 represents the first year with the current principal and the
smaller overall population of less than 400 students. While the 2008 data reflects an
overall decline in performance with the exception of the Asian subgroup, almost 600
additional students are included in this data set. Data from the 2008-’09 school year will
help better determine the impact of reform strategies after adjusting for the additional
staff and students introduced in the previous school year.

57
TABLE 4.9
API RANKINGS AND SUBGROUP GROWTH AT SMS-3
API Rankings
SMS-3 2005 2006 2007 2008
Statewide API Rank 2 1 1 1
Similar Schools Rank 4 2 5 4

Subgroups Actual API Change
All students -13 -1 25 -17
Hispanic -14 -24 34 -17
Asian -18 57 -34 46
English Learners No data
available
-27 32 -20
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged -7 -1 25 -18
Taken from www.cde.ca.gov

Background Data for Comparison Across Sample Schools
A number of characteristics for each site have been included in this section to get
a better sense of how the five schools compare in areas such as demographics, class size,
number of core teachers, instructional minutes and the like. Table 4.10 provides
information on the significant subgroup populations within the school meaning there are
more than 100 students within the subgroup and their overall achievement is measured as
part of NCLB requirements.

58
TABLE 4.10
DEMOGRAPHIC SUBGROUPS AND PERCENTAGE OF OVERALL STUDENT POPULATION
Demographic Subgroups – Percentage of Overall Student Population
Site Hispanic Asian
African
American
English
Learners
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
SMS-1 96% NA NA 89% 85%
SMS-2 59% NA 21% 48% 64%
SMS-3 57% 22% NA 50% 91%
NSMS-1 98% NA NA 53% 89%
NSMS-2 90% NA NA 42% 80%

In addition to the demographics, other pertinent data connected to sites can be
compared across all five of the schools. Table 4.11 displays information around school
size, average class size, number of instructional minutes, and the percentage of teachers
who are teaching core academic subject areas that are not highly qualified under NCLB.
The average core class size was calculated based on the most recent School
Accountability Report Card (SARC) information released in 2009 for the 2007-’08
school year. Core courses included language arts, mathematics, science and social
studies. The average size for these four courses was averaged for the overall class size in
core classes. Information on NCLB compliant teachers (those meeting highly qualified
requirements under NCLB) was also taken from the latest SARC. While most
percentages were fairly consistent (within 1-2%), the percentage of non-compliant
teachers under NCLB for SMS-2 dropped from 33% in the 2006-’07 school year to 11%
for the 2007-’08 school year.
59
TABLE 4.11
DATA FOR COMPARISON ACROSS ALL FIVE SITES
Site Population
Average size of
core classes
Daily Instructional
Minutes
% of non-compliant
teachers under NCLB
SMS-1 1,400 24.9 303 4.8%
SMS-2 450 22.4 322 11%
SMS-3 900 15.8* 339 25%*
NSMS-1 1,750 35.7 302 0%
NSMS-2 400 27.8 335 1.7%
*2009 SARC not yet posted so data reflects the 2006-’07 school year as described in the 2008 SARC.

Student Achievement Data
In establishing findings related to the first research question, some additional
achievement data is worth documenting. The overall student performance in language
arts and mathematics on state accountability measures is the trigger for both state and
federal sanctions under SAIT or NCLB and in large part establishes the school’s API
Ranking although some weight is given to science and social studies in API calculations.
Figure 4.1 displays the overall percentage of students proficient or above in language arts
over the last four years and Figure 4.2 provides the same information for mathematics.

60
FIGURE 4.1
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS PROFICIENT OR ABOVE IN LANGUAGE ARTS
ON CSTS INCLUDING STATE AVERAGES

FIGURE 4.2
PERCENTAGE OF OVERALL STUDENT POPULATION PROFICIENT OR ABOVE
IN MATHEMATICS ON CSTS INCLUDING STATE AVERAGES

61
With the exception of NSMS-1 in the area of mathematics, all schools within the study
are below state averages for the number of students proficient and above on state
accountability measures; however, the rate of growth for each site in terms of closing the
gap is perhaps of more significance. The state has averaged a two percent increase in the
number of students proficient and above in language arts and just less than that for
mathematics (1.67%). Table 4.12 displays the average percentage of increase for sites
within the study in both language arts and mathematics in comparison to the state.

TABLE 4.12
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE INCREASE OF STUDENTS PROFICIENT OR ABOVE ON
CSTS IN LANGUAGE ARTS AND MATHEMATICS
Language Arts Mathematics
State 2% 1.67%
SMS-1 2% 5%
SMS-2 0.33% 1.33%
SMS-3 0.33% 0%
NSMS-1 3.33% 4%
NSMS-2 4% 0%

NSMS-1 is the only site closing the gap in both content areas with SMS-1 on par with the
state for language arts growth and closing the distance in mathematics. NSMS-2 is
exceeding the state growth in language arts but was unable to sustain mathematics growth
in the 2008 year and dropped back to 2005 levels of students proficient or above. At
current rates of growth, neither SMS-2 or SMS-3 will be able to close the gap between
the site and the state. Given the state averages less than 50% of students proficient and
62
above in both content areas, all sites within the study are still far from NCLB
requirements of 100% proficiency by 2014.

Current Instructional Reform Strategies at the Site Level
The three SAIT schools are required to implement the nine Essential Program
Components identified in Table 4.13. While each site may vary in the specifics of
addressing the basic components, the schools must provide evidence to their SAIT
provider, an external entity, approximately four times a year to evaluate progress on
corrective actions identified in these nine categories from their original Report of
Findings by the SAIT provider. They are also required to meet monthly with a District
and Site Liasison Team (DSLT) with members from the school site, the district, and the
SAIT provider to ensure the site has the resources and support from the district and in
some cases the union to make necessary decisions to reform the instructional practice at
the school.
Variations for each of the sites in terms of how resources were allocated to
address the nine EPCs will be discussed in the section comparing resource allocations;
however, some additional insight into specific strategies used by both the SAIT and non-
SAIT sites is outlined in discussing all schools in the context of the eight key factors
identified in the Washington Successful Districts Study (Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates, 2006) that provided the framework for discussion in the case studies across
the multiple sites. Those categories are identified subsequently along with the findings
for each site. The strategies for student support are discussed throughout, so there is no
63
separate header for this key finding from the Washington study. Where there are
implications for resource allocation in areas such as professional development and
retructuring efforts, comparisons will be made in the following section in relation to the
Evidence-Based model.

TABLE 4.13
NINE ESSENTIAL PROGRAM COMPONENTS FOR MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Essential Program
Component
Description
1. Standards-
aligned
Instructional
Materials
Use of State Board of Education (SBE)-adopted (kindergarten through grade eight) or
standards-aligned (grade nine through twelve) English/reading/language arts and
mathematics instructional materials, including intervention materials
2. Instructional
Time

The school/district complies with and monitors implementation of instructional time for the
adopted programs for core English/reading/language arts, reading intervention, core
mathematics, as well as provides additional time for students needing mathematics
intervention. This time should be given priority and be protected from interruptions.
3. Instructional
Leadership
The district provides the school’s principal and vice-principal(s) with AB 430 Administrator
Training Program (ATP), Module 1, Leadership and Support of Student Instructional
Programs, through a SBE-authorized provider. Modules 2 and 3 are optional but
recommended. The training institute features the district’s adopted English/reading/language
arts program, or the English/reading/language arts intervention program, and the district’s
SBE-adopted mathematics program. The ATP, Module 1, includes 40 hours of training
institute in the district’s adopted E/R/LA core or E/R/LA intervention programs and
mathematics program, and also includes 40 hours of structured follow-up practicum.
4. Teacher
Qualifications
and
Professional
Development
Fully credentialed, highly qualified teachers by June 2007.

Requirements for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Teacher Compliance: Teachers of core
academic subjects must have: a bachelor’s degree; hold an appropriate credential or intern
certificate (must be currently enrolled in an approved California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing [CCTC] intern program); and demonstrate subject matter competence.

District provides teachers of English/reading/language arts and mathematics with the
appropriate AB 466 (SB 472, pending) Professional Development Program through a SBE-
authorized provider.

A majority of K-8 teachers attend AB 466 Professional Development Program (40 hours of
institute and 80 hours of practicum). The training features the district’s adopted core program
and/or intervention programs for English/reading/language arts and district’s adopted core
programs for mathematics for each teacher’s grade level and program.

64
TABLE 4.13, CONTINUED
Essential Program
Component
Description
5. Student
Achievement
Monitoring
System
The school/district has an assessment and monitoring system (e.g., every six to eight weeks)
which may include curriculum-embedded assessments available as part of the adopted
program. These assessments inform teachers and principals on student progress and
effectiveness of instruction in all English/reading/language arts and mathematics classrooms.
These curriculum-embedded assessments are based on the adopted English/reading/language
arts and mathematics programs. The purpose of these assessments is to provide timely data to
teachers and principals to make decisions that will improve instruction and student
achievement. In addition, they will provide a basis for the monitoring system.
6. Instructional
Assistance and
Teacher
Support

The schools/district provide instructional assistance and support to all teachers of
English/reading/language arts and mathematics. Elementary, middle, and ninth and tenth
grade English/reading/language arts and mathematics (Algebra 1, and remedial mathematics)
teachers receive ongoing support offered by the school and district. Possible options for
providing support include coaches/content experts who work inside the classroom to support
teachers and deepen the knowledge about the content and delivery of instruction, and
specialists who have experience coaching teachers and who are knowledgeable about the
adopted program.
7. Teacher
Collaboration
The school/district facilitates and supports teacher grade-level collaboration on a regular and
frequent basis for elementary, middle, and high school English/reading/language arts and
mathematics teachers to focus on the use of curriculum-embedded assessment data and data
review to strengthen implementation of the SBE-adopted English/reading/language arts and
mathematics programs. Time must be built into the calendar so that staff has regular
opportunities to meet by department and subject matter, review the results of embedded
assessments together, discuss the data in meaningful ways, examine the implications, make
instructional decisions, and plan lesson delivery (preferably two, one-hour meetings per
month).
8. Pacing and
Scheduling

The school/district prepares and distributes an annual district/schoolwide pacing schedule for
each grade level (K-8) for the English/reading/language arts and mathematics programs in
order for all teachers to know when and in what sequence each lesson is expected to be
taught to ensure content coverage.
9. Fiscal Support The general and categorical funds of the school or district are used appropriately to support
the English/reading/language arts and mathematics program goals in the school plan.
Taken from Essential Program Components, 2008

Eight Key Factors
Educating All Students
All five sites have vision and mission statements tauting the importance of
educating all students, and systems are clearly in place to support student needs through
various intervention strategies. Principals at all five schools articulated their commitment
to improving student achievement. The principals at NSMS-1 and NSMS-2 expressed the
65
“moral imperative” and “duty to the community” to maintain high expectations and
ensure student success.

Using Data
There were some basic commonalities across all schools in terms of reform
strategies employed to improve student achievement. At the top of the list, was data-
driven decision making for both allocation of resources at the school-wide level and for
instructional practice within the classroom. Benchmark assessments are administered on
a regular basis, and the results are used to plan instruction, group students according to
needs, and provide feedback to students on progress. Involving students in monitoring
their own progress through tracking results was a key strategy articualted for the two non-
SAIT schools while not mentioned at the SAIT sites: in their student agendas along with
a standards-based report card at NSMS-1 and through “Data Chats” and a “Six-Week
Tracking” sheet at NSMS-2.

Rigorous Curriculum and Alignment with State Standards
By design, the state-approved texts for language arts and mathematics provide
support materials for students who are struggling which often require additional
instructional time in these two core areas. All five schools in the study made use of state-
approved texts and blocked classes to provide more instructional minutes in language arts
and mathematics. Pacing to stay on target for common assessments and to allow for
collaboration in analyzing student work was evident at all five sites; however, there was
66
more freedom at the two non-SAIT sites to deviate from state-approved texts when they
weren’t working for kids. The focus on mastering state-standards was more important
than fidelity to a program, but these teacher-generated, supplemental resources were
carefully targeted to meet specific standards and monitored for results on the common
asessments. While SAIT schools are required to implement state-approved programs with
fidelity, there is still room for teachers to provide targeted support outside of the program
when necessary although not through additional programs, which may fragment the
curriculum. Two of the principals from SAIT sites expressed that stronger teachers do
this with a focus on mastering standards where less experienced teachers focus on
teaching the program.

Effective Professional Development
Professional development was critical at all five sites with some key differences
in terms of focus. SAIT schools are required to attend the state SB472 trainings in
language arts and mathematics designed to support implementation of the adopted
programs. These trainings are 40 hours with an additional 80 hours of practicum
connected to follow-up support, grade level collaborative meetings around curriculum-
embedded assessments, deepening content knowledge, and the like. In addition to these
required components, each of the SAIT sites identified other key areas of development
for staff as school-wide efforts to improve performance. SMS-1 worked with Dataworks
on direct instruction and checking for understanding as did NSMS-2. SMS-2 also
identified checking for understanding and engagement strategies although not working
67
with an outside entity in this area. Another primary focus at SMS-2 is deepening teacher
content knowledge in mathematics through partnerships with local universities since only
15% of students at the site are proficient or above in this area on CSTs. SMS-3 has
incorporated Cornell Notetaking as a school-wide strategy and professional development
is provided in-house largely by the administrative team based on needs emerging through
collaborative time and walk-throughs. SMS-3 is also working on developing a culture of
high expectations for students through professional development, data-analysis, and
accountability for student results.
While professional development is integral to the reform strategies at all five
sites, SMS-1, NSMS-1, and NSMS-2 articulated a more cohesive plan for training that
connected specific, identied school-wide issues with the offered professional
development to address the issue and monitor progress. For SMS-1, the Leadership Team
identified student engagement as an issue as a result of data from walk-throughs.
Dataworks was brought in to provide strategies in direct, explicit instruction and student
engagement along with plans for monitoring progress through checking for
understanding. Consultants did classroom observations and provided feedback to teachers
on implementation of the strategies as did administrators after conducting walk-throughs.
For NSMS-2, a similar process was used with Dataworks in addition to targeted support
for behavioral issues plaguing the school when the new administrative arrived in 2006.
Teachers were trained in Positive Behavioral Intervention Supports (PBIS) and another
consultant provided training in bell-to-bell instruction with engagement strategies to curb
misbehavior in class. For NSMS-1, in-house mathematics support including peer
68
collaboration and co-planning has worked extremely well in improving student
achievement in mathematics. Here, the Leadership Team decided to focus on writing
across the curriculum and provided training for all staff in all subject areas to tackle
improvement in language arts. While outside consultants were used initially for training
in Thinking Maps, Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD), Accelerated Reader,
and writing strategies from Jane Schaffer, now the majority of training is done by teacher
leaders at the site.

Restructuring the Learning Environment
All five sites in the study are making use of extended instructional time in
mathematics and language arts for the students who need additional support. Most often,
this is done through a shadow class or a double block of time. Both NSMS-1 and NSMS-
2 mentioned the hiring of multiple-subject credentialed teachers to create a language
arts/social studies block, which allows for additional time connected to the social studies
standards even if students are not able to take a full, year-long course. SMS-1
semesterized science and social studies for the students who required additional time in
language arts and mathematics with year-long offerings available for those not requiring
the extra support. Three of the sites, SMS-1, NSMS-1, and NSMS-2, specifically
mentioned restructuring schedules and/or personnel to create the feel of a smaller school.
SMS-1 established split nutrition breaks in addition to two lunches so that smaller
numbers of students were out at any given time to minimize potential behavioral issues
by separating groups of students that were historically creating problems. NSMS-2
69
shifted the start and end times of the 7th and 8th grade students so that they run in
essence on two separate tracks with no common breaks or lunch to intermix. This too
helped with behavioral issues that had created a school culture not conducive to learning.
NSMS-1 has an administrator for each grade level who reports to the principal who then
manages the overall school. SMS-3 has a similar set up to NSMS-1 although unique in
that it was actually three separate schools with three separate principals as part of
restructuring efforts under PI. Now that the site has collapsed back into one larger school,
the three Assistant Principals provide leadership around smaller schools under the one
principal although they are not assigned by grade level but by houses centered on
career themes.
All five sites have developed time for teachers to collaborate in Professional
Learning Communities (PLCs) through modified days where teachers have up to two
hours per week to collaborate above and beyond staff meetings or other professional
development opportunities. Unique to SMS-2 is an additional period within the school
day for teams to collaborate daily.
One other restructuring element connected to NSMS-1 related to the allocation of
instructional minutes throughout the year. This is the only site that banks minutes for the
first part of the year with a slightly longer day to frontload students with additional time
and learning before testing. After the assessments are completed, the day is reduced in
minutes to stay within contractual agreements for teachers.

70
Professional Learning Communities and Instructional Leadership
As discussed previously under restructuring efforts, all five sites developed
professional learning communities in efforts to improve student achievement on campus.
The focus of these collaborative times is around analyzing data and student work with the
goal of changing instructional practice and providing the necessary supports for students
who are falling behind. Only the principal at NSMS-2 specifically mentioned training for
teachers in PLCs, but all discussed the importance of training teachers in data analysis
and providing support for teachers in figuring out how to best serve the needs of students.
Strong teacher leaders at NSMS-1 and NSMS-2 have played a pivotal role in effectively
using the PLC structure to change instructional practice. With the systems now in place at
SMS-1, the principal is ready to go deeper with the staff in what happens during the
collaborative time although the mathematics department hit the ground running and is
already showing signs of improved practice. In early stages at SMS-2 and SMS-3,
administrators have focused much of the collaborative time around understanding data
and the needs of students. With that foundation laid, both expressed the plan to move
more heavily into connections to instructional practice and strategies for supporting
students in this current year.
In terms of instructional leadership, each site has a wider body of teachers,
support personnel, and administrators supporting reform efforts on the various campuses.
While specific allocations for instructional leadership will be discussed in the next
section, it is important to note that all principals expressed the importance of teachers
taking on leadership roles whether through facilitating collaborative meetings, providing
71
peer mentoring, coaching others, or training staff members. Not to minimize efforts in
other areas at the SAIT schools, it was interesting to note that principals discussed the
vision primarily in connection to improvement in language arts and mathematics, which
are the focal points for both SAIT and NCLB. Having successfully exited the SAIT
process, the principal at SMS-1 was able to articulate a vision for re-introducing electives
and expanding year-long courses for science and social studies as more students are able
to transition out of the need for extra support in language arts and mathematics. For the
two non-SAIT sites, there was the same intensity about improving mathematics and
langugae arts where most of their students still struggle, but the language of the two
principals focused more heavily on educating all students to be successful within
the community than calling out the two content areas needing the most focus for
state accountability.
As part of the SAIT process, the administrators at SMS-2 are all receiving
coaching to help support the change process and implementation of various
recommendations made by the SAIT provider. All sites discussed the importance of a
strong leadership team to help move the schools forward in improving student
achievement. Principals at the two non-SAIT schools mentioned other colleagues within
the district as an important support system. The team at SMS-3 is also unique in that
principals from the three separate schools on the one campus are now working together as
a single school. One of them is the principal and the other two are assistant principals, but
they have worked together as collegues within the district for over ten years, which
provides internal support for this restructured site.
72
Resources Used to Implement the School’s Instructional Improvement
Strategies and Comparisons to the Evidence-Based Model

For purposes of responding to these two research questions, broad headers have
been identified to sort findings around basic categories designed to illuminate similarities
and differences in resource allocation patterns across the multiple sites within the study
and the Evidence-Based Model. These headers include: Personnel Resources, Extra Help,
Professional Development, Student Services, and Administration. Each section will
include key findings for the five sites in addition to a comparison with the Evidence-
Based Model to identify possible areas for growth at the sites and to inform the model
itself where discrepancies may exist in school performance and features suggested as
necessary to double performance under the model.

Personnel Resources
How schools are allocating resources to implement instructional reform strategies
connected to increasing instructional time in mathematics and language arts in addition to
providing extra support, blocked classes, or shadow classes is fairly evident in looking at
the total number of staff in comparison to teachers within those two core areas. Table
4.14 displays information regarding allocation of staff within these areas, and while on
paper all five sites are providing support through additional time, it manifests itself very
differently at the individual sites. All personnel data are calculated based on the total
number of sections taught within the core content area divided by the number of
instructional periods within the day that teachers are required to teach since not all staff
73
are full-time nor do they all teach within one subject area for their entire course load. All
sixth grade classes at the sites within the study are self-contained, so again, FTEs were
calculated to reflect the time spent instructing in each core area.
Based on the design of state-approved texts in California and the movement
toward implementing Response to Intervention (RtI) models, most English learner and
special needs students are mainstreamed into core classes wherever possible using the
same materials as general education students with extra support provided through
differentiating instruction and the additional instructional time allocated for shadow
classes. For this reason, there are very few teachers instructing outside of core content for
these two significant subgroups. They have been included in the overall count of core
teachers where instructing in the same core content as general education teachers. Where
special education teachers co-teach in general education classes during core content time,
the FTEs for that teacher are also included in the core count. FTEs for special education
services not pertaining to instruction in core content are included elsewhere in the model.
Overall student population is also included to provide context for the staffing allocations
based on the size of the individual site.
74
TABLE 4.14
NUMBER OF PERSONNEL ALLOCATED TO CORE CONTENT AREAS
Site/Student
Population
Language Arts Mathematics Science Social Science
Total of Core
Personnel
SMS-1/1400 25.83 16.33 4.67 5.17 52
SMS-2/450 9.4 7.8 4.8 5 27
SMS-3/900 13.3 11.9 6.4 6.4 43*
NSMS-1/1750 18.3 18 9.2 9.7 55.2
NSMS-2/400 3.6 3.4 2.4 2.6 12
*There are five additional special ed teachers who co-teach in core areas although data was not provided to break
down the FTEs by subject area.

Only one site, NSMS-1, has any foreign language courses offered, which are considered
core classes under the Evidence-Based Model. The site has three offerings of Spanish,
one per grade level before school everyday, for an added .5 FTE. All five sites allocate
more staff to the two core areas of language arts and mathematics in comparison to
science and social studies; however, there is considerably less variation at NSMS-2. It is
interesting to note that while close in overall student population, SMS-2 has more than
double the staffing of NSMS-2 for core courses, which is a reflection of lower class sizes
at that site in addition to significant funding sources from both state and federal funds
targeting low performing schools.
Four of the sites are not far off of the model in terms of the number of core
teachers recommended for the size of the school as shown in Table 4.15. In fact, SMS-2
and SMS-3 are actually over allotments with SMS-1 and NSMS-2 only short by two and
four teachers respectively. NSMS-1 is significantly below model recommendations with
a shortfall of almost 17 teachers.
75
It is important to note that the model generates additional teachers to support both
English learners and special education students that for the purposes of this study have
been counted as core because of the instructional focus of those teachers within core
content areas. With these adjustments in mind, only SMS-2 remains above model
recommendations for teaching staff with 9.2 additional teachers while SMS-3 is close to
the model but understaffed by 3.6 teachers according to recommendations. The remaining
schools are all funded below model allocations with NSMS-2 understaffed by 7 teachers,
SMS-1 by 25, and NSMS-1 by 44. SAIT sites receive an initial lump sum to cover
contracts with the SAIT provider and implement the nine EPCs (approximately
$100,000) with another per pupil allotment of approximately $70, which accounts for
some of the additional resources provided at these sites and may align them more closely
with the model; however, these funds are not provided after exiting the SAIT process, so
schools must be careful in determining how resources are allocated in terms of sustaining
improvement efforts.
For specialist and/or elective positions at the site, the Evidence-Based Model
recommends 20% of the number of core staff be dedicated to these other areas of
instruction, which include physical education, fine arts electives, technology or career
tech electives, and other classes such as journalism, AVID, or ASB. Based on the
numbers displayed in Table 4.14, three of the sites are in line with or over
recommendations from the Evidence-Based Model, which, again, recommends 20%
specialist/elective teachers to provide for prep times built within the school day for
76
planning and collaboration. NSMS-2 has 33% while both SMS-2 and SMS-3 have just at
or above the 20%. Both SMS-1 and NSMS-1 sit at 14%.

TABLE 4.15
PERSONNEL ALLOCATIONS IN COMPARISON TO EVIDENCE-BASED
MODEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Sites
Core
Personnel
Evidence-Based Model
recommendations
Specialist/
Elective
Evidence-Based Model
recommendations
SMS-1 52 54 7 11
SMS-2 27 18 5.8 3.6
SMS-3 43* 36 7.4 7
NSMS-1 55.2 72 7.9 14.4
NSMS-2 12 16.2 4 3.2
*There are five additional special ed teachers who co-teach in core areas although data was not provided to break
down the FTEs by subject area.

In looking at the resource allocation patterns for the five schools, it is clear that
the majority of sites are fairly close to the Evidence-Based Model in terms of the number
of core teachers with the exception of NSMS-1. It is when considering the extra FTEs
allotted for additional support for special needs students and English learners that schools
fall short of model recommendations with the exception of SMS-2. One of the categories
from the model not yet mentioned, Library Staff, also points to differences in allocation
patterns between the sites and the model. Not a single site has a full time librarian with
SMS-2 having only .4 of an FTE for a certificated staff member. All have one full-time,
classified position to provide library services, which for SMS-2 is above and beyond the
part-time librarian. With this in mind, it is important to look at the elements of the
Evidence-Based Model designed to support the overall academic achievement of students
77
outside of instructional personnel within the school day since it is here that most
discrepancies become apparent.

Extra Help
Under the Evidence-Based Model, this header includes categories for certificated
tutors based on students in Free & Reduced Price Lunch, support for English learners and
special education as discussed briefly above, gifted student support, extended day, and
summer school opportunities.
NSMS-1 uses a 0.1 FTE for the purposes of certificated tutors primarily to
support English learners. The pull-out tutoring is done by the ELD and Title I
Coordinators for about 5% of their overall school day each. No other sites use certificated
tutors as a strategy to support academic achievement although every site uses non-
certificated tutors through AVID, volunteers, or partnerships with various community
organizations. The Evidence-Based Model recommends one certificated tutor for every
100 Free & Reduced Price Lunch students, so this would generate an additional 12 FTEs
at SMS-1 and 9 at SMS-3 who currently have no tutors, 3 at SMS-2 where there are 5
non-certificated tutors, 16 additional tutors at NSMS-1 with the 0.1 already in place, and
2.5 at NSMS-2 where there are currently two non-certificated tutors through AVID.
All sites within the study are in Year 5 of Program Improvement, which requires
the provision of a stipend for private tutoring to all Title 1 students who are Far Below
Basic and Below Basic on state accountability measures as mandated by NCLB. This
tutoring is not connected to the school in anyway, and it does not impact the budget of
78
the individual sites directly although it decreases available resources for the district to
spend elsewhere. Little information was available at the sites to determine how many
students were using the stipend for tutoring services or how it might be impacting
student performance.
Extended day opportunities are somewhat difficult to account for in terms of
FTEs and cost. All sites have teachers who provide before and after school support for
students without any additional pay, and all sites had partnerships with various entities
providing additional support for students at no cost to the site from volunteers and
community organizations, to private foundations and the Governor’s After School
Education and Safety (ASES) program, which provides funds for after school programs.
These additional supports have been converted to FTEs; however, it is more than likely
that the FTEs do not represent the entirety of extended day opportunities being provided
for students. The Evidence-Based Model recommends FTEs based on half of the
identified number of students in Free and Reduced Price Lunch programs at a ratio of 15
students per adult. This number is then divided in four since the time allotted to these
extended day opportunities is typically equal to a quarter of a full FTE when compared to
instructional minutes over the course of an entire year. Table 4.16 shows the number of
students currently receiving extended day services along with the corresponding FTEs
and then the expected number of students needing services based on the model with the
corresponding FTEs.

79
TABLE 4.16
EXTENDED DAY SERVICES AND EVIDENCE-BASED MODEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Sites
Students in
Extended Day
FTEs
Enrollment Projection
for FTEs from the
Evidence-Based Model
FTE Recommendations from
the Evidence-Based Model
SMS-1 175 1.25 600 10
SMS-2 125 .72 150 2.5
SMS-3 120 .25 450 7.5
NSMS-1 240 .51 834.5 13.9
NSMS-2 111 .25* 123.5 2.1
*No site personnel are used for this program, which is run by an outside agency so this is an estimate based on two
staff coordinating activities.

The numbers in Table 4.16 represent the students involved in academic support activities
and do not include athletic programs or non-instructional club opportunities. SMS-1 has a
full-time coordinator on-site during the day throughout the entire school year to organize
after school opportunities for students as part of a program connected to a local
foundation; however, data on the number of personnel who provide services and their
cost where unavailable at the site. The same is true for NSMS-2 where no site personnel
are used for the ASES program provided through state funding and coordinated by an
outside agency. The additional 0.25 FTE at SMS-1 and the FTEs for all sites but NSMS-2
as noted consist of in-house staff providing instructional support to targeted students as
part of a system of support for which teachers are paid an hourly rate for services. All
schools fall severely short of recommendations from the Evidence-Based Model although
two sites, SMS-2 and NSMS-2 are actually fairly close in terms of the number of students
serviced through extended day programs and what the model would predict given the
number of students on Free and Reduced Price Lunch.
80
In terms of summer school opportunities, SMS-3 did not offer any summer school
this past year. The remaining sites in the study all had students involved in summer
school although the number of students attending and the corresponding FTEs for staff
are well below recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model as shown in Table 4.17.

TABLE 4.17
SUMMER SCHOOL OFFERINGS IN COMPARISON TO THE EVIDENCE-BASED MODEL
Sites
Students
Enrolled
FTEs
Enrollment Projection
for FTEs from the
Evidence-Based Model
FTE Recommendations from
the Evidence-Based Model
SMS-1 500 .96 600 10
SMS-2 150 1.56 150 2.5
SMS-3 0 0 450 7.5
NSMS-1 600 3 834.5 13.9
NSMS-2 60 .7 123.5 2.1

In contrast to students served in extended day, the numbers for all but SMS-3 are much
closer to the projected enrollment of the Evidence-Based Model although still
underfunded in terms of the resources that the model would provide for the number of
students attending summer school.
In looking at the overall findings in the various categories under extra support,
two things are evident: for the most part, the number of students supported through in-
school tutoring, extended day, and summer school at the five sites is much lower than the
model would project based on students receiving Free & Reduced Price Lunch, and the
resources allocated for these support systems are minimal with SMS-2 falling one FTE
81
shy for summer school but no other site in any category even funded at half of what the
Evidence-Based Model would suggest.

Professional Development
Three of the sites within the study currently provide more professional
development than model recommendations although the time is not concentrated in the
summer for ten days as the model would suggest. The remaining two, SMS-1 and NSMS-
1, have six and approximately eight days respectively for the entire staff although smaller
groupings of staff members receive additional professional development. All of the sites
are making use of modified days in some way to build in time for collaboration as part of
the overall professional development plan. Included under the broader heading of
professional development are instructional coaches and planning. While all sites have a
traditional prep period for teacher planning, SMS-2 also has a common collaborative time
built into the school day for teachers to meet daily for professional development and/or
analysis of student work.
It is in the area of coaches that most sites fall short of model recommendations.
Not a single site has a full-time coach on staff for either language arts or mathematics for
the current year. While resources were allocated to this type of support historically at a
few of the sites, with budget cuts over the last year or so, these coaching positions have
had to be eliminated. Both SMS-2 and SMS-3 have coaching services for teachers in
language arts and mathematics that are provided through the district or university
partnerships for the equivalent of 2 to 3 days per month. SMS-3 also provides coaching
82
for science teachers, and the administrative team at SMS-2 is receiving coaching services
twice a month each for the equivalent of another 2.5 days a month.
SMS-1 had a mathematics coach until this current year when she retired. While
her position was not filled, a lead for mathematics was identified who will continue to
provide coaching services although also a full-time teacher on staff. The lead is paid a
stipend for the extra services, and there is a lead identified for language arts as well. In
the last year, over $80,000 at the site was spent on outside consultants who provide
coaching as part of professional development. With the current budget situation and
many funds frozen, it is unlikely that the site will be able to provide coaching support
through outside personnel.
Neither of the two non-SAIT schools have coaches on campus either. NSMS-2
has spent over $50,000 in professional development, which often includes a coaching
component from the consultant to monitor implementation of new strategies and a few
days a month for coaching from district personnel in language arts and mathematics. The
principal has worked with other struggling schools in the district to pull resources
together to ensure quality professional development including on-site support while
sharing the extra costs across multiple sites.
NSMS-1 spent almost $90,000 on professional development last year to provide
for collaborative time for staff, data analysis days, program planning, and a
comparatively small amount for travel/conferences. The bulk of training is done by
teacher-leaders within the site. The master schedule is arranged in such a way that
mathematics teachers can observe or plan with the strongest teacher in the department
83
who provides coaching support in collaborating with colleagues. Language arts support
was provided through summer trainings offered through the district this year for twelve
teachers from the site who attended. While follow-up training was intended, the current
budget situation will more than likely suspend all plans for additional training.
In general, SMS-1 and SMS-2 rely more heavily on outside consultants to provide
professional development to staff than SMS-3, NSMS-1, and NSMS-2 who rely on in-
house personnel after initial trainings. While at SMS-3 the trainings are predominately
done by administration, NSMS-1 is the only site that seems to focus almost entirely on
teachers training teachers. This may offset the lack of instructional coaches since the
collaborative time available allows colleagues to support each other in a true Professional
Learning Community although no one holds the title of coach. SMS-1 is moving toward
this model as well in identifying strong teachers from within who are then paid a stipend
to facilitate the collaborative meetings and provide support although they are funded
through categorical monies the site receives. NSMS-2 also provides in-house teacher
support after initial trainings conducted by outside consultants.

Student Services
Categories under the broad heading of student services include the number of
guidance counselors and other pupil support personnel such as a school nurse,
psychologist, speech/physical/occupational therapist, social worker, registrar, attendance
clerk, parent liaison, custodian, and/or security. The Evidence-Based Model recommends
a guidance counselor for every 250 students with an additional pupil support personnel
84
for every 100 Free and Reduced Price Lunch student. The aggregate number of support
personnel along with the total number of counselors is outlined in Table 4.18 along with
recommendations from the Evidence-Based Model.

TABLE 4.18
PUPIL SUPPORT PERSONNEL IN COMPARISON TO THE EVIDENCE-BASED MODEL
Sites
Guidance
Counselors
Other Support
Personnel
FTE Recommendations from the
Evidence-Based Model
SMS-1 3 11.3 5.6 Guidance/12 Support
SMS-2 3.4* 6.86 1.8 Guidance/3 Support
SMS-3 3 6.5 3.6 Guidance/9 Support
NSMS-1 3** 10.5 7 Guidance/16.7 Support
NSMS-2 2.4 .7 1.6 Guidance/2.5 Support
*One FTE is an intern for the site providing services.
**One counselor is assigned to monitor IEPs only

With the exception of SMS-2 and NSMS-2, all sites within the study are under-resourced
based on model recommendations. The principal at NSMS-2 has chosen to use funding
for an additional counselor above district provisions with the intent of providing extra
support for students although the site would have an additional 1.8 in support under the
model. The 0.4 FTE in counseling is a reflection of services provided to students on-site
through Medical twice weekly throughout the school year.
At NSMS-1, there are 2.5 FTEs allotted for counselors in addition to the IEP
Coordinator. The principal has combined the remaining 0.5 FTE for a counselor with
other funding to hire a third assistant principal as part of the restructuring efforts to assign
85
an administrator to each grade level for a smaller school feel with the principal
overseeing the entire campus of 1,750 students.
When examining resources allocated for student services overall in comparison to
the Evidence-Based Model, SMS-1 would require an additional 3.3 FTEs, SMS-3 another
3.1 FTEs, NSMS-1 another 10.2 FTEs, and 1 additional FTE for NSMS-2. If SMS-2
chose to reallocate resources that are currently above model recommendations, 5.5 FTEs
would be available for redistribution.

Administration
This is one of the few areas within the study where sites were predominantly
overfunded based on recommendations from the Evidence-Based Model. For a school
size of 450 students, the model recommends a principal and half an FTE for an assistant
principal. Even NSMS-2, as the smallest site with only 400 students, has both a principal
and an assistant principal. While one would expect to see more administrators at larger
sites, the model includes other personnel in this category that were not accounted for
elsewhere. For large middle schools receiving Title I funds, this often includes a Title 1
Coordinator or an ELD Coordinator for sites with large English learner populations.
While these positions do not require administrative credentials, the bulk of the work is
typically administrative in nature, so they are accounted for in this portion of the model.
Regardless of the added personnel for these support services, all sites have more
administrators than recommended by the model as shown in Table 4.19.

86
TABLE 4.19
ADMINISTRATION ALLOCATIONS IN COMPARISON TO THE EVIDENCE-BASED MODEL
Sites Principal
Assistant
Principal
Other
Admin
Total
Evidence-Based Model
Recommendations
SMS-1 1 2 1 4 3.5
SMS-2 1 2 4* 7 1.5
SMS-3 1 3 2 6 2.5
NSMS-1 1 3 2.9 6.9 4.5
NSMS-2 1 1 NA 2 1.4
* Three of these are not funded through the site budget.

While SMS-1 and NSMS-2 are fairly close to model recommendations, the other three
sites are allotting anywhere from 2.5 to 5.5 additional FTEs to administration compared
to the model. It is interesting to note that one of the smaller schools with only 450
students has the same number of administrators as NSMS-1, which is almost four times
the size of SMS-2.

SAIT in Comparison to Non-SAIT Sites
While there are not enough sites within the study to determine statistically
significant differences, some interesting patterns emerge in comparing the sites identified
as matched pairs and also in looking at the aggregate of SAIT schools in comparison to
non-SAIT schools.
The Similar Schools list published by the state compares sites based on a number
of characteristics to determine a basis for comparison around student achievement with
similar populations of students. Size is not one of these factors, but it was included for
selection purposes in this study. NSMS-1 is actually on the Similar Schools list for all
87
three of the SAIT sites while SMS-3 could be matched with all but NSMS-2. SMS-1 is a
match for both NSMS-1 and SMS-3 while NSMS-2 is only linked to SMS-2.
NSMS-1 was the only school on the Similar Schools list within the same district
as SMS-1 and of the same approximate size. Additional funds at SMS-1 through QEIA
have largely been used to lower class size (as required for the funding) with a 27-1
average ratio in core classes compared to 32-1 at NSMS-1. In terms of teaching staff, this
equates to 59 core/elective teachers at SMS-1 in comparison to 63 at NSMS-1, which has
an additional 350 students. Both sites have three counselors with approximately eleven
other support personnel although NSMS-1 has a larger gap in funding compared to the
Evidence-Based Model with more students overall. Both have collaborative time and
similar allocations for professional development with the greatest distinction being that
SMS-1 predominantly used consultants where NSMS-1 relied on in-house staff to train
and support colleagues in strategies introduced previously through outside professional
development. With budget cuts, SMS-1 is moving in that direction as well, so it will be
interesting to watch the impact on student achievement now that the site has had two
years of training from outside personnel and is focused on implementing those changes at
deeper levels this year. The other variation in resource allocation is connected to the
number of administrators on site. NSMS-1 has an additional assistant principal as well as
two FTEs for other administrative support in comparison to SMS-1.
One key difference between the two sites in terms of demographics is the number
of English learners on site with 89% at SMS-1 and 53% at NSMS-1 although considered
similar by the state. This may account for the slower average growth rate over the last
88
four years for students proficient in language arts at SMS-1 (2%) in comparison to
growth at NSMS-1 (3.3%) although the state is averaging 2% as well. With a 5% average
increase for students proficient in mathematics over the last four years in comparison to
1.67% for the state and 4% for NSMS-1, both SMS-1 and NSMS-1 are closing the gap
for students in mathematics despite high percentages of English learners and students on
Free and Reduced Price Lunch.
The second matched pair was SMS-2 and NSMS-2. The original SAIT site within
the district of NSMS-2 pulled out of the study, so with the added criteria of size, SMS-2
was the perfect replacement with a difference in population of less than 50 students in
addition to the other criteria for the Similar Schools list; however, these schools could not
be more different in terms of resource allocation. As a SAIT site, SMS-2 is receiving
some additional funds from the state to support the SAIT process as well as extra district
resources and a number of partnerships that provide supports to staff and students. With
this in mind, SMS-2 has average core class sizes of 22 compared to 28 for NSMS-2 and
more than twice the teaching staff with 33 core and elective teachers compared to 16 for
NSMS-2. While both sites have collaborative time for professional development and data
analysis, SMS-2 has embedded the time within the school day so that teachers teach five
periods within an eight period day with one for lunch, one for planning, and one for
collaboration/professional development. NSMS-2 relies on modified days.
Both sites are well over the model for professional development allocations and
also have more FTEs for guidance counselors than the model would recommend;
however, there are almost six additional FTEs funded for pupil support staff at SMS-2 for
89
a total of 6.9 in comparison to the 1.1 at NSMS-2, which includes 0.4 in counseling
service provided through Medical. With one principal and one assistant principal at
NSMS-2, the site is considered overfunded by the model; however, there are two
assistant principals and four other administrator positions at SMS-2 in addition to the
principal for a total of 7 FTEs in the administrator category.
For the purposes of comparison, NSMS-1 is also a match from the Similar
Schools list for SMS-3. Since this site was added to the study to replace one of the other
SAIT schools, there was not enough time to identify and contact a non-SAIT site within
the same district to include in the study, so it will be compared to NSMS-1. SMS-3 has
approximately 50 teaching staff for core and elective courses in comparison to the 63 at
NSMS-1, which has almost twice the student population. This again reflects the QEIA
monies that SMS-3 was eligible for to support class size reduction among other things.
Both sites have the same number of counselors although the model would recommend an
additional 0.6 FTE for SMS-3 in comparison to 4 FTEs for NSMS-1 due to the difference
in student population. Both are underfunded for additional support personnel with SMS-3
needing an additional 28% to reach funding recommendations as compared to 37% for
NSMS-1.
Both sites have collaborative time built into the week through modified days.
Some of these are used for professional development in addition to full days scheduled
throughout the year. In comparison to the Evidence-Based Model, SMS-3 is over model
recommendations with 11 days for total staff in addition to offerings targeting specific
departments and NSMS-1 is slightly under the model with 7.75 days for all staff and
90
other offerings for individual teachers. These are the only two sites where most trainings
are conducted in-house by staff with mostly administrators at SMS-3 and mostly teachers
at NSMS-1. Finally, SMS-3 has six FTEs in the category of administrators including one
principal and three assistant principals while NSMS-1 has the same with almost double
the student population and 6.9 FTEs in administration.
By far, the SAIT schools overall have more resources than the non-SAIT sites
within the study. Because these schools took additional funding from the state, which
triggered their SAIT status when they were unable to improve, it should not be surprising
that they have more funds available to implement reform strategies. It is interesting to
note that all three SAIT sites were also eligible for QEIA monies, which have added a
significant amount of funding to the sites: reducing overall class size in addition to
facilities upgrades to accommodate new staff and generating more personnel to serve the
needs of students. SMS-1 has shown the greatest improvement and was the only site to
exit the SAIT process after the second year. Since it will no longer receive additional
funding for SAIT, resource allocation patterns may change in both this year and years to
come given the current fiscal situation. With a new principal this year at SMS-2 and the
restructuring of SMS-3 from three smaller sites into one large school, only time will tell
if the reform strategies implemented will have a greater impact on student achievement.
Currently, SMS-1 is closing the gap in mathematics, but none of the SAIT sites are
improving proficiency rates in language arts at a pace to close the gap with proficiency
levels for the state.
91
Both principals at the non-SAIT sites discussed efforts to connect with outside
organizations in partnerships to offset any resources lacking at the site. These two sites
outperform the SAIT schools in terms of the number of students proficient or above in
language arts by far; however, SMS-1 has more students proficient or above than NSMS-
2 in mathematics and is only 10% behind for language arts, which is impressive given
that SMS-1 has more than double the number of English learners.
The two principals at the non-SAIT sites also discussed the importance of teacher-
leaders and the role they play in supporting other staff members in developing content
knowledge and analyzing student data for instructional decisions. This was only
articulated at SMS-1 in terms of the SAIT sites with a recognition that the staff is just
now in a position to begin taking on more leadership with the site exiting SAIT.
NSMS-1 is the only site within the study currently closing the achievement gap
for students in both language arts and mathematics. Averaging an additional 3.33% of
students who are proficient or above in language arts over the last four years in
comparison to the state’s 2% and an additional 4% for mathematics compared to the
state’s 1.67%, NSMS-1 is gaining ground. While the same could be said for NSMS-2
until last year’s mathematics scores, they are still closing the gap in language arts with a
4% increase in the number of proficient students compared to the state’s 2%.

The Impact of Resources on the Strategic Plan for Improvement
Given the perceived abundance of resources at the SAIT sites in comparison to
typical schools within California, principals had very little to say about how the
92
availability of resources impacted the development and implementation of the site’s plan
for improving student achievement. Although having fewer resources, the same was true
for the two non-SAIT sites. The principals at SMS-1, SMS-2, and NSMS-1 all felt that
onsite coaches for language arts and mathematics would be beneficial. The principal at
SMS-3 made it very clear that the site has had too many outside entities trying to turn it
around and that efforts need to focus on rallying the staff within to create change, which
would not require any additional resources. The principal at NSMS-2 focused in on
quality teachers as well with the idea that it was her job to get them what they need be
successful in the classroom. Where district or state funds fall short, she finds partnerships
or volunteers to do whatever it takes for the students as does the principal at NSMS-1.
While all felt fairly comfortable with existing resources, all expressed concern for
the coming year in relation to the fiscal crises in California, which threatens school
funding. If the state chooses to suspend SAIT or QEIA funds, the SAIT sites will
experience a dramatic loss of funding making it impossible to support lower class size
and the added staff. If in addition to these supplemental funds, federal and other state
monies are cut for all schools, sites within the study would struggle to implement their
current strategic plans having to cut existing allocations and the services provided to
support students through them.
93
Chapter 5: Conclusions

The overall purpose of this study was to examine resource allocation trends at five
middle schools in California and compare those trends with the Evidence-Based Model as
a possible means for determining better ways to fund schools in line with the research for
what it takes to get all students to high levels of proficiency. To that end, Chapter One
provided a brief overview of the various models currently used to determine school
funding and issues connected with moving from a system of equitable resources to
adequate resources to meet the varied needs of different student populations. The four
research questions guiding the overall study were:
• What are current instructional improvement strategies at the school-level?
• How are actual resource patterns at the school sites aligned with or different
from the resource use strategies that are used in the Evidence-Based Model?
• How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
strategies? (instructional vision, plan, goals, etc.)
• How does the availability of resources affect the development and
implementation of the strategic plan?
Chapter Two explored the literature around general resource use, research-based
reform strategies, and models for connecting the allocation of resources to improvements
in student achievement through identified best practices. The research underlying the nine
Essential Program Components for School Assistance and Intervention Teams (SAIT)
required under the state sanction process for the state of California were also explored in
94
relation to the Evidence-Based Model since three of the schools within the study were
identified SAIT schools having completed their second year of the SAIT process.
Chapter Three discussed the methodology and sampling strategies used to determine
the schools within the study. In addition to focusing on middle schools, three schools
were identified for their status as SAIT sites to be compared against schools that were not
a part of the state sanction process. SAIT sites are required to implement nine Essential
Program Components (EPCs) identified by the state that are grounded in the research on
school reform. Components include collaboration, professional development and
appropriately credentialed teachers, standards-based curriculum, an assessment system
for data-driven decision-making and pacing, instructional support, and sufficient
instructional time to implement programs in mathematics and language arts with all the
support elements necessary to support student learning. The last of the nine EPCs focuses
on allocating resources to implement the strategic plan, so these sites are held
accountable in implementing reform strategies to improve student achievement by an
outside entity. Given the commonalities between the research base behind the nine EPCs
and the Evidence-Based Model, SAIT sites were selected in hope of finding sites that are
allocating resources in a way that is similar to the model.
Interviews with site principals were conducted along with a review of documents to
compare resource allocation patterns at the site with recommendations of the Evidence-
Based Model to determine the connection between resources and reform strategies as
well as funding levels in comparison to the model.
95
Chapter Four outlined the findings from the study through case studies for each of the
individual sites including comparisons to the Evidence-Based Model, an analysis of
patterns across all five sites in conjunction with the model, and some of the variations in
the SAIT versus non-SAIT sites.
This chapter will focus on the conclusions of the study in terms of what the individual
sites themselves revealed in relation to employed reform strategies and student
achievement connected to resource allocation and how these sites might help to inform
both the Evidence-Based Model and general funding formulas to ensure adequate levels
of achievement for all students.
Since all five schools within the study are Year 5 Program Improvement sites, it is
critical to evaluate how well resources are being used as schools strive to bring all
students to high levels of proficiency on state accountability measures. Given the current
budget crisis in the state of California and the nation as a whole, it is unlikely that
additional resources will flow into schools with any regularity in the near future: schools
will be faced with making additional cuts and hard choices about resource allocation to
sustain current reform efforts. It is of vital importance, for this reason, that educators find
the investments that yield the greatest results for student achievement within the
constraints of the current fiscal reality while advocating for the resources necessary to
provide a high quality education for all students irrespective of the individual challenges
faced by some subgroups.
96
Reform Strategies and Resource Allocation
On paper, all five sites employ similar strategies to improve student achievement and
yet with differing results. Conclusions of this study center on possible reasons for why
sites with more resources overall, the SAIT sites, are not having the greatest success with
student learning. The role of teacher efficacy as a cornerstone for improving student
learning, instructional leadership, the impact of lower class sizes, and the challenges of
English learners to language arts improvement will be discussed as possible explanations
for why implementation of research-based strategies is not having the anticipated
outcome for sites with resources to institute many of the recommendations of the
Evidence-Based Model.

Teacher Efficacy
Collaboration and professional development are high on the list of strategies
implemented at each site with a focus on the use of data to make instructional decisions,
plan for flexible grouping, and differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all learners.
How collaboration and professional development are incorporated into the overall school
plan for improvement varies from site to site, but more importantly, the efficacy of the
teachers seems to be the driving factor in how impactful these two components are in
improving overall student achievement. The principals at the two lowest performing sites
expressed the need to build teacher efficacy and content knowledge as pivotal elements to
the success of implementing the strategic plan. The other principals expressed more
confidence in the teaching staff, which may account for their comparative success in
97
improving student achievement in mathematics although progress in language arts at all
sites is much slower.
Both SMS-2 and SMS-3 were unable to exit the SAIT process after the initial two
years despite all of the additional resources and institution of collaborative time, targeted
professional development, and data analysis. Both principals expressed the need to
establish a culture of high expectations and build content knowledge of teachers, and
these two sites have 11% and 25% of teachers not meeting highly qualified requirements
under NCLB respectively. Teacher efficacy is clearly an issue based on principal
comments.
Principals at the three higher performing sites articulated the critical role that teachers
play in implementing reform strategies with high expectations for student success. The
use of instructional coaches was consistently under-resourced although every principal
discussed the importance of and desire to have more coaching available as a way of
improving teacher knowledge and pedagogy to support student learning. The highest
performing sites have found ways to incorporate peer coaching and support whether
through additional stipends or professional commitment, which has helped develop a
sense of teacher efficacy and internal expertise to build on.

Instructional Leadership
The highest performing site in the study has the second highest percentage of English
learners and students in Free and Reduced Price Lunch, the fewest overall resources, and
the largest overall population. With under fifty percent of students proficient in either
98
language arts or mathematics, it would be interesting to see how additional resources
might be allocated at this site given the comparative success with what little currently
exists. On the flip side, the lowest performing site has the lowest percentage of students
in Free and Reduced Price Lunch with the second lowest percentage of English learners.
It is also the site with the most resources and the second lowest overall student
population. With every resource available, including small class sizes and collaborative
time built into the school day for daily collaboration, the school is struggling to increase
student achievement. This points to the importance of leadership in how scarce resources
are allocated and teachers supported in improving student achievement with even the
most challenging student groups.
Three of the sites, including the two lowest performing schools, have experienced
leadership change within the last year or two as part of the plan to improve school
performance. While only time will tell if the reform strategies implemented at the sites
will flourish under new leadership, it is important to recognize that a plan on paper, even
based on quality research, cannot transform a site without effective leadership to
implement it. It is interesting to note that sites allocate resources to administration above
recommendations from the Evidence-Based Model, so again, successful leadership
strategies are critical to the improvement of schools over and above the sheer number of
personnel allotted to administrative duties.
In interviewing principals and examining documents, it was fairly clear that no
principal had a complete picture of the actual cost of the various reform strategies
providing support for struggling students. Very little information was available on costs
99
incurred by community partnerships, hours of volunteers, and/or district costs for services
provided to the site related to professional development or coaching. This makes it
difficult to determine exact costs in relation to student outcomes to evaluate program
effectiveness for a number of areas within the model connected to extra help and support.
Better accounting by site and district level personnel for community programs or
volunteers supporting student success might help develop a clearer picture of actual costs
for ensuring high levels of achievement for all students.

Lower Class Sizes
While there is no direct link between SAIT and QEIA funds, the lottery used to
determine QEIA eligibility is based on status as an underperforming site, so there is often
overlap, and the three SAIT sites within this study all receive QEIA funds. In part, these
monies are to support lower class sizes, which are built into the Evidence-Based Model.
For this reason, the SAIT sites with QEIA funding are actually closer to
recommendations from the model for the number of teachers on site with class averages
less than 25-1 in core areas. While the highest performing site in the study also has the
largest class size ratio, it would be premature to imply that class size does not have an
impact on student learning. With all sites significantly below the target of 800 on the API
and none with even half of students proficient on state assessments for language arts and
mathematics, lowering class size may in fact support faster growth if teachers are able to
capitalize on the reduced number of contacts. Currently, the sites with lower ratios are the
same sites with the highest percentage of teachers who are non-compliant under NCLB.
100
Having lower class sizes will only support student learning if the teachers are capable of
differentiating instruction to meet the needs of all students.
Underlying the SAIT process is a philosophy that certain structural or systemic
foundations need to be laid before examining instructional practices that might better
serve students. For example, if data analysis is critical to placing and monitoring students,
then a school needs to have common assessments and pacing guides before teachers can
use them to improve practice. In and of itself, lower class size will not improve student
scores on state testing, but as teachers refine practice and find better ways to improve
student learning, the smaller ratio of teacher to student may indeed propel these sites into
faster growth rates than counterpart schools with higher numbers. It would be interesting
to see what a site like NSMS-1 might do with a 25-1 ratio versus the current 32-1
to determine if class size does allow for better student learning where growth is
already occurring.

Improvement in Language Arts
With or without lower class sizes, sites are struggling to improve proficiency in
language arts. Both non-SAIT sites have focused on language arts, and writing in
particular, through school-wide efforts and have higher percentages of growth than the
state although both are still well-under 50% proficient. It is important to note that almost
90% of students at SMS-1 are English learners, which is almost double any other site in
the study with NSMS-1 the second highest at 53%. No one site has found the magic
bullet for addressing the needs of English learners, and perhaps the additional support
101
staff recommended by the Evidence-Based Model in this area would be particularly
useful for schools with such high populations of English learners.
Given that instruction for English learners at or above the intermediate level of
fluency on CELDT often occurs in mainstreamed classrooms, the use of certificated
tutoring for English learner students might help improve the overall performance of this
subgroup at most sites. NSMS-1 was the only site using certificated tutors at all and that
only minimally; however, the targeted support for language acquisition may be a better
use of resources to improve language arts proficiency than lowering class sizes overall.

General Conclusions
The three SAIT sites have focused on implementing the nine EPCs over the last two
years, which has laid a structural foundation for improvement that has not yet translated
into student success. SMS-1 has had the most growth over two years, but it still has a
long way to go to get all students to high levels of proficiency. With new leadership at
SMS-2 and the reconfigured SMS-3, this foundation should reap the benefit of improved
student achievement in the years to come: however, it will be interesting to see if sites are
able to improve instructional practices facing current budget cuts that may eliminate
much of the foundation laid over the last two years. The two non-SAIT sites have focused
more heavily on changing instructional practice without relying on a lot of additional
resources, so their principals seem more optimistic about sustaining reform through the
difficult fiscal years ahead.
102
In general, the lack of instructional coaches seems to impact the sites with less
teacher efficacy more severely and coupled with changes in the instructional leadership at
the two lowest performing sites may explain the lack of growth in student achievement.
SMS-1, NSMS-1, and NSMS-2 have all had relatively stable leadership with principals
expressing confidence in the ability of their respective staffs to improve student
achievement given the basics of collaboration, professional development, and quality
instruction where they have chosen to allocate their resources.

Possible Recommendations for the Evidence-Based Model
With the additional state and federal funds available for underperforming schools,
there are a few sites where allocation recommendations from the Evidence-Based Model
might be followed and in fact, all sites are implementing basic elements of the Evidence-
Based Model although often far from the number of FTEs or dollar amounts
recommended. Given the overlap between the Evidence-Based Model and the nine EPCs
from the SAIT process, there are only a few strategies for improving student achievement
within the model that seem to be woefully lacking at most of the sites within the study.
Setting aside class size and additional staff to accommodate it, resource allocations for
instructional coaches, certificated support for English learners outside of core classes, and
the use of certificated tutors are least in-line with model recommendations. Few if any
site-based resources are used to implement these strategies, which might yield better
results academically for students.
103
The model funds coaches at a rate of one per 200 students, which for a school like
NSMS-1 would generate almost 16 coaches. Given the need for teacher efficacy in
implementing reform strategies, coaches play a vital role where staff lack the internal
expertise to change instructional practice; however, this researcher would suggest that
perhaps a better trigger would be the number of staff in a given department since coaches
do not typically work with students directly but are to support staff in their instructional
practice. All principals articulated the desire to have mathematics and literacy coaches to
improve instructional practice, but the ratio of coaches to staff at larger schools like
NSMS-1 ends up being around 4-1 under the model and even less if all coaches
supported only mathematics and language arts.
The model also generates one additional certificated teacher for every 100 El
students. This is difficult to calculate in California where teachers are required to obtain
credentialing to work with English learners within their core content areas or primary
language support can be provided for beginning students. State-approved materials for
language arts include components for English language development, so with the
exception of newcomer programs, most English learner students are using the same
materials as their English only counterparts with a teacher who can differentiate for
language issues. The same is true for other content areas. Skilled teachers do this well. If
the purpose of additional teachers triggered by the number of El students is to reduce
class size for language arts and other sheltered content courses where language
acquisition primarily occurs, then the model might be adjusted to increase the core class
size ratio while maintaining the separate category for El teachers or remove it in favor of
104
lower class sizes overall especially given the additional model recommendations for
certificated tutoring.
The research base around successful schools is quite promising in terms of
overcoming issues of poverty, but there are fewer sites demonstrating equal success at the
same rates with high populations of English learners. This may be due to the simple fact
that language development takes time; however, the FTEs allocated for support
mechanisms within the Evidence-Based Model, although typically triggered by Free and
Reduced Price Lunch numbers, may hold the key to speeding up the process for English
learners to close the gap more quickly. Sites like NSMS-1 are having success, but if we
define success as high levels of proficiency for all students rather than surpassing the
state’s averages of 46% and 43% of students proficient in language arts and mathematics
respectively, then we still have a long way to go to improve schools. The Evidence-Based
Model provides a useful framework to evaluate current practice, make potential
recommendations for shifting resource allocations for better results, and highlight critical
areas supported in research that future decisions around school funding should
incorporate to ensure success for all students. While model recommendations cannot
determine quality, the additional FTEs for staff and student support would give principals
the resources necessary to monitor both staff development and student learning in more
effective ways.

105
Implications for Future Study
This study provides a snapshot into five middle schools immersed in the journey
of school reform over a four-year period of time. Additional questions for future studies
might include:
• the ability of the SAIT schools to build on the foundations provided with
additional funding and outside support systems once exiting the SAIT process
and no longer receiving extra support or funds
• a comparison of additional SAIT sites who were able to exit the process
within two years unhindered by restructuring issues and leadership changes as
were SMS-2 and SMS-3
• an evaluation of other non-SAIT sites in comparison to the Evidence-Based
Model to determine what practices are proving non-negotiable with
fewer resources
• the relationship between effective teaching and lower class size to see if
highly qualified teachers might produce greater growth in student learning
with struggling students regardless of class size
• an analysis of sites within California having greater success with high
populations of English learners in comparison to the Evidence-Based Model
to determine patterns of resource allocation
• a discussion of how schools are challenging gifted students since that was not
a primary focus for any of the sites involved in this study

106
There are a myriad of other possible implications for future study, but it is clear that the
research around what features are necessary at a site to spark the change process include
quality leadership, effective professional development, and collaboration. The best mix to
support student achievement in struggling subgroup populations and the corresponding
resource allocations is less clear with services for English learners being of primary
importance for the state of California and others as more and more students fall behind in
this area. Students cannot afford to wait for promising practices at sites like NSMS-1 to
close the gap over a ten-year period of time, so additional research is most definitely
necessary.
107
References

American Institutes for Research®. (January, 2007). Successful California schools in the
context of educational adequacy. Stanford, CA: Perez, M., Anand, P., Speroni, C.,
Parrish, T., Esra, P., Socias, R., & Gubbins, P.

Barro, S. M. (1992). What does the education dollar buy? Relationships of staffing, staff
characteristics, and staff salaries to state per-pupil spending. Los Angeles: The
Finance Center, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Bush, R.N. (1984). Effective staff development. In making our schools more effective:
Proceedings of three state conferences. San Francisco: Far West.

California Education Code. Section 52055.650. Retrieved April 7th, 2008 from
law.onecle.com/california/education/52055.650.html

Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

Collins, J. (2005). Why Business Thinking is Not the Answer: Good to Great and the
Social Sectors. A Monograph to Accompany Good to Great.

County of Orange Health Care Agency. (2007). 13
th
Annual report on the conditions of
children in Orange County. Retrieved May 15
th
, 2008 from
www.ochealthinfo.com/cscc/report/

Cresswell, J. W. (2003). Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Costa, A. & Garmston, R. (2002). Cognitive Coaching: A Foundation for Renaissance
Schools (2
nd
ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Orphanos, S. (2007). Leadership Development in California.
Stanford University, CA.: Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice.
Retrieved May 5
th
, 2008 from www.stanford.edu/group/irepp/cgi-
bin/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=71&Itemid=1

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by Doing: a Handbook
for Professional Learning Communities at Work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. The Albert Shanker
Institute. Washington, D. C.
108
Essential Program Components. (n.d.). Retrieved May 15
th
, 2008, from
www.cde.ca.gov/ta/lp/vl/essentialcomp.asp

Evers, W. & Clopton, P. (2006). High-Spending, Low-Performing School Districts. In E.
Hanushek (Ed.), Courting Failure: How School Lawsuits Exploit Judges’ Good
Intentions and Harm Our Children (pp. 103 – 194). Stanford, CA: Education
Next Books.

Fullan, M. (2005). leadership & sustainability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227) of 1994

Guskey, T. (1994, April). Professional Development in Education: In Search of the
Optimal Mix. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

Guskey, T. (2003). Professional Development That Works. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10),
pp. 748-767.

Guskey, T. (2003). Analyzing Lists of the Characteristics of Professional Development to
Promote Visionary Leadership. Sage Publications: NASSP Bulletin 87(4).
Retrieved June 4, 2008 from http://bui.sagepub.com

Guthrie, J.W., & Rothstein, R. (1999). Enabling “Adequacy” to Achieve Reality:
Translating Adequacy into State School Finance Distribution Arrangements. In H.
Ladd & R. Chalk & J. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and Adequacy in Education
Finance: Issues and Perspectives (pp. 209-259). Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.

Hanushek, E. (Ed.). (2006). Courting Failure: How School Lawsuits Exploit Judges’
Good Intentions and Harm Our Children. Stanford, CA: Education Next Books

Hanushek, E. & Rivkin, S. (1997). Understanding the Twentieth-Century Growth in U.S.
School Spending. Journal of Human Resources 32(1), 35–68.

Hargreaves, A, & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley.

109
Johnson, R.S. (2002). Using Data to Close the Achievement Gap: How to measure equity
in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The messages of
research. Educational Leadership, 37(5), 379-385.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student Achievement through Staff Development (3
rd

ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. (2006, September). An Evidenced-Based Approach to
School Finance Adequacy in Washington. Los Angeles, CA: Odden, A., Picus, L.,
Goetz, M., Mangan, M. T., Fermanich, M.

Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. (2006, September). Washington Learns: Successful
District Study (www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/SuccessfulDistReport9-
11-06Final.pdf). Los Angeles, CA: Fermanich, M., Mangan, M. T., Odden, A.,
Picus, L., Gross, B., Rudo, Z.

Lyman, L.L. & Villani, C.J. (2004). Best leadership practices for high-poverty schools.
Scarecrow Education: Maryland, Toronto, Oxford.

Loeb, S., Bryck, A., & Hanushek, E. (2007). Getting down to facts: School finance and
governance in California. Stanford, CA: Stanford University

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

Marzano, R. Waters, T., & McNulty, B (2005). School Leadership That Works. Aurora,
CO: Mid Continent Research for Education and Learning.

McREL. (2005). Final Report: High-Needs Schools - What Does it Take to Beat the
Odds? (Technical Report). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education
and Learning.

Mangan, M. T. (2007). School-level resource use in Arkansas: A statewide study.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Mangan, M. T., Odden, A., & Picus, L. (2008). School level resource use in Arkansas
following an adequacy oriented school finance reform. Manuscript submitted for
publication.

Miles, K.H., Odden, A., Fermanich, M., & Archibald, S. (2004). “Inside the Black Box of
School District Spending on Professional Development: Lessons from Five Urban
Districts”. Journal of Education Finance 30 (Summer) pps. 1-26.
110

Miles, K. H. & Darling-Hammond, L. (Spring, 1998). Rethinking the Allocation of
Teaching Resources: Some Lessons from High-Performing Schools. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20 (1), 9-29.

National Staff Development. (2001). Standards for Staff Development. Retrieved June 8,
2008 from www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm?printPage=1&

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301. Retrieved June 16, 2008 from
www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.

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

Odden, A. (February, 2007). Redesigning school finance systems: Lessons from CPRE
research. (CPRE Policy Brief RB-50)

Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H.A. (2002). A cost framework
for professional development. Journal of Education Finance, 28(1), 51-74.

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

Odden, A., 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.

Odden, A. & Picus, L. (2000). School finance: A policy perspective (2
nd
ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.

Odden, A. & Picus, L. (2008). School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill. Chapter 1, Chapter 3 (pp.76-81), and Chapter 4.

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

Ormrod, J.E. (2006) Educational Psychology: Developing Learners. 5
th
Edition. Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.

O’Shea, M. R. (2005). From Standards to Success. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
111

Pan, D., Rudo, Z., Schneider, C., & Smith-Hansen, L. (2003). Examination of resource
allocation in education: Connecting spending to student performance. Austin,
TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory

Perez, M. & Socias, M. (Winter, 2008). Highly successful schools: What do they do
differently and at what cost? Education and Finance Policy 3(1), pp. 109-129.
Retrieved May 15, 2008, from
www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/edfp.2008.3.1.109

Picus, L. O. & Fazal, M. (1996). Why do we need to know what money buys? Research
on resource allocation patterns in elementary and secondary schools. In L. O.
Picus & J. L. Wattenbarger (Eds.), Where does the money go? Resource
allocation in elementary and secondary schools (pp. 1–19) (1995 Yearbook of the
American Education Finance Association). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Picus, L., Odden, A., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. T., & Goetz, M. (2008). Implementing
school finance adequacy: School level resource use in Wyoming following
adequacy-oriented finance reform. Unpublished manuscript.

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) ID Number 12743, Available at
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12743

Reeves, D. B. (1998). Making Standards Work. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning
Centers, Inc.

Reeves, D. B. (2000). Accountability in Action. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Centers,
Inc.

Reeves, D. B. (2002). The leader’s guide to standards: A blueprint for educational equity
and excellence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability for Learning: How teachers and school leaders can
take charge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2
nd
ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Schmoker, M. (2001). The Results Fieldbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

112
Schmoker, M. (2003). First things first: Demystifying data analysis. Educational
Leadership, 60(5), 22-24.

Schmoker, R. (2006). Results Now. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Sparks, G., (November, 1983). Synthesis of Research on Staff Development for Effective
Teaching. Educational Leadership, 41(3) 65-72.

Stiggins, R. (2001). Student-Involved Classroom Assessment. (3
rd
ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Stiggins, R. (2005). Assessment FOR learning: Building a culture of confident learners.
In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.), On common ground: The power of
professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Timar, T. (2006). How California Funds K-12 Education. Stanford University, CA.:
Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice. Retrieved May 5
th
, 2008
from cap-ed.ucdavis.edu/publications.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Public Education Finances 2006. Retrieved April 10
th
, 2008
from www.census.gov/govs/www/school06.html.

Walberg, H. (2006). High-Poverty, High-Performance Schools, Districts, and States. In
E. Hanushek (Ed.), Courting Failure: How School Lawsuits Exploit Judges’ Good
Intentions and Harm Our Children (pp. 79 – 102). Stanford, CA: Education Next
Books.

Webb, L.D. & Norton, M.S. (2009). Human Resources Administration: Personnel Issues
and Needs in Education. (5
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education,
Inc.

Wells, S., Pearson, D. & Sousa, L. (2006). Show me the research: A brief review of the
underlying factors in the nine essential program components. Retrieved
December 7th, 2007 from
www.bayregionssc.org/DOCS/Show_Me_Research2006_FINAL01.pdf -
113
Appendix A
TABLE 1
SCHOOL EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE AND RESOURCE INDICATORS
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)
114
TABLE 1, CONTINUED
School Expenditure Structure
Instructional 7. Student Support
- Counselors
- Nurses
- Psychologists
- Social Workers
- - Extra-Curricular and Athletics
Non-Instructional 8. Administration
9. Operations and Maintenance
- Custodial
- Utilities
- Security
- - Food Service
Table reprinted from Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003)
115
Appendix B
A COST STRUCTURE FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Cost Element Ingredient How Cost is Calculated
Time within the regular contract:
-when students are not present
before or after school or on
scheduled in-service days, half
days or early release days
teachers’ hourly salary times the
number of student free hours used
for pd
-planning time the cost of the portion of the salary
of the person used to cover the
teachers’ class during planning
time used for pd
Time Outside the regular day/year:
-time after school, on weekends or
for summer institutes
- the stipends or additional pay
based on the hourly rate that
teachers receive to compensate
them for their time
Teacher Time
Used for
Professional
Development
-release time provided by
substitutes
- substitute wages
Training
-salaries for district trainers sum of trainer salaries
-outside consultants who provide
training; may be part of CSRD
consultant fees or comprehensive
school design contract fees
Coaching
-salaries for district coaches
including on-site facilitators
sum of coach and facilitator
salaries
Training and
Coaching
-outside consultants who provide
coaching; may be part of CSRD
consultant fees or comprehensive
school design contract fees
Administration
of Professional
Development
Salaries for district or school level
administrators of professional
development programs
salary for administrators times the
proportion of their time spent
administering pd programs
Materials

materials for pd, including the cost
of classroom materials required for
CSRDs
Equipment equipment needed for pd activities
Materials,
Equipment and
Facilities Used
for Professional
Development
Facilities rental or other costs for facilities
used for professional development
Travel Costs of travel to off-site pd
activities
Travel and Transportation
for Professional
Development
Transportation Costs of transportation within the
district for professional
development

116
A COST STRUCTURE FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, CONTINUED
Cost Element Ingredient How Cost is Calculated
Tuition

Tuition payments or
reimbursement for university-
based pd
Tuition and
Conference Fees
Conference Fees Fees for conferences related to pd
Table reprinted from Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gallagher, (2002).
117
Appendix C

EDUC 790 & 792
DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL, JUNE 2008

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?
118
4. What is the instructional vision for your improvement effort?
(E.g. Connecticut standards or the Danielson Framework)

5. Have assessments been an integral part of your instructional
improvement process?
• If so, what types of assessments have been key? (E.g. formative,
diagnostic, summative)
• How often are those assessments utilized?
• What actions were taken with the results?

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

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

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?)

119
5. “Interventions” or Extra Help Strategies for Struggling Students:
• Tutoring: Specify 1:1, in small groups (2-4), or in medium
groups (3-5)
• Extended day: How frequently (Number minutes & Number of times
per week), Academic focus, Who instructs (certified teachers or
aides), Who participates
• Summer school: How Frequently (Number hours a day, Number
weeks), Who instructs (certified teachers or aides), Who participates
• ELL
• Scheduling: (E.g. double periods in secondary schools)

6. Parent outreach or community involvement

7. Technology

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

D. What type of instructional leadership was present?

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

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

120
Appendix D

Data Collection Codebook

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

I. School Profile

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

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

II. School Contacts

This section is for recording the contact people at the school. This will include the
principal, and most likely the secretary. Anyone else you interview should also be
recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about this person (E.g. phonetic
spelling of their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what the data
source is.
121
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
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
122
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 2008-09 school year. Enter
personal notations pertaining to the data in the yellow notes fields.

A. Current Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled at the school on
the day of the site visit minus any pre-kindergarten students.
B. Pre-kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled in any
pre-kindergarten programs at the school on the day of the site visit. These
students should not be included in the previous category, Current Student
Enrollment. Make sure to also ask this question at secondary schools.
C. Grade Span: Range of grades that the school provides instruction in. (E.g. K-
5)
D. Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of the site visit, the number
of students eligible for services as an English language learner (ELL) as
defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
E. Number of Students Eligible for Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL):
Number of enrolled students who are eligible for the federal free- and
reduced-price lunch program.
F. Total number of Special Education Students (IEPs): As of the day of the site
visit, number of students in the school with an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) indicating their eligibility for special education services. (This
will most likely be a larger number than the number of students who are in a
self-contained special education classroom.) Does not include gifted and
talented students.
G. Number of Special Education Students (self-contained): Number of students
in the school with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) indicating their
eligibility for special education services.
H. Total Length of School Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
required to be present at school. If multiple grade spans are present for
different amounts of time, report the average length. (e.g. If the school day
begins at 8:30am and ends at 3:15pm, then the total length of the school day is
405 minutes.)
I. Length of Instructional Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
present for instruction. This information should be available from the school
bell schedule or a school staff member. Subtract recess, lunch, and passing
periods time from the total minutes in the school day. This calculation is
different from how the state measures the “instructional day.” (E.g. If the
length of the school day is 405 minutes, and the students have 20 minutes for
123
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.”

VI. Core Academic Teachers

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

124
A. Grades K-12: Number of FTE licensed grade-level teachers who teach the
core subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the individual subject
categories.
B. English/Reading/LA, History/Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, and
Foreign Language: Number of FTE licensed subject-specific teachers who
teach the core subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the grade
categories.

VII. Specialist and Elective Teachers

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

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

VIII. Library Staff

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

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

125
IX. Extra Help Staff

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

A. Certified Teacher Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
B. Non-Certified Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are not licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
C. ISS Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who monitor/teach In-School
Suspension (ISS) students.
D. ISS Aides: Number of FTE Title I funded aides who monitor/teach In-School
Suspension (ISS) students.
E. Title I Teachers: Number of FTE non-special education teachers who provide
small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
F. Title I Aides: Number of FTE non-special education aides who provide small
groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
G. ELL Class Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers of English as a second
language (ESL) who work with non-English speaking students to teach them
English.
H. Aides for ELL: Number of FTE aides of English as a second language (ESL)
classes who work with non-English speaking students to teach them English.
I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct students in
the gifted program.
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.
126
P. Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for students with severe disabilities):
Number of FTE licensed teachers who teach in self-contained special
education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled students for most or
all of the school day. These teachers may teach a modified version of a
school’s curriculum or other learning goals required by their students’
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who assist
regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or
mental disabilities, or a learning problem. These students generally have “less
severe” disabling conditions.
R. Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers: Number of FTE licensed special
education teachers who provide small groups of students in special education
with extra help in specific areas.
S. Special Ed. Self-contained Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist in self-
contained special education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled
students for most or all of the school day.
T. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or mental
disabilities, or some learning problem. These students generally have “less
severe” disabling conditions.
U. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE special education aides
who provide small groups of students in special education with extra help in
specific areas.
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate in the
extended day program.
W. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of minutes per week
that the extended day program is offered.
X. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work minutes per week in
the teacher contract.
Y. Extended Day Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum after school.
Z. Extended Day Classified Staff: Number of FTE staff who 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).
127
EE. All Students in Summer School: Total number of students enrolled in the
summer school program.
FF. Summer School Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provided students
with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum during summer 2008.
GG. Summer School Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who
provided students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in
the regular curriculum during summer 2008.

X. Other Instructional Staff

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

A. Consultants (other than PD contracted services): Dollar amount for all other
consultants other than professional development contracted services.
B. Building Substitutes: Number of FTE permanent substitutes.
C. Other Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct, but were not included
in previous categories.
D. Other Instructional Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist instruction, but
were not included in previous categories.
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
128
or after school or on scheduled in-service days, half days or early release days,
the dollar amount is calculated by multiplying the teachers’ hourly salary
times the number of student-free hours used for professional development. For
planning time within the regular contract, the dollar amount is calculated as
the cost of the portion of the salary of the person used to cover the teachers’
class during planning time used for professional development. For other time
during the regular school day, including release time provided by substitutes,
cost is calculated with substitute wages. For time outside the regular school
day, including time after school, on weekends, or for summer institutes, the
dollar amount is calculated from the stipends or additional pay based on the
hourly rate that the teachers receive to compensate them for their time.
C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE instructional facilitators
and coaches. This may include on-site facilitators and district coaches (though
only the FTE for the specific school should be recorded). Outside consultants
who provide coaching should be captured in an estimated FTE amount
depending on how much time they spend at the school.
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services. If trainers are from the
district, convert to a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-level administrators of
professional development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the specific
school should be recorded).
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials,
equipment needed for professional development activities, and rental or other
costs for facilities used for professional development.
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
129
the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in
that category.

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

XIII. Administration

This expenditure element consists of all staffing resources pertaining to the
administration of a school. Administrators should be entered as full-time
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
130

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.

131
Appendix E

EDUC 790 & 792
DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL, JUNE 2008

Data Collection Protocol

School Profile
School Name School’s State ID Number

Address

City State Zip
CA
Phone Fax

Website

NOTES:

132
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:

133
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:

134
District Contact (3)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

135
School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment

Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment

Grade Span

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

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

Total Number of Special Education Students (IEPs)

Number of Special Education Students (self-contained)

Total Length of School Day

Length of Instructional Day

Length of Mathematics Class

Length of Reading or English/LA Class

Length of Science Class

Length of Social Studies Class

Length of Foreign Language Class

AYP

NOTES:

136
Core academic teachers
(Self-contained
Regular Education)
FTEs

Kindergarten
(Full day program)
Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

English/Reading/L.A.

History/Soc. Studies

Math

Science

Foreign Language

NOTES:

137
Specialist and Elective Teachers
/Planning and Prep
FTEs
Art

Music

PE/Health

Drama

Technology

Career & Technical Education

Drivers Education

Study Hall

Athletics

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers Description:

NOTES:

138
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
$
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:

139
Extra Help II FTEs
Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for severely disabled students)

Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers

Special Ed. Resource Room Teacher

Special Ed. Self-contained Aides

Special Ed. Inclusion Aides

Special Ed. Resource Room Aides

NOTES:

Extra Help III
Number of Extended Day Students

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

Extended Day Classified Staff

Description of Extended Day Classified Staff

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

All Students in Summer School

Summer School Teachers

Summer School Classified Staff

NOTES:

140
Other Instructional Staff FTEs and Dollars ($)
Consultants
(other than pd contracted services)
$
Building substitutes and other substitutes

Other Teachers

Other Instructional Aides

Funds for Daily Subs

$
NOTES:

Professional Development Dollars ($) and FTEs
Number of Prof. Dev. Days in Teacher Contract

Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time)

$
Instructional Facilitators/Coaches

Trainers/Consultants

$
Administration

Travel

$
Materials, Equipment and Facilities

$
Tuition & Conference Fees

$
Other Professional Development

$
Other Professional Development Staff Funded with
Federal Dollars:

NOTES:

141
Student Services FTEs
Guidance

Attendance/Dropout

Social Workers

Nurse

Parent advocate/community liaison

Psychologist

Speech/O.T./P.T.

Health Asst.

Non-teaching aides

Other Student Services

Description Of Other Student Services Staff:

NOTES:

142
Administration FTEs
Principal

Assistant principal

Other Administrator

Description of Other Administrator:

Secretary

Clerical staff

Technology Coordinator/ I.T.

Security

Custodians

NOTES:

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

143
Appendix F

SAIT Middle School - 1
A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use

School Background and Data
SAIT Middle School -1 (SMS-1) is located in one of the largest, urban districts
within southern California. SMS-1 serves over 57,000 students pre K-12th grade with
approximately 40 elementary schools and another 25 middle and high schools in addition
to a number of alternative education and charter sites. Just over 70% of schools within the
district are in Program Improvement (PI) with the district as a whole in Year 3 of PI.
SMS-1 is a Year 5 PI school with approximately 1,400 students. The average class size is
32.4 with slightly lower numbers in language arts classes off set by higher numbers in
other core courses. Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) funds allowed for class
size reduction in language arts this year for a 25-1 ratio. If QEIA funds continue to be
available for SMS-1 given the current budget situation, the school will lower class sizes
in mathematics next year, followed by all science and social studies classes over the next
few years as outlined in their School Improvement Plan. Almost 5% of teachers in core
classes do not meet NCLB requirements as highly qualified teachers. This is in
comparison to 4% for the district as a whole and 3% for high poverty sites within
the district.
Demographically speaking, the students within the district and at the SMS-1 site
are described in Table 1.1. SMS-1 has a third more English learners than the district
144
average for all schools with seven percent more Free/Reduced Lunch students and four
percent more Hispanic in comparison to the district as a whole.

TABLE 1.1
2007-2008 REPORT FOR SMS-1 ON SIGNIFICANT SUBGROUP POPULATIONS
District SMS-1
Free and Reduced Lunch 78% 85%
English Learners 56% 89%
Hispanic 92% 96%
Taken from 2007 – 2008 Ed-Data Site Report for SMS-1 (www.ed-data.k-12.ca.us)

There are just over 5,000 special education students within the district and over
1,175 in grades 6th-8th. SMS-1 has 150 special needs students, which is roughly 11% of
the overall population at the site for the 2008-’09 school year. 75 of these students are in
self-contained classrooms for the instructional day. Of the 1,400 students at SMS-1,
approximately 34% of students are in 6th grade, 33% are in 7th, and 33% are in
8th grade.
Efforts for improving overall student performance seem to have had a positive
impact on student achievement in the last four years with the exception of 2006 as
evidenced in their subgroup growth and growth for all students, which is shown in Table
1.2 along with the site’s overall API rankings.

145
TABLE 1.2
API RANKINGS AND SUBGROUP GROWTH AT SMS-1
API School Results
SMS-1 2005 2006 2007 2008
Statewide API Rank 1 1 1 1
Similar Schools Rank 4 6 4 6

Subgroups Actual API Change
All students 26 -14 25 31
Hispanic 29 -15 23 31
English Learners No data
available
0 15 25
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
28 -13 21 32
Taken from www.cde.ca.gov

The overall API for the site is 645, and it is important to note that there is very
little difference for the overall student population and two of the significant subgroups
with 639 for Hispanic and 643 for Socioeconomically Disadvantaged. The English
learner subgroup is below the rest with an API of 614.
CST data provide additional insight into the school’s progress on improving
academic achievement for students. The percentages of students meeting the
requirements for proficient and advanced on state testing in the two core subjects of
language arts and mathematics along with the corresponding percentages for both the
district and the state are outlined in Table 1.3 for comparison purposes. SMS-1 has
typically performed below both district and state averages in both language arts and
mathematics; however, a nine percent increase in the number of students proficient and
advanced in this last year of testing for mathematics has reduced the 10% difference
146
between the site and the district to only 5% for the current year. SMS-1 met all AYP
criteria for the 2007-’08 school year with the exception of the number of English learner
students proficient in the area of language arts.

TABLE 1.3
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS PROFICIENT AND ADVANCED ON CSTS AT SMS-1
English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008
SMS-1 16 15 19 22 13 15 19 28
District 24 26 28 31 25 27 29 33
California 40 42 43 46 38 40 40 43
Taken from www.cde.ca.gov and the School Accountability Report Card for SMS-1

In addition to the site’s overall performance on state accountability measures, it is
important to note the progress of the significant subgroup populations served by the
school: Hispanic, English Learners, and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (based on
Free/Reduced Lunch). The performance of these three subgroups on CSTs in language
arts and mathematics is outlined in Table 1.4. In general, the subgroup populations at
SMS-1 are making slow progress with more gains overall in the area of mathematics
although significantly below state and district averages for overall student performance.
The English learner population is also progressing in mathematics even with lower
numbers of students proficient in comparison to other subgroups. This same group is
fairly flat-lined in terms of proficiency in language arts while slight gains were made for
other subgroups in this area.
147
TABLE 1.4
SUBGROUP DATA FOR SMS-1: COMBINED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS SCORING
PROFICIENT AND ADVANCED ON CSTS FROM 2005-2008
English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced

2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008
Hispanic 15 15 18 21 12 14 18 26
F/RL 15 15 18 22 12 15 19 28
EL 6 3 5 5 6 4 9 15
Compiled from data on STAR reporting from www.cde.ca.gov

Overall, SMS-1 has shown improvement on the API in moving students up the
bands toward proficiency on state standards, but only time will tell if efforts continue to
move students to proficient and advanced to begin closing the achievement gap both at
the site and in comparison to district and state levels overall in relation to CST scores in
language arts and mathematics.

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Key for the principal at SMS-1 was developing a coherent program that aligned
instruction to both the language arts and mathematics frameworks for the state of
California, which outline what students should know and be able to do in core classes
based on identified standards. Understanding the design of the state-approved materials,
ensuring every student has a text, and using pacing guides and lesson plans to monitor
appropriate, daily instruction using the core texts has been a vital part of the reform effort
on site. There was a huge paradigm shift in using the textbook as a resource to
148
implementing a cohesive instructional program through state-approved texts with all of
the resources provided to support and scaffold student learning. Targeted professional
development around strategies for explicit, direct instruction and checking for
understanding were provided by Dataworks to help improve student engagement and
instructional practice. Knowing and understanding the students served at the site has been
a critical piece in supporting teachers in differentiating instruction for both special needs
students and the high population of English learners at the site.
Formative assessments are used on a weekly basis to support instructional
practice and planning with quarterly, summative assessments providing additional data
for teachers to monitor student progress toward mastery of standards. Training in Data
Director, the site’s management system for testing information, has allowed access to
data in a timely manner that is increasing the use of data to drive instructional practice. It
has also improved initial placement, so that fewer student schedules have to be changed
and students moved after the instructional year has begun. Double blocks for language
arts and mathematics increased the number of minutes dedicated to these two core areas
with additional support provided for the students who are struggling the most.
The primary focus for change has centered on language arts and mathematics with
the nine Essential Program Components from SAIT providing the framework for
organizing many of the reform efforts. In addition to the use of data and state-approved
texts, the SAIT process allowed for additional opportunities to build collaboration
through required meetings in both language arts and mathematics. Administrators were
able to monitor discussion at these collaborative meetings to provide support to both
149
grade-level and department teams as they struggled with analyzing data, differentiating
instruction, and discussing pacing. Administrative walk-throughs also helped to monitor
the implementation of school-wide strategies and provide a lens for additional staff
development needs. Parents have participated in walk-throughs to help build a sense of
what quality instruction looks like and to garner support from parents as partners in
efforts to improve student achievement. Department leads for language arts and
mathematics facilitate and plan these collaborative meetings to provide some additional
leadership within these core content areas since there are no instructional coaches on site.
The Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program provides new teachers
with mentors and coaching at no cost to the site, which helps support instructional
practice as well. There are eight new teachers receiving approximately three to four hours
a month of support through BTSA.
Technology has been a focus for improvement efforts as well. Projectors,
ELMOs, and Smart Boards provide a visual-rich environment for supporting student
learning. Using the technology to support quality instruction is critical for improving
student engagement in learning and providing scaffolds for English learners and special
needs students. Dataworks is providing additional professional development on English
learner strategies as a focal point for the year given the need to close the achievement gap
with this particular subgroup, and the principal is hoping to connect technology with the
English learner strategies to target improvement for these students. Now in the third year
of reform, the principal is focused on making connections to previous knowledge and
going deeper without introducing a lot of new strategies or fragmenting improvement
150
efforts. Part of this refinement will focus on using data to differentiate instruction at
deeper levels to really target English learners.
Because of the allotted time for language arts during the instructional day, after
school tutoring focuses on mathematics. Teachers identify students who need targeted
support in standards and provide re-teaching and guided practice opportunities after
school twice a week for approximately 30-40 students each week. The focus is on
additional instruction in mathematics and not supervising homework. In partnership with
a local university, the Think Together Foundation provides a full-time coordinator at
SMS-1 to run after school programs to support students at no cost to the site. New this
year, the Think Together Foundation now has approximately 130 students served in the
after school program and is helping to change the environment on campus by providing
much needed support for students.
The leadership team at the site knew that change needed to happen to support
improvement of students toward mastery of state standards as a Year 5 PI site, and the
SAIT process provided external accountability and leverage for the change process.
Another external provider had been hired previously to facilitate improvement efforts
before the school entered sanctions, but the staff was resistant to the change and very
little progress was made. When identified as a SAIT school, the leadership team decided
to implement the research-based elements of the nine Essential Program Components
with integrity and use the accountability to support the change. With School Board
members receiving quarterly reports on progress and asking difficult questions about
151
what was being done for students, the staff at SMS-1 embraced the process as an
opportunity to make necessary change.

Corresponding Resource Use

TABLE 1.5
RESOURCE COMPARISON
SMS-1 AND EVIDENCE BASED MODEL FOR ADEQUATE SCHOOL RESOURCES
School Element
Evidence Based Model
Prototypical Middle
Schools
SMS-1 Current
Resource Status
SMS-1 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
School Characteristics
Configuration Grades 6-8 Grades 6-8
School Size 450 1,400 Approximately 3x EBM
Core Class Size 25 26.4 Above the model
Free & Reduced
Price Lunch
Count
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)
1200
Number of ELL
Students
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)
1250
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 18 52
(includes Core Spec.Ed
and El)
EBM would recommend
54 core teachers
2. Specialist/
Elective
Teachers
20% of Core Teachers 7 Specialist/Elective
(14 % of Core Teachers)
EBM would recommend
11 specialist/elective
teachers
Total Teachers 21.6 61 65
3. Instructional
Coaches
1 per 200 Students 0
A department lead for
math and language arts
are identified that each
receive approximately
$750 a year for planning
and facilitating
collaborative time
EBM would recommend
7 coaches

152
TABLE 1.5, CONTINUED
School Element
Evidence Based Model
Prototypical Middle
Schools
SMS-1 Current Resource
Status
SMS-1 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
4. Tutors 1 per 100 At Risk
Students (Free &
Reduced Price Lunch)
$1,200 per child is
provided for Title 1
students in Far Below
Basic & Below Basic
through the district for
private tutoring as a
requirement of NCLB

This tutoring is not
coordinated with the site in
any way.
EBM would recommend
12 tutors
5. Teachers for
ELL Students
1 per 100 ELL Students 6 FTEs (These teachers
have already been
counted in the Core
teachers)

1 ELD Coordinator
EBM would recommend
12.5 ELL teachers
6. Extended Day 1 per 15 Eligible
Students (Staffing based
on 50% of Free &
Reduced Price Lunch
Students)
.25 FTE for math
(after school with
certificated personnel)

Think Together Foundation
provides additional support
at no cost to site including
1 FTE for an on-site
Coordinator.
EBM would recommend
10 FTEs

7. Summer
School
1 per 15 Students
(Staffing based on 50%
of Free and Reduced
Price Lunch Students)
.96 FTEs
Classified staff
(22 teachers & 2 classified
staff for 4 hrs per day for
24 days adding 4% of an
FTE for each)
EBM would recommend
10 FTEs

8. Alternative
Schools
NA NA NA
9a. Learning
and Mildly
Disabled
Students
3 Teachers per
450 Students
3.3 FTEs for mild/
moderate (included in
Core) 1.67 FTEs are for
other content
EBM would recommend
9 FTEs

9b. Severely
Disabled
Students
100% State
Reimbursement for Top
1% Minus Federal Funds
5 FTEs for 75 self-
contained special
education students (These
teachers are included in
Core for portion of the day
they teach core subjects)
Fully funded
as necessary
10. Services for
Gifted
Students
$25 per Student $0

There are 16 teachers for
identified GATE students,
but no additional funding
EBM would recommend
$35,000
153
TABLE 1.5, CONTINUED
School Element
Evidence Based Model
Prototypical Middle
Schools
SMS-1 Current Resource
Status
SMS-1 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
11. Career/
Technical
Education
.3 Weight per CTE
Student to Maintain Low
Class Sizes

$7000 per CTE Teacher
Contract
There are no CTE courses
offered currently.

12. Substitutes 10 Days per Teacher for
Professional
Development
$20,000 is budgeted for
subs above and beyond
the 7.75 days per teacher
within the contract for PD
not requiring subs

10 days per teacher for
illness/personal necessity
requiring subs are
budgeted at
$64,050
10 days X $105 X 65
teachers = $68, 250
13. Pupil
Support Staff
1 Guidance Counselor
per 250 Students plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position per 100 Free &
Reduced Price Lunch
Students
3 Guidance Counselors
.4 Nurse
1 Psychologist
2 Registrar/Attend.
1 Outreach Consultant
.5 Speech
4.6 Custodians/
Plant Manager
1.83 Security

Total of 14.33 FTEs in
Pupil Support
EBM would recommend
5.6 Guidance
Counselors & 12 FTEs
for additional Pupil
Support

The site is understaffed
by
2.5 counselors and
1.5 Pupil Support
personnel
14. Non-
Instructional
Aides
2 per 400-500 Students 7 Aides in Special
Education &
2.5 Activity Supervisor
The EBM would
recommend between 7
and 8.75 non-
instructional aides
15. Instructional
Aides
0 0 The EBM would
eliminate these
positions.
16. Librarians/
Media
Specialists
1 1 Library Media Tech
(Classified)

Site is understaffed
compared to the EBM
for three full-time,
certificated Librarians
17. Administrator 1 Principal plus
.5 Assistant Principal
1 Principal
2 Assistant Principals
1 Title 1 Coordinator
1 Principal & 1.5 APs,
so the site is overstaffed
by 1.5 Administrators
18. Secretary 2 School Site Secretaries 3.75 Secretaries 6 Secretaries

154
TABLE 1.5, CONTINUED
School Element
Evidence Based Model
Prototypical Middle
Schools
SMS-1 Current Resource
Status
SMS-1 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
19. Professional
Development
10 Days Intensive
Professional
Development in Summer
Included in Teacher
Contract

Instructional Coaches

Planning & Prep time
10 days provided for
illness/personal necessity.
In addition to one period of
daily prep time, modified
Wednesdays provide time
for planning, collaboration,
and additional PD for the
equivalent of another
3 days.
3 Buyback days for PD are
also budgeted for the
current year.
$65,000 is budgeted for
PD consultants and
materials.
Math teachers planned for
3 additional days in the
summer and 5 days of
technology training were
provided for a small
number of teachers over
the summer as well.
There is currently a
moratorium on all
conference/travel.
The model would
recommend coaches to
provide ongoing
professional
development at
the site.
It would also
recommend more
concentrated staff
development in the
summer as opposed to
the modified days and
professional
development offered
throughout the year.
Dollar/Pupil Resources
20. Technology Calculation: 1 Computer
per 3 Students.
Distribution: 1 Computer
per 4 Students & 1:1
Ratio for Administrators,
Teachers, & Secretaries

$250/Pupil
510 computers with a ratio
of 1 per 2.4
EBM recommends 467
computers with 350 for
students and the
remaining allotted to
staff. The site has more
computers than the
model.

$350,000 is
recommended for
maintenance
21. Instructional
Materials

Formative
Assessments

Library
Materials

$120/Pupil

$25/Pupil

$20/Pupil
State-Approved Core
Content Materials and
Intervention Programs
Funding for materials
and assessments is in
line with
recommendations from
the model.

$35,000 would be
recommended for
Library materials
22. Student
Activities
$200/Pupil After school athletics are
organized by a private
organization at no cost to
the site.
The EBM would
recommend $350,000
155
Lessons Learned
The Washington Learns: Successful Districts Study (Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates, 2006) identified eight basic elements found in each of the successful districts
within the study, which provide a useful framework for discussing the various elements
within the case studies here in identifying successful reform strategies for comparison
purposes. Each element is identified as a header for discussion around the school’s
attempts to implement similar strategies with the exception of Student Support since
these strategies are identified throughout (For a complete copy of the study, see
www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/SuccessfulDistReport9-11-06Final.pdf.)

Educating All Students
First, the research from the Washington Study showed the importance of
educating all students. One of the key factors referenced by the principal was helping
teachers know and understand the student population served at SMS-1. The SAIT process
helped provide leverage to ask the hard questions in terms of how the site was not
meeting the needs of students. Where teachers had been resistant to change, there was
now too much pressure from the outside to ignore the performance of struggling students.
Placement changes often required discussions about individual students and collaboration
put student progress in the forefront to focus decisions around what was best for
student learning.

156
Using Data
The second element from the Washington Study is the importance of data in
driving instructional decisions. As stated previously, this was of utmost importance at
SMS-1. Training staff in the Data Director system to access current data from
curriculum-embedded assessments to plan instruction has been a focal point of
collaborative time and professional development around differentiating instruction.
Historically, students were often misplaced requiring hundreds of schedule changes
within the first few weeks of school. After developing a system for placement using
placement data from the state-approved text and multiple measures from state
accountability assessments, the site has had greater success in accurately placing
students, which means fewer disruptions to the overall master schedule and individual
student schedules allowing for better use of instructional time.

Rigorous Curriculum and Alignment with State Standards
The third element focuses on a rigorous curriculum and alignment with state
standards. The site uses state-approved texts for core programs and intervention support
with an understanding of the connection between the materials and the frameworks laying
the foundation for much of the change instituted at the site. Instructional minute
guidelines for language arts and mathematics from the state frameworks were followed to
ensure that implementation of the core curriculum in these two areas could be
maximized. Benchmark assessments are standards-aligned, and the Standards Plus
program provides targeted practice on standards while mimicking state assessments.
157
Professional development in explicit, direct instruction and checking for understanding
was provided to support the implementation of a rigorous curriculum.

Effective Professional Development
The fourth finding from the Washington Successful Districts study centers on
supporting instructional improvement through effective professional development. With
support from both the district and the county in training on the adopted materials,
language arts and mathematics teachers were better prepared to implement the state-
approved programs the way they were designed. Understanding the resources available
helped provide direction for how to pre-teach and re-teach standards based on the data
from curriculum-embedded assessments. An on-site math coach and language arts
coaching from the county provided additional support to teachers although neither is in
place for the current year. Professional development from Dataworks around explicit,
direct instruction and checking for understanding included classroom observations from
consultants with feedback on implementation. Walk-throughs required by the SAIT
process allowed administrators the time necessary to monitor implementation of targeted
practices on a weekly basis through classroom observations.

Restructuring the Learning Environment
Restructuring the learning environment is the next element discussed in the
Washington study on successful districts. For SMS-1, restructuring efforts included the
158
double blocking of both language arts and mathematics classes to support improvement
in these two areas. A third block of support was provided in language arts for students
needing intensive intervention (more than two grades below) using the High Point
program or strategic support (within two grade levels) using materials provided in the
Holt program. This meant the elimination of the majority of electives and the
semesterizing of both science and social studies. Students not requiring the additional
support were still provided elective opportunities and/or year-long courses in the other
core areas. For the current year, every Wednesday is now a modified day to allow for
collaborative time with all teachers. For the last two years, language arts and mathematics
teachers have been required to meet for two hours a month as part of the SAIT process.
Class size reduction in language arts has allowed for a 25-1 ratio with plans for
mathematics, science and social studies over the next few years using QEIA funds.
Known as one of the toughest schools in the district, school climate was a
significant issue at the beginning of the SAIT process. During the planning phase,
decisions around the master schedule included the development of a split nutrition break
to separate pockets of students creating discipline issues on campus. Passing periods were
also disruptive, so the block periods for language arts and mathematics reduced the
number of times students were moving from class to class. Both of these changes had a
significant impact on the overall feel of the school. With fewer referrals to the front
office, administrators are able to spend more time out in classrooms doing observations.
The superintendent commented on the change in the overall climate at the site during a
visit to SMS-1, noting that it was like being at an entirely different school. Students are
159
taking more responsibility for their learning as well since they prefer not to be in the
double-blocked periods required for students below proficiency levels. They now see the
connection between their achievement and the classes in their schedule, so students are
more motivated to do well and free up time for other classes.

Instructional Leadership and Professional Learning Communities
The remaining factors identified in the Washington study include Leadership and
Professional Learning Communities both of which have already been alluded to
throughout the preceding paragraphs. As a requirement of the SAIT process, language
arts and mathematics teachers met for two hours every month in addition to regularly
scheduled staff meetings and planning time. The special education department was
included in meetings given that these teachers also provide instruction in language arts
and mathematics using the same materials. In fact, five of the special education teachers
co-teach with general education teachers for half of their contract day to provide extra
support for mainstreamed special needs students and those struggling who may not
qualify for special education services. With the entire staff now able to collaborate with
the institution of a minimum day each week, this is an area of potential growth for
the site.
The principal and the instructional leadership team played a huge role in
orchestrating the change process at SMS-1. While the SAIT process provides an outline
for reform, the leadership at the site made the commitment to implement the guidelines
with fidelity, which often meant making unpleasant and painful decisions about staffing
160
allocations, course offerings, and curriculum. Teachers were guided through the process
and given a voice, but ultimately, decisions were made based on the needs of students. As
student achievement began to improve and the school environment was more conducive
to learning, staff warmed to the model and change began to occur. Involving key
personnel and framing decisions against state frameworks and the nine EPCs gave site
leadership the momentum necessary to build buy in from staff and implement reform
strategies school-wide.

Future Implications or Additional Resources
Because funds are no longer available for a mathematics or literacy coach at
SMS-1, the principal would like to have additional coaches on site to help support efforts
in the core areas of language arts and mathematics. With QEIA monies totaling around
nine million dollars over the next seven years, SMS-1 will be able to maintain many of
the reform efforts instituted during the SAIT process even without the additional SAIT
funds received over the last two years. Earmarked primarily for class size reduction,
each of the core areas will be staffed at a ratio of 25-1 over the next three years, which
will increase the number of staff on site and support ongoing efforts to improve
student achievement.
161
SAIT Middle School - 2
A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use

School Background and Data
SAIT Middle School - 2 (SMS-2) is located in one of the most densely populated
metropolitan areas within the state of California. The northern California district of SMS-
2 serves over 55,000 students pre K-12
th
grade with over 70 elementary schools and 35
middle and high schools in addition to various alternative education and charter sites.
Twenty-five percent of schools within the district are in Program Improvement (PI) with
the district as a whole in Year 2 of PI. SMS-2 is a Year 5 PI school with approximately
450 students. Teachers working with English learners are all appropriately credentialed;
however, 11% of classes in core academic subjects are taught by non-NCLB compliant
teachers compared to the district’s total of 14%. The average class size for core courses is
22.4 for the current year.
Demographically speaking, the students within the district and at the SMS-2 site
are described in Table 2.1.

TABLE 2.1
2007-2008 SITE REPORT FOR SMS-2 ON SIGNIFICANT SUBGROUP POPULATIONS
District SMS-2
Free and Reduced Lunch 54% 64%
English Learners 30% 48%
Hispanic 23% 59%
African American 13% 21%
Taken from 2007 – 2008 Ed-Data Site Report for SMS-2 (www.ed-data.k-12.ca.us)
162
There are just over 6,000 special education students within the district and over 1,500 in
grades 6th-8th. SMS-2 has approximately 50 special needs students, which is roughly
12% of the overall population at the site for the 2008-’09 school year. There are 450
students at SMS-2 with 25% of students in 6th grade, 34% in 7th, and 41% in 8th grade.
While 17% of the student population for the district is classified as GATE, only 10% of
the students at SMS-2 are enrolled in GATE courses.
Having taken II/USP and/or HPSG funds from the state of California and being
unable to demonstrate growth on the state accountability system for two years, SMS-2
fell into state sanctions in the 2005-2006 school year. To exit SAIT, the school must have
a minimum of ten points growth on the API over a three-year period of time with at least
two years of growth. SMS-2 would have been able to exit the SAIT process this school
year with one additional point of positive growth on the API since they exceeded the ten
point requirement in the first year; however, the site experienced a six point decline
overall. SMS-2 will still exit sanctions in the coming school year if they are able to make
a single point of positive growth on this year’s API. Efforts for improving overall student
performance seem to have mixed results with significant growth often followed by
significant decline (or vice versa) as evidenced in their API rankings and subgroup
growth over the last two years shown in Table 2.2. A new principal was hired for the
current year to help turn the school around.

163
TABLE 2.2
API RANKINGS AND SUBGROUP GROWTH AT SMS-2
API School Results
SMS-2 2005 2006 2007 2008
Statewide API Rank 2 1 1 1
Similar Schools Rank 2 1 5 2

Subgroups Actual API Change
All students -23 -4 15 -6
Hispanic -14 -11 3 -1
African American -31 24 43 -47
English Learners Data not
available
11 -4 10
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
-25 12 11 -9
Taken from www.cde.ca.gov

CST data provides additional insight into the school’s progress on improving
academic achievement for students and shows less fluctuation for student performance in
the target areas of language arts and mathematics. The percentages of students meeting
the requirements for proficient and advanced on state testing in these two core subjects
and the corresponding percentages for both the district and the state are outlined in Table
2.3 for comparison purposes.

164
TABLE 2.3
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS PROFICIENT AND ADVANCED ON CSTS AT SMS-2

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008
SMS-2 18 18 19 18 11 15 14 15
District 45 47 49 51 46 48 49 51
California 40 42 43 46 38 40 40 43
Taken from www.cde.ca.gov

While the district as a whole has outperformed state averages and shown slow but steady
growth, SMS-2 has been fairly stagnate and sits well below averages for both the district
and the state. This is in stark contrast to the rather extreme peaks and valleys when
examining API data although the site is still well below the 800 target for all schools.
In addition to the site’s overall performance on state accountability measures, it is
important to note the progress of the significant subgroup populations served by the
school: Hispanic, African American, English Learners, and Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged (based on Free/Reduced Lunch). The performance of these four
subgroups is outlined in Table 2.4.
165
TABLE 2.4
SUBGROUP DATA FOR SMS-2: COMBINED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS SCORING
PROFICIENT AND ADVANCED ON CSTS FROM 2005-2008
English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced

2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008
Hispanic 16 14 12 14 8 12 12 10
African
American
16 17 22 16 7 11 7 8
F/RL 16 19 18 17 10 15 13 12
EL 8 6 7 5 7 10 8 9
Compiled from data on STAR reporting from www.cde.ca.gov

In general, the school is fairly flat-lined in terms of the number of students who are
proficient and advanced on the CSTs. It is interesting to note that while the majority of
subgroups perform better in language arts than mathematics, the general trend for the
English learner population is to perform better in mathematics. In addition to this, the
English learner subgroup is fairly consistent with the other subgroups in terms of overall
mathematics performance while typically having half the percentage of students
proficient and advanced in language arts compared to the other subgroups.

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
As a SAIT school, SMS-2 is required to implement the nine Essential Program
Components required by the state sanction process. For the last five years, the school has
made little progress in improving language arts and mathematics, and as such, SMS-2
entered state sanctions in the 2006-’07 school year. The first year in SAIT led to overall
166
gains on the API for all students and each significant subgroup with the exception of a
four point decline for English learners; however, this growth was not sustained during the
second year of sanctions, so SMS-2 is still receiving support from an external evaluator
to ensure implementation of the Essential Program Components for the current year with
the expectation of exiting the process with improved scores in the current school year.
The school mission highlights the importance of developing and implementing a
school program to help students “actively and successfully meet the challenges and
requirements of a rigorous high school program and ultimately prepare them for college”.
School goals include ensuring all students learn the core curriculum, improving both
language arts and mathematics skills, and creating a school climate that encourages
students to be successful through “self-discipline and positive recognition”.
To that end, the content area focus of reform efforts has centered on language arts
and mathematics. Students who require additional support are enrolled in a strategic
support class for mathematics and/or language arts during the school day to provide
additional time in these two core areas. This has had a significant impact on the number
of students enrolled in science and social studies courses in addition to electives as will
be addressed in the resource allocation comparisons to the Evidence-Based Model
discussed in the next section. SMS-2 uses state-approved core materials that are
standards-aligned and that provide comprehensive resources to differentiate instruction
through the use of data.
SMS-2 has instituted common planning time within the school day for teachers to
analyze student data as well as discuss interdisciplinary plans, student needs, and the
167
“Balanced Score Card”. The “Balanced Score Card” is a management tool to help
improve organizational performance through aligning activities to the vision, focusing
efforts on measuring what is important, prioritizing a plan of action, and keeping
attention on results-oriented actions (see www.balancedscorecard.org for general
information on the Balanced Score Card). Areas of focus for the scorecard at SMS-2
include social justice and equity, accountability, and assessment. Multiple sources of data
are used to monitor student progress and adjust instruction. Staff has been trained in and
uses a program called “Cruncher”, which provides class profiles of strengths in cluster
areas assessed on the CSTs. In addition to CST data, benchmark assessments from
adopted programs are administered every 6-8 weeks. OARS data along with informal
quizzes and tests to check for understanding and student learning also help monitor
progress for the two goals related to improvement in mathematics and language arts. The
site has focused on academic language school-wide as well to help support student
learning in these two core areas.
In addition to analysis of data during the common planning times, administrators
conduct weekly walk-throughs of the classroom to monitor implementation of standards-
based curricula and student learning. District personnel and members of the SAIT team
also conduct walk-throughs once a month. Grade level teams are given time to meet
every Thursday to discuss curriculum, samples of student work, and other issues in
addition to the common planning time provided everyday for all teachers. Two major
universities are working with the mathematics department to build teacher knowledge
and pedagogy to support the goal of improving student achievement in mathematics.
168
Student engagement strategies and differentiation have also been another focal points for
professional development with the end goal of improving student achievement.
With these systems pieces in place, SMS-2 has begun to use data to drive
instructional practice in the classroom. All students not proficient in the critical areas of
mathematics and language arts are given a support class in that subject area in lieu of an
elective. The system is flexible enough, however, to allow students to be pulled out of
this support class as soon as they are able to demonstrate proficiency. This requires
ongoing monitoring of student progress, so students can be moved every six to eight
weeks as necessary. In addition to the support provided in the strategic class, High Point,
one of the state-approved intervention programs for students more than two grades below
in language arts, is also offered during the day for students who are struggling. Extreme
Learning will provide after school tutoring four hours a week starting in January for
Free/Reduced Lunch students and those scoring below “Proficient” on CSTs.
Individualized plans are developed as part of the tutoring for these students who come
twice a week for two hours. A partnership with a neighborhood center has expanded
afterschool offerings although not all services provided are academic in nature.
Technology has played a prominent role in reform efforts at the site also. There
are three computer labs, and the Renzulli Learning System is used school-wide. This
program is designed to connect students with resources in areas of interest while
developing higher order thinking skills and building content knowledge. KidBiz3000, one
of Achieve3000’s online literacy programs, has also been incorporated into the
curriculum to help support both engagement and skills in the area of language arts. In
169
addition to the technology programs utilized for analysis of data, there is a strong
commitment to the use of technology as a vehicle for engaging students and improving
student learning at SMS-2.

Corresponding Resource Use

TABLE 2.5
RESOURCE COMPARISON: SMS-2 AND EVIDENCE BASED MODEL
FOR ADEQUATE SCHOOL RESOURCES
School Element
Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
SMS-2 Current
Resource Status
SMS-2 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
School Characteristics
Configuration Grades 6-8 Grades 6-8
School Size 450 450 Exact match for EBM
Core Class Size 25 22.4 Exact match for EBM
Free & Reduced
Price Lunch
Count
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)
300
Number of ELL
Students
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)
200
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 18 27 EBM recommends 18, so
site is above
the model
2. Specialist/
Elective
Teachers
20% of Core Teachers 20% of Core Teachers
(5.8)
In line with percentage,
but above the model
since there are more core
teachers. Model would
recommend 3.6 for a
school this size
Total Teachers 21.6 32.5 21.6
3. Instructional
Coaches
1 per 200 Students 0.4 provided through
the district
Note-3 administrators
receive coaching 2x per
month for 1-3 hours each
EBM recommends 2.5

170
TABLE 2.5, CONTINUED
School Element
Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
SMS-2 Current
Resource Status
SMS-2 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
4. Tutors 1 per 100 At Risk
Students (Free &
Reduced Price Lunch)
0
(There are approximately
5 FTEs for non-certificated
tutors through the
university, volunteers, and
high school students)
EBM recommends 3
tutors
5. Teachers for
ELL Students
1 per 100 ELL Students 1 Newcomer Liaison to
support EL students new
to the country

8.2 provide instruction in
ELD or SDAIE content
area courses, but these
have already been
counted under core.
EBM recommends 2 ELL
teachers
6. Extended Day 1 per 15 Eligible
Students (Staffing
based on 50% of Free &
Reduced Price Lunch
Students)
.29 Certificated FTEs
.43 non-Certificated tutors
Note-additional services
are provided through
community agencies
EBM recommends
2.5 FTEs, which would
be an additional
2.2 FTEs
7. Summer
School
1 per 15 Students
(Staffing based on 50%
of Free and Reduced
Price Lunch Students)
10 FTEs plus
2 SDC
1 Secretary
3.6 Paraprofessionals

Adjusted for
school-year:
1.56 Teachers
.13 Secretary
.45 Paraprofessionals
EBM recommends
2.5 FTEs
8. Alternative
Schools
NA NA NA
9a. Learning and
Mildly
Disabled
Students
3 Teachers per 450
Students
2 RSP teachers for 50
mainstreamed students
1 Resource Aide
Note-other Aides provide
services for both English
learner students and
Special Ed. They are
accounted for under
Instructional Aides
.33 per 50 students
9b. Severely
Disabled
Students
100% State
Reimbursement for Top
1% Minus Federal
Funds
1 SDC teacher for 12 self-
contained students with 2
additional SDC teachers
for mainstreamed students
Fully funded as
necessary
10. Services for
Gifted
Students
$25 per Student $2,000
plus .2 FTEs for a GATE
Coordinator
EBM recommends
$11,250
171
TABLE 2.5, CONTINUED
School Element
Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
SMS-2 Current
Resource Status
SMS-2 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
11. Career/
Technical
Education
.3 Weight per CTE
Student to Maintain Low
Class Sizes

$7000 per CTE Teacher
Contract
.4 FTE for Keyboarding An additional $2,800 in
salary for Career
Technical Ed course
materials
12. Substitutes 10 Days per Teacher for
Professional
Development
1 Site Sub
($56, 317)
Approximately 100
additional sub days
budgeted ($19,800)
Total=$76,117
32.2 teachers x 10 days
= 322
$198 daily sub rate, so
total cost = $63,756

13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 Guidance Counselor
per 250 Students plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position per 100 Free &
Reduced Price Lunch
Students
2.4 Counselors with 1
intern and Head Counselor
receives a $5000 stipend
.86 Outreach Consultant
1 Attendance
1 Dropout
1 Social Worker
1 Nurse
1 Parent Liaison
.4 Psychologist
.6 Speech
EBM would recommend
1.8 Counselors and 3
Pupil Support Staff, so
the site is overstaffed
with 3.4 counselors and
6.86 in Pupil Support
14. Non-
Instructional
Aides
2 per 400-500 Students .14 Noon Duty Aid
15 Instructional
Aides
0 4.3 Aides for English
learners
The EBM would eliminate
these positions.
16. Librarians/
Media
Specialists
1 .4 Librarian with 1 full-time
Aide
Site is understaffed
compared to the EBM for
a full-time Librarian
17. Administrator 1 Principal plus
.5 Assistant Principal
1 Principal
2 APs
1 Instructional Reform
Facilitator
(does not provide
instructional coaching)
1 GEAR-UP Coord.
1 Beacon Coord.
1 ExCel Director
Site is overstaffed for
administration by
2.5 FTEs
18. Secretary 2 School Site
Secretaries
2 Secretaries No additional resources
needed

172
TABLE 2.5, CONTINUED
School Element
Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
SMS-2 Current
Resource Status
SMS-2 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
19. Professional
Development
10 Days Intensive
Professional
Development in
Summer Included in
Teacher Contract

Instructional Coaches

Planning & Prep time
2 full days plus the
equivalent of 14 additional
days from early release
once a week and
another 20 days in
collaborative time.
Each teacher also has a
daily prep period. About
80% of teachers take
advantage of the 7
optional days for
professional development
each year.

5 teachers attended
summer institutes
($10,000) and 5 teachers
are involved in the Middle
School Leadership
Initiative ($10,000)

4 University Professors
and 1 Grad student
provide professional
development 2 hours a
month at no cost to
the site
The model would
recommend instructional
coaches at the site for
more integrated, daily
support. This need is
currently being met
through a combination of
support from university
partners and district
personnel but not at the
level funded under
the model.
Dollar/Pupil Resources
20. Technology Calculation: 1 Computer
per 3 Students.
Distribution: 1 Computer
per 4 Students & 1:1
Ratio for Administrators,
Teachers, & Secretaries

$250/Pupil
120 computers EBM recommends 150
computers with 113 for
students and the
remaining allotted
to staff.

$112,500 for
maintenance
21. Instructional
Materials

Formative
Assessments

Library
Materials

$120/Pupil

$25/Pupil

$20/Pupil
State-Approved Core
Content Materials and
Intervention Programs
Funding for materials and
assessments is in line
with recommendations
from the model.

$9,000 for Library
materials
22. Student
Activities
$200/Pupil Approximately 1FTE for
coordination of student
activities and athletics
($56,317)
The EBM recommends
$90,000, so an additional
$34,000 would be
allocated for activities

173
Lessons Learned
The Washington Learns: Successful Districts Study (Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates, 2006) identified eight basic elements found in each of the successful districts
within the study, which provide a useful framework for discussing the various elements
within the case studies here in identifying successful reform strategies for comparison
purposes. Each element is identified as a header for discussion around the school’s
attempts to implement similar strategies with the exception of Student Support since
these strategies are identified throughout. (For a complete copy of the study, see
www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/SuccessfulDistReport9-11-06Final.pdf.)

Educating All Students
First, the research from the Washington Study showed the importance of
educating all students. While not specifically articulated over the course of the interview,
SMS-2 is focused on getting all students prepared to actively and successfully meet the
challenges and requirements of high school and college. School goals include ensuring all
students learn the core curriculum in both language arts and mathematics, which also
implies a desire to serve all students. The Balanced Score Card provides an opportunity
to monitor the progress of students and a wide variety of resources have been harnessed
to meet the needs of individual students both during and after the school day.

174
Using Data
The second element from the Washington Study is the importance of data in
driving instructional decisions. This is clearly evident at the site with the focus on
training teachers in using data tools to analyze all the sources of data available from the
benchmark assessments to samples of student work from classes. Providing teachers with
two periods every day for the purposes of planning and meeting collaboratively in
addition to weekly release days for collaboration and professional development offers a
firm foundation for developing an instructional program that relies on data. Student
progress is evaluated every six to eight weeks to determine placement in electives and
movement in the master schedule.

Rigorous Curriculum and Alignment with State Standards
The third element focuses on a rigorous curriculum and alignment with state
standards. The site uses state-approved texts for core programs and intervention support
as well as supplemental resources to ensure mastery of standards for all students.
Benchmark assessments are standards-aligned, and additional resources to develop skills
through technology are in place across the campus as well.

Effective Professional Development
The fourth finding from the Washington Successful Districts study centers on
supporting instructional improvement through effective professional development. With
175
standards-aligned materials in place, the school is looking to deepen teacher
understanding of core content and pedagogy in mathematics through partnerships with
university professors, coaching in both mathematics and language arts provided through
the district, and training in using data to inform instructional practice. The focus for the
site has been on both engagement strategies and checking for understanding to monitor
student learning. Walk-throughs are done on a regular basis by both site administration
and external entities from the district and their SAIT provider. These provide the vehicle
for feedback to teachers on implementation of the strategies from professional
development efforts as well as a lens for administration to evaluate additional needs for
professional development from what they observe in the classroom. The coaches
providing support to the administrative team are critical in the process of developing the
overall leadership team to create systemic change within this site that has struggled for so
many years.

Restructuring the Learning Environment
Restructuring the learning environment is the next element discussed in the
Washington study on successful districts. SMS-2 houses the Newcomer program for
English learners within the district, so language issues are significant in the overall
performance of the school. A Newcomer Liaison is on staff to help support students in
the transition from speaking no English and being new to the country to functioning
within the American school system and becoming part of the community. The sixth grade
classes are self-contained to help develop stronger connections between the staff and
176
students with fewer daily contacts and students to monitor. The support classes for
language arts and mathematics were added for students below proficient to get the
differentiated instruction they need to close the gap between the highest and lowest
performing students at the site. Implementing the Balanced Score Card to monitor social
justice and equity, accountability, and assessment has allowed teachers and staff to
rethink the school climate to begin developing a place where all students will attain
proficiency and be prepared for life after SMS-2 as stated in their mission. A Parent
Liaison has improved the level of parental involvement with monthly meetings for
parents to interact with the principal over breakfast.

Instructional Leadership and Professional Learning Communities
The remaining factors identified in the Washington study include Leadership and
Professional Learning Communities both of which have already been alluded to
throughout the preceding paragraphs. Students at SMS-2 have struggled for over five
years with little to no progress on the state accountability system. The first year of the
SAIT process offered a glimpse of hope with a fifteen point gain overall; however the
school was unable to maintain the momentum into the second year where they
experienced an overall decline of six points. As the site begins this third and pivotal year
for exiting the SAIT process without further sanctions, the focus of the leadership team is
on ensuring appropriate systems are in place to support all students while providing
teachers the resources and professional development they need to change instructional
practice. Giving the gift of time for teachers to analyze data and reflect on current
177
practice in the face of mixed success will help build teacher efficacy in the long run. With
the support of administrative coaches and professional learning communities in place, the
principal is sure that the school is on the verge of turning around to both exit SAIT and
more importantly, to give students the skills they need to be successful.

Future Implications or Additional Resources
SMS-2 has a long journey ahead to close the achievement gap for its most
struggling students. The principal would like to have onsite coaches for both language
arts and mathematics now that the teachers are discovering where they need support in
changing their instructional practice to better serve students. Relying on district coaches
once a week will not move the school forward as quickly as they need to move. Having a
full-time art teacher and technology person are also additional resources the principal
sited as resources to help continue and expand reform efforts.
178
SAIT Middle School - 3
A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use

School Background and Data
SAIT Middle School - 3 (SMS-3) is located in one of the largest urban districts
within southern California serving over 130,000 students. There are over 220 schools
within the district including more than 115 elementary schools, over 50 middle and high
schools, and an additional 50 charter and/or alternative schools. Approximately 25% of
schools within the district are in Program Improvement (PI) including SMS-3, which is a
Year 5 PI site. The school is a Title 1 school-wide program, and approximately 25% of
core academic courses are taught by teachers who are non-compliant under NCLB. This
is in comparison to only 4% for the district as a whole, 5% of high poverty schools within
the district, and 1.3% of low poverty schools within the district.
Demographically speaking, the students within the district and at the SMS-3 site
are described in Table 3.1.

TABLE 3.1
2007-2008 SITE REPORT FOR SMS-3 ON SIGNIFICANT SUBGROUP POPULATIONS
District SMS-3
Free and Reduced Lunch 62% 91%
English Learners 30% 50%
Hispanic 44% 57%
Asian 9% 22%
Taken from 2007 – 2008 Ed-Data Site Report for SMS-3 (www.ed-data.k-12.ca.us)

179
There are almost 17,000 special education students within the district and just shy of
4,000 special needs students within grades 6th-8th. SMS-3 has approximately 200 special
needs students, which is roughly 22% of the overall population at the site for the 2008-
’09 school year. There are approximately 900 students at SMS-3 for the current year with
32% of students in 6th grade, 35% in 7th, and 33% in 8th grade. It is important to note
that SMS-3 was recently reconfigured due to budget constraints. When the school first
entered Year 5 of Program Improvement, part of the restructuring efforts including
reducing the size of the school to approximately 400 students. The move to create smaller
schools was to be subsidized through some state monies, but the district never received
any funding. The separate schools were maintained on one budget until the district could
no longer support the sites, so SMS-3 has returned to its original configuration and size.
Data used for the purposes of this case study will reflect the portion of the school that
maintained the original school code and Program Improvement status. While the
percentages of students have remained fairly constant in terms of demographics and
student achievement, the site had approximately 400 students for both the 2005-’06 and
2006-’07 school years with over 1,000 in 2004-’05 and over 900 for the 2007-’08 and
current year (2008-’09).
Having taken II/USP and/or HPSG funds from the state of California and being
unable to demonstrate growth on the state accountability system for two years, SMS-3
fell into state sanctions in the 2005-2006 school year. To exit SAIT, the school must have
a minimum of ten points growth on the API over a three-year period of time with at least
two years of growth. SMS-3 would have been able to exit the SAIT process this school
180
year with one additional point of positive growth on the API since they exceeded the ten
point requirement in the first year; however, the site experienced a seventeen point
decline overall. SMS-3 will still exit sanctions in the coming school year if they are able
to make a single point of positive growth on this year’s API. Efforts for improving
overall student performance seem to have mixed results with significant growth often
followed by significant decline (or vice versa) as evidenced in their API rankings and
subgroup growth over the last two years shown in Table 3.2. It is important to keep the
population shifts in mind when analyzing the data.

TABLE 3.2
API RANKINGS AND SUBGROUP GROWTH AT SMS-3
API Rankings
SMS-3 2005 2006 2007 2008
Statewide API Rank 2 1 1 1
Similar Schools Rank 4 2 5 4

Subgroups Actual API Change
All students -13 -1 25 -17
Hispanic -14 -24 34 -17
Asian -18 57 -34 46
English Learners
No data
available
-27 32 -20
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
-7 -1 25 -18
Taken from www.cde.ca.gov

The data from 2007 represents the first year with the current principal with the
smaller overall population of less than 400 students. While the 2008 data reflects an
overall decline in performance with the exception of the Asian subgroup, almost 600
181
additional students are included in this data set. Data from the 2008-’09 school year will
help better determine the impact of reform strategies after adjusting for the additional
staff and students introduced in the previous school year.
CST data provides additional insight into the school’s progress on improving
academic achievement for students and shows less fluctuation for student performance in
the target areas of language arts and mathematics. The percentages of students meeting
the requirements for proficient and advanced on state testing in these two core subjects
and the corresponding percentages for both the district and the state are outlined in Table
3.3 for comparison purposes.

TABLE 3.3
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS PROFICIENT AND ADVANCED ON CSTS AT SMS-3
English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008
SMS-3 17 19 18 18 16 12 16 16
District 42 44 45 47 37 40 39 42
California 40 42 43 46 38 40 40 43
Taken from www.cde.ca.gov

The district as a whole has outperformed state averages in language arts and shown slow
but steady growth. Mathematics scores sit just below the state average for the district as a
whole, but SMS-3 has been fairly stagnate and sits well below averages for both the
district and the state in language arts and mathematics. While higher numbers of students
were actually proficient or advanced in the 2005 and 2008 years with 900-1,000 students,
182
the actual percentage of the overall student population scoring at this level has been flat-
lined for even longer than the data displayed according to the principal.
In addition to the site’s overall performance on state accountability measures, it is
important to note the progress of the significant subgroup populations served by the
school: Hispanic, Asian, English Learners, and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (based
on Free/Reduced Lunch). For the purposes of this case study, all subgroups with scores
for the two years prior to becoming a SAIT site and the two years following are included
as significant subgroups. The performance of these four subgroups is outlined in
Table 3.4.

TABLE 3.4 SUBGROUP DATA FOR SMS-3: COMBINED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS SCORING
PROFICIENT AND ADVANCED ON CSTS FROM 2005-2008
English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced

2005* 2006 2007 2008 2005* 2006 2007 2008
Hispanic 12 12 11 12 10 6 12 10
Asian 28 37 37 33 32 34 34 37
F/RL 17 19 18 18 16 12 16 16
EL 2 1 3 3 4 3 7 5
Compiled from data on STAR reporting from www.cde.ca.gov *Over 1,000 students before school was restructured
with less than 400 for the 2005-’06 and 2006-’07 school years. There are over 900 for the 2007-’08 school year.

In general, the school is fairly flat-lined in terms of the number of students who are
proficient and advanced on the CSTs. It is important to note, however, that with
significant differences in the overall school population, there are more students proficient
and advanced than in the previous two years. For example, the 18% proficient and
183
advanced for the Free/Reduced Lunch students in 2007 represents approximately 65
students. The 18% of Free/Reduced Lunch students in 2008 represents over 160 students.
It is difficult to compare the data from year to year because of the restructuring efforts
and varied populations, but there is a definite gap in performance between the English
learner population and the remaining subgroups.

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
As a SAIT school, SMS-3 is required to implement the nine Essential Program
Components required by the state sanction process, and yet the focus for improvement
began years before the school fell into state sanctions. As mentioned previously, SMS-3
was already in Year 5 status of Program Improvement, and the restructuring requirements
included dividing the school into smaller schools with separate administrators, staffs, and
school codes. The current principal at SMS-3 was a principal for one of the smaller
schools until taking her current position when the schools were reunited. One of her first
comments related to school improvement was the importance of changing the school
culture. When she arrived, there were a number of teachers with low expectations for the
difficult student population the school serves. The idea that “these kids can’t learn”
prevailed. The principal began by filling open positions with individuals committed to the
improvement process. She would lay out the gaps in student achievement and ask
potential employees if they were willing to do whatever it took to change the learning
environment for kids. Another important piece to the mindset was developing personal
responsibility in the students. While not able to implement AVID school-wide, elements
184
of the program, such as Cornell Notes, were implemented school-wide to help build
student responsibility.
The smaller schools were set up around themes that connected an enriched
curriculum to real life. Business partners were brought in to enhance learning and make
real-world connections for students to see the importance of academics for their future
success in employment. School-wide goals were established around increasing skill in
language arts and mathematics as part of a strong foundation for the “theme” focus of the
site. Data was analyzed, and students were identified by their level of proficiency.
Teachers were asked to identify five students each period to focus on differentiating
instruction and grouping with the idea that other students would have similar needs to the
targeted students. They provided a rationale for the selected students, and student work
from the kids is analyzed during collaborative times. Student pictures are placed in color
bands in the Principal’s office so she can identify at a glance which students need
extra support.
SMS-3 uses state-approved core materials that are standards-aligned and that
provide comprehensive resources to differentiate instruction through the use of data. The
focus of collaborative time at the site is on the continuous cycle for learning where
teachers plan, teach, debrief, and then plan again based on reflection and analysis of
student learning. Every six weeks, there are student-monitoring meetings with teachers
and administration around student grades. Along with district benchmark assessments,
various data sets (grades, student work, benchmarks) are used to develop student profiles
to help monitor student progress. Students who are receiving “F”s are required to meet
185
with their teachers and administration to discuss reasons for their lagging performance.
“Start with the kids and then work on the parent” was the mantra for the principal. If
students are unable to make progress by the next six-eight week benchmark, parents are
brought in to provide additional support and insight into the student’s performance. The
principal is committed to developing a sense of responsibility for students as they
transition into early “adulthood”.
The principal used to be a staff developer and a literacy administrator, so she
provides much of the professional development for her teachers. All of the assistant
principals have elementary experience as well, which helps support the language arts and
mathematics goals for SMS-3. As an administrative team, they have been together for
almost ten years, so there is a common vision and commitment for moving the school
forward. This is infused into the instructional leadership team that has been developed to
help support and provide direction for improving student achievement. Professional
development is driven by assessment. Using information from walk-throughs and other
assessment data, professional development is targeted to the very specific and current
needs of the staff.
First and foremost, the principal is striving to raise expectations for performance.
Learning is the number one priority, and the majority of the staff is committed to that
end. When the smaller schools were recombined due to budget issues, the current
principal was able to interview all staff from the other sites and ensure a high level of
commitment to the idea that all kids can learn. Assemblies provide opportunities to set
high expectations as do activities preparing students to enter the school in sixth grade.
186
Halls are filled with bulletin boards monitoring everything from attendance goals to
proficiency levels on benchmark assessments to help students make connections.
The vision and plans to reform SMS-3 were well underway before the SAIT
process, and there has been a merging of the SAIT requirements within the practices of
the school on their road to improvement. Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA)
funds, Title 1 dollars, and SAIT monies all provide additional resources for SMS-3 in
implementing their school plan to attain school-wide goals connected to improving skills
in language arts and mathematics as well as closing the achievement gap.

Corresponding Resource Use

TABLE 3.5
RESOURCE COMPARISON: SMS-3 AND EVIDENCE BASED MODEL FOR
ADEQUATE SCHOOL RESOURCES
School Element
Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
SMS-2 Current
Resource Status
SMS-2 – EBM Comparison
& EBM Resource
Suggestions
School Characteristics
Configuration Grades 6-8 Grades 6-8
School Size 450 900 2X the EBM
Core Class Size 25 25 Equal to the EBM
Free & Reduced
Price Lunch Count
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)
900
Number of ELL
Students
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)
500

187
TABLE 3.5, CONTINUED
School Element
Evidence Based Model
Prototypical Middle
Schools
SMS-2 Current
Resource Status
SMS-2 – EBM Comparison
& EBM Resource
Suggestions
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 18 38
Plus 5 Special Ed
teachers who
co-teach in
core classes
36 Recommended by
the EBM
2. Specialist/
Elective
Teachers
20% of Core Teachers 7.4 7 Recommended by
the EBM
Total Teachers 21.6 50 43
3. Instructional
Coaches
1 per 200 Students .33 FTE
District provides 2
days per month for
LA, Math, and
Science (60 days
total, which is
1/3 an FTE)
4.5 recommended by
the EBM
4. Tutors 1 per 100 At Risk
Students (Free &
Reduced Price Lunch)
0 Certificated tutors 9 Recommended by
the EBM
5. Teachers for
ELL Students
1 per 100 ELL Students 2 Teachers providing
support to English
learners are already
counted in Core
teachers
5 Recommended by
the EBM
6. Extended Day 1 per 15 Eligible
Students (Staffing
based on 50% of
Free & Reduced Price
Lunch Students)
.25 FTE for 120
students
7.5 Recommended by
the EBM
7. Summer
School
1 per 15 Students
(Staffing based on 50%
of Free and Reduced
Price Lunch Students)
No summer school 7.5 Recommended by
the EBM
8. Alternative
Schools
NA NA NA
9a. Learning and
Mildly Disabled
Students
3 Teachers per
450 Students
9 teachers (included
in count for Core)
6 teachers recommended by
the EBM
9b. Severely
Disabled
Students
100% State
Reimbursement for
Top 1% Minus
Federal Funds
2 teachers
for self-contained
Special Ed students
Fully funded as needed

188
TABLE 3.5, CONTINUED
School Element
Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
SMS-2 Current
Resource Status
SMS-2 – EBM Comparison
& EBM Resource
Suggestions
10. Services for
Gifted
Students
$25 per Student No GATE teachers
$1,800
The EBM recommends
$22,500
11. Career/
Technical
Education
.3 Weight per CTE
Student to Maintain Low
Class Sizes

$7000 per CTE
Teacher Contract
1 FTE An additional $7,000 for
Career Technical Ed.
course materials
12. Substitutes 10 Days per Teacher $2000 budgeted
Subs for District PD
are paid by the
district

10 days (required by
contract) are
budgeted per teacher
for personal
necessity and illness
$151 (sub rate) x 10 for
52 teachers
=$78, 520

Site is overfunded with the
addition of subs from the
district and the $2,000
13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 Guidance Counselor
per 250 Students plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position per 100 Free
& Reduced Price
Lunch Students
3 Guidance
1.5 Clerks
.8 Nurse
1 Psychologist
1 Parent Liaison
1 Speech
.2 Physical Therapy
1 EL Resource
Coordinator
(9.5 Total)
3.6 Guidance plus 9
additional FTEs for
Pupil Support

The EBM would recommend
an additional counselor and
2.5 for other Pupil Support
14. Non-
Instructional
Aides
2 per 400-500 Students 2 Special Ed 4 Recommended by
the EBM
15. Instructional
Aides
0 5 Title 1 Aides
supporting ELs
The EBM would eliminate
these positions
16. Librarians/
Media
Specialists
1 1 Full-time classified
Library Tech
2 certificated Librarians
17. Administrator 1 Principal plus
.5 Assistant Principal
1 Principal
3 Assistant Principals
1 Special Ed
Coordinator
1 Tech Resource
1 Principal
1.5 Assistant Principals
18. Secretary 2 School Site
Secretaries
1 Secretary
1 Admin Assistant
1 Clerical
1 Site Tech
4 Secretaries

189
TABLE 3.5, CONTINUED
School Element
Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
SMS-2 Current
Resource Status
SMS-2 – EBM Comparison
& EBM Resource
Suggestions
19. Professional
Development
10 Days Intensive
Professional
Development in
Summer Included in
Teacher Contract

Instructional Coaches

Planning & Prep time
Equivalent of 5 days
in collaborative mtgs.
6 Collaborative days
for data analysis
and planning
6 days as part of a
Harvard study
3 days for publisher
training on materials
in mathematics
The EBM would recommend
4.5 coaches compared to the
.33 FTE in coaching provided
by the district.

The EBM would recommend
10 days in summer although
more days are
currently provided.
Dollar/Pupil Resources
20. Technology Calculation: 1 Computer
per 3 Students.
Distribution: 1 Computer
per 4 Students & 1:1
Ratio for Administrators,
Teachers, & Secretaries

$250/Pupil
3 computer labs for
math and 6
computers in every
language arts/
math classroom
300 computers with 225 for
student use and 75 for staff

The site has more computers
than recommended.

The EBM recommends
$225,000 for maintenance
21. Instructional
Materials

Formative
Assessments

Library
Materials

$120/Pupil

$25/Pupil

$20/Pupil
State-Approved Core
Content Materials
and Intervention
Programs

No specific data
available on
library funds
Funding for materials and
assessments is in line with
recommendations from
the model.

$18,000 Recommended by
the EBM
22. Student
Activities
$200/Pupil No specific data
available on
activities costs.
$180,000 Recommended by
the EBM

Lessons Learned
The Washington Learns: Successful Districts Study (Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates, 2006) identified eight basic elements found in each of the successful districts
within the study, which provide a useful framework for discussing the various elements
within the case studies here in identifying successful reform strategies for comparison
purposes. Each element is identified as a header for discussion around the school’s
190
attempts to implement similar strategies with the exception of Student Support since
these strategies are identified throughout. (For a complete copy of the study, see
www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/SuccessfulDistReport9-11-06Final.pdf.)

Educating All Students
First, the research from the Washington Study showed the importance of
educating all students. This was a top priority for the principal in establishing a culture of
high expectations for student learning both for the staff and students on the campus.
Intervention courses were developed to support struggling students, and student-
monitoring systems were put in place to ensure that student progress was being evaluated
on a regular basis. Differentiated instruction became a focal point both for professional
development and course offerings. Increasing the instructional time dedicated to language
arts and mathematics allowed for flexible grouping and adjustments to the instructional
program to meet the needs of diverse learners.

Using Data
The second element from the Washington Study is the importance of data in
driving instructional decisions. Data was used to establish school-wide goals targeting
improvement in language arts and mathematics as well as closing the achievement gap
for various subgroups at SMS-3. Targeting specific students to evaluate student learning
and needs is the primary focus of data gathering and discussion during collaborative
191
times. Both attendance and academic data are evaluated every six-eight weeks to
determine student progress and adjust instruction accordingly. Only students scoring
proficient and above are offered electives, so monitoring assessment data is critical to
moving students into additional course offerings.

Rigorous Curriculum and Alignment with State Standards
The third element focuses on a rigorous curriculum and alignment with state
standards. The site uses state-approved texts for core programs and intervention support
as well as supplemental resources to ensure mastery of standards for all students.
Benchmark assessments are standards-aligned, and additional resources to develop skills
through technology are in place across the campus as well. As part of the reflection
process, teachers go back to state standards to develop lessons to target skills that
students are lacking in after evaluation of assessment data has identified areas
of weakness.

Effective Professional Development
The fourth finding from the Washington Successful Districts study centers on
supporting instructional improvement through effective professional development. The
majority of professional development offered at the site is done by the administrative
team and focuses on the identified needs of teachers and/or students from data gathered
during walk-throughs or benchmark assessments. Strategies like Cornell Note-taking are
192
utilized school-wide to encourage student responsibility for their own learning.
Collaborative team meetings every week provide the opportunity for professional
learning from administration and other site personnel.

Restructuring the Learning Environment
Restructuring the learning environment is the next element discussed in the
Washington study on successful districts. While SMS-3 had been restructured around the
smaller schools literature in the 2005-’06 school year, funds were unavailable to maintain
this particular reform strategy. The site was restored to its current size in the 2007-’08
school year. A number of personnel changes were a result of this move including the
current principal’s move to oversee the entire site with the dissolution of the smaller
schools. The school has maintained the connection with business partners to continue the
focus on making real world connections to the academic curriculum. The number of
electives being offered has been reduced to accommodate only the students who are
performing at proficient or above. There are multiple levels of intervention for students
that have been built into the master schedule. There are classes to support students who
need extra support in language arts and mathematics as well as intervention programs to
target students more than two grades below in those same areas. There are options for
students who need EL support as opposed to a more intensive English language
development curriculum. Sixth grade classrooms are self-contained, and all but two
special education teachers spend three or more periods co-teaching in core classes with
general education teachers.
193

Instructional Leadership and Professional Learning Communities
The remaining factors identified in the Washington study include Leadership and
Professional Learning Communities both of which have already been alluded to
throughout the preceding paragraphs. The first year of the SAIT process offered a
glimpse of hope with a twenty-five point gain overall; however the school was unable to
maintain the momentum into the second year where they experienced an overall decline
of seventeen points. Some of this is attributable to population changes as the school was
reconfigured with over 900 students, but this year’s data will provide a better idea of the
impact current strategies are having on student achievement.
As the site begins this third and pivotal year for exiting the SAIT process without
further sanctions, the focus of the leadership team is on ensuring appropriate systems are
in place to support all students while providing teachers the resources and professional
development they need to change instructional practice. Giving the gift of time for
teachers to analyze data and reflect on current practice in the face of mixed success will
help build teacher efficacy in the long run. With professional learning communities in
place, the principal is sure that the school is on the verge of turning around to both exit
SAIT and more importantly, to give students the skills they need to be successful. With
the separation into smaller schools followed by the dissolution of those sites, SMS-3 is
only beginning a second year under the current administration and structure for the site.
Assessment results for this current year will help determine if reform efforts have started
to make a difference in student achievement.

194
Future Implications or Additional Resources
The principal was very clear that SMS-3 has been a struggling school for a
number of years, and many have tried to “turn the school around” unsuccessfully. Her
goal is to bring change from within the school instead of relying on outside entities,
which has not had the desired impact on student achievement. Now that the school has
had a chance to adjust to reconfiguration, the principal feels confident in the abilities of
the staff to move forward. She is less concerned about adding additional resources and
more focused on identifying the strengths of her staff to create change from within the
site. With current QEIA funds to support class size reduction in addition to existing state
and federal monies, the hope is to continue on the track using current resources to foster
that unwavering commitment to school learning displayed on the banner in front of the
campus: “Learning is our #1 priority”.
195
Non-SAIT Middle School - 1
A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use

School Background and Data
Non-SAIT Middle School -1 (NSMS-1) is located in one of the largest, urban
districts within southern California. The district serves over 57,000 students pre K-12
th

grade with approximately 40 elementary schools and another 25 middle and high schools
in addition to a few alternative education and charter sites. Just over 70% of schools
within the district are in Program Improvement (PI) with the district as a whole in Year 3
of PI. NSMS-1 is a Year 5 PI school with approximately 1,750 students. The average
class size is 33 students with slightly higher numbers in most core courses balanced
against the lower numbers in special education and elective courses.
Demographically speaking, the students within the district and at the NSMS-1 site
are described in Table 4.1.

TABLE 4.1
2007-2008 SITE REPORT FOR NSMS-1 ON SIGNIFICANT SUBGROUP POPULATIONS
District NSMS-1
Free and Reduced Lunch 78% 89%
English Learners 56% 53%
Hispanic 92% 98%
Taken from 2007 – 2008 Ed-Data Site Report for NSMS-1 (www.ed-data.k-12.ca.us)

There are just over 5,000 special education students within the district and over 1,175 in
grades 6th-8th. NSMS-1 has 175 special needs students, which is roughly 10% of the
overall population at the site for the 2008-’09 school year. Of the 1,750 students at
196
NSMS-1, approximately 33% of students are in 6th grade, 36% are in 7th, and 31% are in
8th grade.
Efforts for improving overall student performance seem to have had a positive
impact on student achievement as evidenced in their API rankings and subgroup growth
over the last two four years, minus a drop in the 2006 scores, which are shown in
Table 4.2.

TABLE 4.2
API RANKINGS AND SUBGROUP GROWTH AT NSMS-1
API School Results
NSMS-1 2005 2006 2007 2008
Statewide API Rank 2 4 4 4
Similar Schools Rank 7 10 10 10

Subgroups Actual API Change
All students 76 -12 12 28
Hispanic 76 -15 14 26
English Learners No data
available
-7 5 21
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
77 -12 12 28
Taken from www.cde.ca.gov

The overall API for the site is 720, and it is important to note that there is very
little difference for the overall student population and two of the significant subgroups
with 717 for Hispanic and 718 for Socioeconomically Disadvantaged. The English
learner subgroup is below the rest with an API of 688.
197
CST data provides additional insight into the school’s progress on improving
academic achievement for students. The percentages of students meeting the
requirements for proficient and advanced on state testing in the two core subjects of
language arts and mathematics along with the corresponding percentages for both the
district and the state are outlined in Table 4.3 for comparison purposes. NSMS-1 has
typically performed below both district and state averages in language arts; however,
with a six percent increase in the number of students proficient and advanced in this last
year of testing, the site has matched district levels in 2008 performance data. NSMS-1
met all AYP criteria for the 2007-’08 school year with the exception of the number of
students proficient in the area of language arts.

TABLE 4.3
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS PROFICIENT AND ADVANCED ON CSTS AT NSMS-1

English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced
2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008
NSMS-1 21 23 24 31 33 37 39 45
District 24 26 28 31 25 27 29 33
California 40 42 43 46 38 40 40 43
Taken from www.cde.ca.gov and the School Accountability Report Card for NSMS-1

In contrast to language arts, NSMS-1 has consistently outperformed the district in
mathematics by anywhere from eight to twelve percent. The rate of growth has been such
that the site surpassed state averages in performance data for 2008.
198
In addition to the site’s overall performance on state accountability measures, it is
important to note the progress of the significant subgroup populations served by the
school: Hispanic, English Learners, and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (based on
Free/Reduced Lunch). The performance of these three subgroups on CSTs in language
arts and mathematics is outlined in Table 4.4.

TABLE 4.4
SUBGROUP DATA FOR NSMS-1: COMBINED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS SCORING
PROFICIENT AND ADVANCED ON CSTS FROM 2005-2008
English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced

2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008
Hispanic 22 22 24 30 33 37 38 56
F/RL 20 22 23 31 32 38 38 45
EL 6 7 7 9 21 23 23 24
Compiled from data on STAR reporting from www.cde.ca.gov

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
For the principal at NSMS-1, there is an overwhelming mindset to do whatever it
takes and that too much is not enough for the students served at the site. Although not
within the attendance area of NSMS-1, the principal lives within the community and is
dedicated to seeing the students of this district be successful. To that end, a leadership
team was developed approximately five years ago to change the direction of the school.
The principal met with all department chairs to discuss movement toward becoming
instructional leaders rather than just coordinating the logistics of the department for
199
supplies and materials. Chairs were given the opportunity to resign, but all agreed to the
new roles with a commitment to reforming the school environment to one of high
expectations and success for all students. Over a third of the staff has been hired over the
last year, and each member has chosen to be there with a firm commitment to the
direction the school is headed.
The leadership team discussed the best course of action knowing that not
everything can be addressed all at one time. The site was already scoring well in
comparison to the district and the state for mathematics, so the decision was made to
focus on language arts with a particular emphasis on writing. The first year focused on
answering the question: “What does this look like/mean for our students?” Teachers were
trained in the color-coding strategies developed by Jane Schaffer as the backbone for
teaching the writing process to students in addition to a focus on research writing within
each content area. Students were given agendas to keep track of assignments for both
reading and writing as part of the school-wide calendar, which also helped to build
responsibility and accountability in students for their learning. The goal of the principal
was to get resources into the hands of teachers and students so that they could focus on
student learning and not resource gathering. By year four, a writing handbook had been
developed and included in the student agenda, and all subject areas (including physical
education) assign research writing relevant to the particular content area that is also of
high interest to students.
The Accelerated Reader program was incorporated into the curriculum as a free
reading tool to encourage reading comprehension skills. The program had been in
200
existence, but it had not been implemented well. Consultants were brought in to help
teachers really understand the program and how it could be used to support student
learning in the area of reading comprehension. As a result, the school library at NSMS-1
circulated more books than all other high schools and middle schools within the district.
Classroom libraries were also instrumental in the push to get kids reading with a cultural
expectation at the site being that all student will have three things in their backpack at all
times: their agenda with the writing handbook, their Accelerated Reading book, and a
two-inch binder (or bigger) to organize student work. It is an expectation that “you have
to look like a student” at NSMS-1.
The Standards Plus program provided an opportunity for students to spend 15
minutes a day focusing on language arts and mathematics standards in a format similar to
state testing. The mini-lessons provide important information for teachers and feedback
for students on how well they are able to apply knowledge to multiple-choice items on
unseen content. Students monitor their progress on these targeted standards, and teachers
in mathematics are able to group students based on need everyday for instructional
purposes. Competitions in the auditorium have increased both the awareness and
accountability for students around state standards. State frameworks and standards are the
curriculum of the school with state-approved materials being the vehicle. In mathematics,
the staff developed materials based on the standards that have proven more effective than
some of the state-approved materials. The focus is on a constructivist process with an end
goal for the current year of getting 50% of students proficient in both language arts
and mathematics.
201
Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD) strategies are implemented in
classrooms to support the specific needs of English learners, and Thinking Maps are also
used school-wide to promote the development of higher order thinking skills. While there
is not an official math coach on site, teachers are able to observe one of the stronger math
teachers, a former engineer who came from a local university and requested a position at
NSMS-1, whenever necessary to help build their pedagogy and content knowledge. This
teacher is also able to provide in-class support for 6th grade teachers during his own prep
period. The “team” develops common lesson plans, so there is an underlying expectation
that all students are the responsibility of the entire team. Lesson plans are on display
everyday, all the time, so administrators can walk in and see the instructional objectives
and outcomes for the day.
While the district requires benchmark assessments every six-eight weeks, NSMS-
1 has developed common assessments for the site that are administered at roughly the
same time. The site is piloting a standards-based report card, so assessments determining
the student’s level of proficiency are the only marker for the standards-based report card.
A student is identified as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic, or Far Below Basic,
in-line with their progress toward mastery of state standards. The Performance
Assessment portion of the report card provides more of a scale for progress in learning
that cannot be measured by benchmark assessments. This includes citizenship, effort, and
other factors to give a much better picture of the overall student and what resources they
need to be successful.
202
Additional strategies include both math and language arts academies on Saturdays
to provide additional support for students based on assessment results. Spring and Winter
Intersession Academies are run to bolster learning in areas of weakness for students who
are struggling in language arts. A Bootcamp for 8th grade students is offered for the two
weeks preceding CST testing to review the multiple grade-levels of standards tested on
that particular exam. A four-hour, “jump start” session is offered to all incoming 6th
grade students where teachers set expectations for writing, introduce the Jane Schaffer
model, and discuss the importance of standards. Approximately 80% of incoming 6th
graders participated in this session before attending the site.
Professional development for the site is done primarily through teacher-leaders
based on identified needs of teachers from assessment data or the leadership team. The
principal has juggled monies to have a third Assistant Principal funded through various
sources, so each Assistant Principal functions as a lead for a given grade level. This has
created an approximation of a school-within-school model to lower the number of
students each adult is responsible for at an otherwise very large middle school. If students
are not improving, department chairs are moved out of those positions, so there is a
high level of accountability for ensuring that all staff is challenged to implement
best practices.

203
Corresponding Resource Use

TABLE 4.5
RESOURCE COMPARISON: NSMS-1 AND EVIDENCE BASED MODEL
FOR ADEQUATE SCHOOL RESOURCES
School Element
Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
NSMS-1 Current
Resource Status
NSMS-1 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
School Characteristics
Configuration Grades 6-8 Grades 6-8
School Size 450 1,750 4 x EBM
Core Class Size 25 33 Above the model
Free & Reduced
Price Lunch
Count
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)
1,669
Number of ELL
Students
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)
921
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 18 55.2 EBM would recommend 72
core teachers
2. Specialist/
Elective
Teachers
20% of Core
Teachers
7.9
(13% of Core Teachers)
EBM would recommend
14.4 specialist/elective
teachers
Total Teachers 21.6 59.11 86.4
3. Instructional
Coaches
1 per 200 Students 0 EBM would recommend
8.75 coaches
4. Tutors 1 per 100 At Risk
Students (Free &
Reduced Price
Lunch)
.1 Tutoring by ELD and
Title 1 Coordinators for
approximately 5% of their
day, each

$1,200 per child is provided
for Title 1 students in Far
Below Basic and Below
Basic through the district for
private tutoring as a
requirement of NCLB
EBM would recommend
16.7 tutors
5. Teachers for
ELL Students
1 per 100 ELL
Students
4 FTEs (These teachers
have already been counted
in the Core teachers)
EBM would recommend 9
ELL teachers

204
TABLE 4.5, CONTINUED
School Element
Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
NSMS-1 Current
Resource Status
NSMS-1 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
6. Extended Day 1 per 15 Eligible
Students (Staffing
based on 50% of
Free & Reduced
Price Lunch
Students)
.51 FTEs
3 teachers for 2 hours each
3x a week

Approximately $63,000 is
spent on the various
activities for students
connected to language arts
and mathematics that are
run on Saturdays and
during intersession
EBM would recommend
13.9 FTEs

7. Summer
School
1 per 15 Students
(Staffing based on
50% of Free and
Reduced Price
Lunch Students)
3 FTEs
1.3 Classified staff
(34 teachers & 14 classified
staff for 4.5 hrs per day for
24 days adding 9% of an
FTE
for each)
EBM would recommend
13.9 FTEs

8. Alternative
Schools
NA NA NA
9a. Learning and
Mildly
Disabled
Students
3 Teachers per 450
Students
8 FTEs for mild/moderate
(These teachers are
included in Core for portion
of the day they teach core
courses)
EBM would recommend
11.7 FTEs

9b. Severely
Disabled
Students
100% State
Reimbursement for
Top 1% Minus
Federal Funds
3 FTEs for 22 self-
contained special
education students
Fully funded as necessary
10. Services for
Gifted
Students
$25 per Student 0

EBM would recommend
$43,750
11. Career/
Technical
Education
.3 Weight per CTE
Student to Maintain
Low Class Sizes

$7000 per CTE
Teacher Contract
No CTE courses offered
6 hours of after school
computers are available
through a grant with a local
community college.

12. Substitutes 10 Days per
Teacher for
Professional
Development
$20,000 is budgeted for
subs above and beyond the
7.75 days per teacher
within the contract for PD
not requiring subs

10 days per teacher for
illness/personal necessity
requiring subs are
budgeted at $62,066
10 days X $105 X 59.11
teachers = $62,066

205
TABLE 4.5, CONTINUED
School Element
Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
NSMS-1 Current
Resource Status
NSMS-1 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 Guidance
Counselor per 250
Students plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position per 100
Free & Reduced
Price Lunch
Students
2 Guidance Counselors
1 IEP Coordinator
.4 Nurse
.7 Psychologist
2.9 Registrar/Attendance
.1 Parent Liaison
4.6 Custodians/
Groundskeeper
1.83 Security
EBM would recommend 7
Guidance Counselors &
16.7 FTEs for additional
Pupil Support
14. Non-
Instructional
Aides
2 per 400-500
Students
3.8 Aides The EBM would
recommend between 7 and
8.75 non-instructional aides
15. Instructional
Aides
0 0 The EBM would eliminate
these positions.
16. Librarians/
Media
Specialists
1 1 Library Media Tech
(Classified)
1 Computer Tech
(Classified)
Site is understaffed
compared to the EBM for
4 full-time, certificated
Librarians
17. Administrator 1 Principal plus
.5 Assistant
Principal
1 Principal
3 Assistant Principals
1 Gate Coordinator
(Stipend for existing FTE)
.95 ELD Coordinator
.95 Title 1 Coordinator
1 Principal & 1.9 APs, so
the site is overstaffed by 1.1
Administrators
18. Secretary 2 School Site
Secretaries
1 Office Manager
2 Secretaries
8 Secretaries
19. Professional
Development
10 Days Intensive
Professional
Development in
Summer Included in
Teacher Contract

Instructional
Coaches

Planning &
Prep time
In addition to the 10 days
provided for
illness/personal necessity,
4.75 days
are part of the teacher
contract for Professional
Development. In addition to
one period of daily prep
time, modified Wednesdays
provide time for planning,
collaboration, and
additional PD for the
equivalent of another
3 days.
$34,400 is budgeted from
Title 1 funds for PD in
addition to $40,000 for
program planning and
$20,000 for
travel/conferences
The model would
recommend coaches to
provide ongoing
professional development
at the site.
It would also recommend
more concentrated staff
development in the summer
as opposed to the modified
days and professional
development offered
throughout the year.

206
TABLE 4.5, CONTINUED
School Element
Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
NSMS-1 Current
Resource Status
NSMS-1 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
Dollar/Pupil Resources
20. Technology Calculation: 1
Computer per 3
Students.
Distribution: 1
Computer per 4
Students & 1:1 Ratio
for Administrators,
Teachers, &
Secretaries

$250/Pupil
524 computers with a ratio
of 1 per 3.2
EBM recommends 583
computers with 438 for
students and the remaining
allotted to staff. About 60
additional computers would
bring the site to the funding
level of the model.

$437,500 is recommended
for maintenance
21. Instructional
Materials

Formative
Assessments

Library
Materials

$120/Pupil

$25/Pupil

$20/Pupil
State-Approved Core
Content Materials and
Intervention Programs
Funding for materials and
assessments is in line with
recommendations from
the model.

$35,000 would be
recommended for Library
materials
22. Student
Activities
$200/Pupil After school athletics are
organized by a private
organization at no cost to
the site.
The EBM would
recommend $350,000

Lessons Learned
The Washington Learns: Successful Districts Study (Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates) identified eight basic elements found in each of the successful districts within
the study, which provide a useful framework for discussing the various elements within
the case studies here in identifying successful reform strategies for comparison purposes.
Each element is identified as a header for discussion around the school’s attempts to
implement similar strategies with the exception of Student Support since these strategies
207
are identified throughout. (For a complete copy of the study, see
www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/SuccessfulDistReport9-11-06Final.pdf.)

Educating All Students
First, the research from the Washington Study showed the importance of
educating all students. In changing the culture of the site to include high expectations for
all students and accountability in school-wide goals around reading and writing
expository text, the underlying message for NSMS-1 is that all students will achieve
proficiency on state standards. As part of the charge to department chairs at the beginning
of his tenure in 2003 to become instructional leaders, the principal asked each department
chair to sign off on the belief that all students at the site can and will learn or resign.
There were no resignations although some have been replaced since that initial meeting.
Marshalling the staff around this belief has in turn created a responsive environment to
students who are struggling. The school has shifted focus from simply teaching to
ensuring student learning. Systems have been developed to catch students who might
otherwise have fallen through the cracks, and NSMS-1 is continually seeking ways to
improve practice based on the evaluation of their progress in getting all students to
proficient on state assessments.

208
Using Data
The second element from the Washington Study is the importance of data in
driving instructional decisions. Again, the administration and leadership team used data
to decide on one major area of focus for the site. In addition to the district benchmarks,
site assessments were created to help flexibly group students by need to differentiate
instruction. For mathematics, students are actually moved on a daily basis to receive the
targeted instruction they need based on assessment results. Students monitor their own
progress, and data is used to hold adults at the site accountable for student growth.
Having students be responsible for tracking progress and seeing results on the standards-
based report card has helped students take ownership of their learning and identified
the specific areas of growth for each individual student to direct them to the
appropriate resources.

Rigorous Curriculum and Alignment with State Standards
The third element focuses on a rigorous curriculum and alignment with state
standards. The site uses state-approved texts for core programs and intervention support
as well as supplemental resources to ensure mastery of standards for all students.
Benchmark assessments are standards-aligned, and the Standards Plus program provides
targeted practice on standards while mimicking state assessments. Where students have
been unsuccessful with the text, teachers provide additional curriculum to master
standards. The primary responsibility of teachers is to teach the standards, and texts are
but one of many resources to accomplish this goal. Coupled with a watchful eye on
209
student progress to be sure instruction is meeting the needs of students, curriculum is
modified as necessary to ensure mastery of the standards. Giving students access to
library books has also played a pivotal role in improvement on language standards since
kids are reading more to support their development of both language and comprehension.

Effective Professional Development
The fourth finding from the Washington Successful Districts study centers on
supporting instructional improvement through effective professional development. The
principal is truly focused on capacity building at the site with an emphasis in developing
teacher-leaders from within. Consultants provided initial trainings for programs like Jane
Schaffer, Accelerated Reader, GLAD, and Thinking Maps; however, current professional
development is done in-house or through the district to maximize teacher efficacy and
implementation of strategies back at the site. While there are no official coaches,
arrangements are made for teacher-to-teacher observations when necessary, and there is a
true spirit of collaboration for both planning and teaching at the site. Teachers are held
accountable for implementing school-wide strategies, and there are high levels of buy-in
for the “way things are done” at the site.

Restructuring the Learning Environment
Restructuring the learning environment is the next element discussed in the
Washington study on successful districts. As mentioned previously, NSMS-1 has
210
structured itself into smaller chunks by focusing an Assistant Principal on each grade
level. The focus on school-wide strategies has helped reform the instructional practices
within the classroom, and the movement toward a standards-based report card has helped
shift the locus of attention to student learning and proficiency on standards. Language
arts and social studies are taught in blocks by multiple-subject credentialed teachers to
support improvement in both areas. Another interesting strategy for the site includes
banking instructional minutes before CST testing to ensure that students have as many
opportunities to learn as possible. The minutes are reduced after testing to accommodate
the issue of negotiated minutes within the contract.

Instructional Leadership and Professional Learning Communities
The remaining factors identified in the Washington study include Leadership and
Professional Learning Communities both of which have already been alluded to
throughout the preceding paragraphs. In addition to the onsite collaboration that happens
regularly, members of the mathematics department are part of an online PLC with math
teachers who have left the site to continue in the development and sharing of curriculum.
While the primary focus is on language arts and mathematics for state accountability,
there is a strong commitment to improving social studies and science in connection with
improving skills in the other core areas. This is primarily done through blocking courses,
but the teachers are provided opportunities to collaborate every week in either course-
alike or grade-level planning meetings.
211
The principal has created an environment where all adults take personal
responsibility for the learning of the students at NSMS-1. He is passionate in his belief
that the students can learn, and he holds all staff to high levels of accountability in a very
results-oriented environment. Teachers unwilling or unable to support student learning
are dealt with in a timely manner to ensure that student learning is not disrupted. The
district support has been minimal other than to say that the site is doing well in
comparison to the district and the state; however, the principal is continually pushing to
find better ways to meet the needs of the students to do whatever it takes. Empowering
the Assistant Principals to take responsibility for each of the grade levels and relying on
the instructional leadership team and department chairs to spearhead reform efforts
allows the principal the freedom to do what matters: get resources into the hands of the
teachers and students who need them while continually searching for the next piece of the
puzzle to make the school even better. In his own words, the site will not be “great” until
“100% of kids are proficient in language arts and mathematics”.

Future Implications or Additional Resources
With additional resources, the principal would lower class sizes to help increase
staff morale and provide additional funds for teachers working outside of the contract day
for supporting students and collaboration with colleagues. This would include contractual
authority to increase the base salary to require additional time for professional
development. He would also like to have effective onsite coaches for mathematics and
literacy who could facilitate some of the tough conversations around instructional
212
practice at the site to find even better ways to support high levels of student achievement
for all students. Guidance from the district or research around other successful practices
would help support the already innovative thinking of the principal in determining what
additional strategies or support systems are necessary to reach the goal of high levels of
achievement for all students at the site.
213
Non-SAIT Middle School - 2
A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use

School Background and Data
Non-SAIT Middle School - 2 (NSMS-2) is part of the largest district within the
geographic region it serves with over 25,000 students pre-K – 12th grade. This urban
district in southern California encompasses over eleven square miles with 20 elementary
schools, four K-8 schools, six middle schools, four comprehensive high schools, and one
alternative high school in addition to several programs meeting the special needs of other
targeted student populations. An additional 30,000 students are serviced through
programs supporting adult education.
Demographically speaking, the students within the district and at the NSMS-2 site
are described in Table 5.1.

TABLE 5.1
2007 – 2008 SITE REPORT FOR NSMS-2
District NSMS-2
Free and Reduced Lunch 58% 80%
English Learners 27% 42%
Hispanic 77% 90%
Taken from 2007 – 2008 Ed-Data Site Report for NSMS-2 (www.ed-data.k-12.ca.us)

The district has approximately 350 special education students in grades seven and eight
with 17% attending NSMS-2. Special needs students in self-contained classrooms
account for 4% of the special education population at NSMS-2 while overall student
enrollment sits just shy of 400. It is important to note that the school was a 6-8 middle
214
school up until the 2006-’07 school year. As part of the overall plan to improve the
school, the sixth grade was removed from the site, which reduced the population by
approximately a third. This helps to explain some of the differences in achievement
between the two years prior and the two years after a new administration was brought on
board and the sixth grade was eliminated. Both the current Principal and Assistant
Principal were moved to this struggling middle school at that two year mark with the goal
of turning the school around. Given the comparison to SAIT schools, which receive
funding and have a two-year time period to improve the school or fall into sanctions,
NSMS-2 provides a perfect counterpart to SAIT Middle School 2 (SMS-2). SMS-2 was
not succeeding for the two years prior to falling into sanctions and has just completed its
second year of reform using the SAIT model. NSMS-2 was also struggling with only
21% of the schools in the district in Program Improvement and NSMS-2 as a Year 5
Program Improvement site. A comparison of the two sites will be provided in Chapter 5,
but this site was selected for its similarities to SMS-2 including size, similar school
ranking, and length of time in concentrated efforts for school reform.
The school has been making tremendous strides academically as assessed through
the state accountability system and shown in Table 5.2. While meeting both criteria for
participation rate and API growth under AYP, NSMS-2 has not met the proficiency
targets outlined under AYP for language arts and mathematics nor has the district as a
whole. The subgroup score that consistently underperformed AYP targets was the
English learner population.

215
TABLE 5.2
API RANKINGS AND SUBGROUP GROWTH AT NSMS-2
API School Results
NSMS-2 2005 2006 2007 2008
Statewide API Rank 3 3 3 3
Similar Schools Rank 7 6 7 9

Subgroups Actual API Change
All students 7 15 24 23
Hispanic 7 12 28 27
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
-1 17 18 33
English Learners Data not
available
-5 23 30
Taken from www.cde.ca.gov

While increasing the school’s overall API in both 2005 and 2006, two of the three major
subgroups were not equally improving. With implementation of a new vision under the
new leadership in 2007, subgroup populations began to improve at a rate commensurate
with overall school performance in 2007 and surpassed school growth in 2008 as the
achievement gap has started to close at NSMS-2.
CST data show further evidence that the school is headed in the right direction.
The site is making consistent, incremental gains although not in line with the ever-
increasing proficiency levels required under NCLB. The site met all API targets but is
below the required levels of proficiency in language arts and mathematics under AYP.
NSMS-2 has increased from 23% to 35% of students proficient or above in language arts
and had experienced eight percent more students proficient or above in mathematics until
216
the drop in 2008 with only 20% of students currently mastering standards on state
accountability measures as outlined in Table 5.3.

TABLE 5.3
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT ON CSTS FOR
LANGUAGE ARTS AND MATHEMATICS AT NSMS-2 FROM 2005-2008
English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced

2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008
NSMS-2 23 23 29 35 20 27 28 20
District 36 40 41 45 37 40 39 41
California 40 42 43 46 38 40 40 43
Taken from www.cde.ca.gov

With the exception of math scores in 2008, NSMS-2 demonstrated greater growth
in students reaching mastery of standards than either the district or state averages over the
last two years. There was no change in the number of students proficient between the
previous two years for language arts with a six percent increase for 2007 and another six
percent for 2008. Both the district and the state only increased by one percent for 2007
with a four percent increase for the district in 2008 and a three percent increase for the
state. While both the district and state increased by 2-3% in mathematics for the 2008
year, prior growth from 2005-2007 equaled only two percent for all three years. In that
same time, NSMS-2 increased the number of students proficient by eight percent only to
lose that growth in 2008 with only have the number of students proficient or above in
comparison to the district and state.
217
In addition to the site’s overall performance on state accountability measures, it is
important to note the progress of the three largest subgroup populations served by the
school: Hispanic, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (based on Free and Reduced
Lunch), and English learners. The performance of these three subgroups is outlined in
Table 5.4. Again, the overall trend for the three groups is steady growth with more
significant gains in the last two years with the exception of math scores for the Hispanic
and Free/Reduced Lunch subgroups. Again, the data from 2005 and 2006 include a sixth
grade that was removed from the site starting with the 2006-’07 school year.

TABLE 5.4
SUBGROUP DATA FOR NSMS-2: COMBINED PERCENT OF STUDENTS SCORING
PROFICIENT AND ADVANCED ON CSTS FROM 2005-2008
English-Language Arts
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced
Mathematics
Percentage of Students Proficient
and Advanced

2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008
Hispanic 21 22 29 34 19 25 27 20
F/RL 21 22 27 34 19 26 26 20
EL 6 4 6 13 8 10 5 12
Compiled from data on STAR reporting from www.cde.ca.gov

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
With the removal of the sixth grade and new leadership in place, NSMS-2 began
the process of restructuring and organizing the school around student success. After
examining the data from a needs assessment for the site, a three-year plan was developed
to improve the overall performance of the school as part of the CPM process for the state.
218
It was clear to the Principal and Leadership Team that the adults on campus needed to be
empowered to help students attain all that they were capable of. The school motto
became “Capable Students; Powerful Adults” with a commitment to becoming “a school
where all children achieve at high levels” as outlined in the school vision. The mission
states “every child [will] reach grade level standards while developing personal
responsibility”. To that end, the first year of the plan focused heavily on discipline and
behavioral issues since the leadership felt the school climate was unacceptable. On
average, there were 30-50 students being referred to the office daily with an additional 50
students tardy to class out of 400 kids although there were very few expulsions. Dress
code policies were not being enforced, and discipline was confrontive with referral to the
office almost inevitable.
Staff began to analyze behavior on a period-by-period basis to determine the most
common periods, contexts, and preceding events that seemed to drive misbehavior on the
part of students. Behavior expectations were established for both teachers and students
while staff was trained in Positive Behavioral Intervention Supports (PBIS) to create a
paradigm shift from discipline to “teaching moments” around behavior issues while
training teachers in positive behavior management skills. Leadership met with parents
and students to explain the importance of the dress code and present the message loud
and clear that noncompliance was no longer an option. Rick Morris was brought in to
provide professional development around engagement strategies in the classroom to curb
misbehavior in the classroom and support bell-to-bell instruction, which was also lacking.
219
A six-week tracking sheet was developed to monitor student progress around
“Attendance, Attitude, and Achievement”. Coupled with data from common assessments
and CSTs, every decision was driven by the data. Teachers met weekly in Professional
Learning Communities to reflect, plan, and question their practice based on the data. The
idea was to create a system where no child could fall through the cracks. For this current
year, there have only been 20 referrals over the first four months of school in comparison
to the 30-50 daily referrals from two years ago. Suspensions have been reduced by 18%
with only 12 students accounting for the bulk of suspendable offenses. Two attendance
goals were set: increase overall attendance to 97% and reduce the number of tardies by
10%. In the 2007-2008 school year, attendance reached 96.5% and tardies declined by an
overwhelming 47%, which was attributed to the six-week tracking system including
teacher phone calls to the actual students when absent. This idea of “shepherding”
students through Homeroom by monitoring attendance, tardies, and grades has created a
safety net where every child is accounted for on a tracking sheet.
While much of this work continued into the second year of the overall plan, the
Leadership Team was then able to focus on the instructional climate since behavioral
issues were under control. The instructional delivery model at the site consisted of
homework review and grading, short mini-lesson, and assignment of the next
independent practice to be started in class and finished at home. There was no bell-to-bell
instruction. With the mindset of “Capable Students; Powerful Adults”, the leadership
needed to help teachers see their role as a change agent for student success. Dataworks
was brought in to provide professional development and coaching around explicit, direct
220
instruction while EdTrust research on closing the achievement gap helped solidify the
personal responsibility and “moral obligation” individual teachers had to believe in the
capacity for student learning and support students in attaining high standards. While the
staff found the Dataworks model constricting, they recognized in the data that it was
good for kids to teach bell-to-bell. So, Dennis Parker was hired to operationalize the nine
instructional strategies Marzano outlines in Classroom Instruction that Works. This
helped to support instruction in the classroom as a variation on the work done with
Dataworks. Teachers felt more comfortable with this, so they were willing to implement
the strategies consistently. Another outside consultant helped facilitate the process of
infusing elements of the various professional development opportunities into a model that
teachers could buy into. Lastly, a writing program, My Access, was added to the model,
and teachers were trained on and provided coaching for the program to help build
proficiency in writing, which has resulted in over 60% of students testing proficient on
the 7th grade writing assessment for the state.
It is important to note that teachers were trained in both shared decision-making
and professional learning communities during the first year of the plan to help recognize
the individual strengths of each team member as leaders and to create an effective
environment for analyzing the data that drives all of the decision-making at the site. This
helped lay the foundation for the instructional changes that began to take root through the
first two years of the plan. Personal responsibility for students in meeting goals and for
teachers in evaluating effectiveness was key to the success in both behavioral and
academic improvement. Data chats are done with students for every benchmark
221
assessment. Teachers conference with students individually to discuss areas of weakness
and plan for intervention and support. Students monitor their own progress and have clear
goals for improvement with high expectations. Administration meets with PLC teams
during common prep times during the day to discuss data. Results are posted on school
walls with the expectation that all students will attain 80% or better.
Additional restructuring strategies included the hiring of multiple-subject
credentialed teachers to provide blocked course offerings, the early release day for
collaborative time, coaching, hiring an extra guidance counselor, keeping the 7th and 8th
grade students on separate schedules to minimize distractions and potential conflict
between the grade levels while meeting their unique needs, providing support classes in
language arts and mathematics for students who need additional support in these core
areas, offering an AVID program, and aligning electives to student need. Previously,
students could enroll in whatever elective they desired, but the master schedule was
adjusted to allow access to electives like band before school for students needing a
parallel core class to support learning in language art or mathematics for example.
The “800 Club” was developed as a network of five schools within the district all
working toward improved student achievement and the goal of 800 on the API. This
network allowed the sites to harness resources to help provide some of the
aforementioned professional development through cost sharing and working with the
district to support the sites with additional resources not needed by other schools within
the district. All five schools within the network met their API growth targets for the first
222
time in the 2007-‘08 school year, which has reinforced the efficacy within the sites and
provided leverage for additional resources from the district.
Parent involvement has been a key strategy in the focus on empowering adults to
support student learning. A PTA was chartered and classes are provided weekly for
parents. Every child is given a laptop and internet access in the home through the district,
so parents are required to attend technology classes. In addition to parent nights on the
campus, the Parent Institute for Quality Education trains parents as does the afterschool
ICES program. A number of student recognition opportunities and activities for students
such as sports events provide additional connections for both students and parents to
become actively involved in the academic and social climate of the overall school culture.
A few additional strategies to target specific groups of students who need
intervention support are also noteworthy in connecting back to the theme of personal
responsibility. The parallel support classes for struggling students in language arts and
mathematics have already been mentioned, but all students scoring at the Basic level on
CSTs are pulled from their PE classes once a week for 52 minutes to work on goal
setting, discuss what it means to be proficient, and to get small group support for
academic improvement. All Far Below Basic and Below Basic students are required to
attend home tutoring through private organizations using a $1,000 stipend provided
through the district. These are strategies targeting specific groups of students in addition
to the more standard IEP, Student Study Teams (SSTs), Student Attendance Review
Board (SARB), and so forth. Six or seven teachers also provide tutoring for English
learner students before and after school in addition to Saturdays as necessary as part of
223
their own personal commitment to ensuring the success of all students without any
additional pay. A Saturday Institute specifically for English learners is also done in the
spring to provide additional support. AVID tutors help with small group instruction and
support for students as well.
Overall, the administration is committed to organizing the day to create a safety
net so as not to lose kids. While the district requires a focus on standards and being both
results-oriented and data-driven, the key to the site’s success has been empowering
teachers to see themselves as leaders and change agents through analyzing data and
reflecting on practice. Common assessments and collaboration were the non-negotiables
for the site, but creating an environment conducive to student learning and figuring out
how to better harness the resources at this site were left to NSMS-2 to figure out. While
the API provides some external accountability, the adults on site have committed
themselves to beating poverty within the community they serve and helping students and
parents alike understand the importance of education in creating a better way of life. With
the changes to discipline and instructional strategies implemented in year one and two of
the plan, the ongoing focus for the current year is instructional rigor with a focus on
complexity, depth, and breadth.

Corresponding Resource Use
The following table compares actual resource allocations at NSMS-2 with the
recommended allocations under the Evidence-Based model.

224
TABLE 5.5
RESOURCE COMPARISON: NSMS-2 AND EVIDENCE BASED MODEL FOR
ADEQUATE SCHOOL RESOURCES
School Element
Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
NSMS-2 Current
Resource Status
NSMS-2 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
School Characteristics
Configuration Grades 6-8 Grades 7-8
School Size 450 400 .89 of EBM
Core Class Size 25 27.8
Free & Reduced
Price Lunch Count
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)
247
Number of ELL
Students
(used below as a
calculator for school
resourcing)
112
Personnel Resources
1. Core Teachers 18 12
(includes Sp. Ed and El
teachers who teach core
courses
16.2
2. Specialist/
Elective
Teachers
20% of Core
Teachers
33% of Core
(4 teachers)
3.2
Total Teachers 21.6 16 19.4
3. Instructional
Coaches
1 per 200 Students 0
*provided through
consultants and district
personnel
2
4. Tutors 1 per 100 At Risk
Students (Free &
Reduced Price
Lunch)
0
*2 non certificated AVID
tutors for 4 hrs each a
week and approximately
120 FBB and BB students
receive $1000 for
mandatory home tutoring
2.5

5. Teachers for
ELL Students
1 per 100 ELL
Students
0
*2.5 teachers provide
support for ELs as part of
their core courses, so
these teachers are counted
under core
1.12

225
TABLE 5.5, CONTINUED
School Element
Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
NSMS-2 Current
Resource Status
NSMS-2 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
6. Extended Day 1 per 15 Eligible
Students (Staffing
based on 50% of
Free & Reduced
Price Lunch
Students)

111 students participate in
the ICES after school
program funded through
the state, but no site
personnel are used.
2.1 FTEs recommended by
the EBM
7. Summer
School
1 per 15 Students
(Staffing based on
50% of Free and
Reduced Price Lunch
Students)
.7 Teachers
.2 Office Aid
.1 Noon Duty Aids (2 for 1
hr each
per day)
2.1 FTEs recommended by
the EBM
8. Alternative
Schools
NA NA NA
9a. Learning- and
Mildly
Disabled
Students
3 Teachers per 450
Students
1 Teacher for 44 students
in addition to 2 Teachers
supporting RSP in
mainstream courses
.3 per 45 students
9b. Severely
Disabled
Students
100% State
Reimbursement for
Top 1% Minus
Federal Funds
16 self contained students
with 1 teacher
Fully funded as necessary
10. Services for
Gifted
Students
$25 per Student $3,000 (currently frozen)
Approx. 100 students
$2500
11. Career/
Technical
Education
.3 Weight per CTE
Student to Maintain
Low Class Sizes

$7000 per CTE
Teacher Contract
3 sections of computers
with one section of STEM
(Science, Technology,
Engineering, and
Mathematics elective)
.75 FTE
An additional $5250 in
salary for Career Technical
Ed. FTEs
12. Substitutes 10 Days per Teacher
for Professional
Development
1 buyback day (no subs
required-reduced from 3 in
previous years) plus
14,000 for subs and
stipends in addition to 8
hours monthly at PLC and
weekly mtgs required by
contract
$17,215
(15.65 teachers for 10
days at a sub rate of $110
per day)

226
TABLE 5.5, CONTINUED
School Element
Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
NSMS-2 Current
Resource Status
NSMS-2 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
13. Pupil Support
Staff
1 Guidance
Counselor per 250
Students plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position per 100 Free
& Reduced Price
Lunch Students
2 Guidance Counselors
plus .2 Nurse
.3 Psychologist
.2 Speech for a total of .7
in Pupil
Support Staff
*additional counseling
services are provided 2x
weekly (.4FTE) through
onsite services paid by
Medical
1.6 Guidance Counselors
and 2.5 Pupil Support Staff
14. Non-
Instructional
Aides
2 per 400-500
Students
.75 Special Ed (self-
contained)
.75 Special Ed (Inclusion
Aid)
2 recommended so the site
is underfunded by .5
15. Instructional
Aides
0 0 0
16. Librarians/
Media
Specialists
1 .71 Library Media
Specialist (classified)
.9 recommended so site is
underfunded by .19
17. Administrator 1 Principal plus
.5 Assistant Principal
1 Principal & 1 Assistant
Principal
1 Principal plus
.45 Assistant Principal
Site is over EBM
18. Secretary 2 School Site
Secretaries
1 Secretary
2.5 Clerical Staff
1.78 Secretaries
19. Professional
Development
10 Days Intensive
Professional
Development in
Summer Included in
Teacher Contract

Instructional Coaches

Planning & Prep time
8 hours per month in PLC
time on minimum day and
weekly staff meeting on PD
for 10 days total plus one
additional buyback day
with funds budgeted for
each teacher to receive 8
more released days as
necessary. Each PLC also
has a common prep time
within the day above and
beyond the PLC meeting
time.
$50,200 was spent on PD
with district coaches
and consultants.

The model would
recommend instructional
coaches at the site for
more integrated, daily
support. This need is
currently met through
district coaches at about 8
hrs per month with
additional coaching from
consultants and the
administrative team, but
not at the level funded
under the model.

227
TABLE 5.5, CONTINUED
School Element
Evidence Based
Model Prototypical
Middle Schools
NSMS-2 Current
Resource Status
NSMS-2 – EBM
Comparison & EBM
Resource Suggestions
Dollar/Pupil Resources
20. Technology Calculation: 1
Computer per 3
Students.
Distribution: 1
Computer per 4
Students & 1:1 Ratio
for Administrators,
Teachers, &
Secretaries

$250/Pupil
Each student is given a
laptop through the district
as well as access to the
internet from home. Onsite
resources including 90
computers on carts and an
additional 60 desktop
computers. All teachers
have LCD projectors with 8
ELMOs, 8 Smart Boards,
and 1 Promethean Board
133 computers with 100
available for students with
33 for staff.

$100,000 for maintenance
and replacement

Site is funded above
the EBM.
21. Instructional
Materials

Formative
Assessments

Library
Materials
$120/Pupil

$25/Pupil

$20/Pupil
State-Approved Core
Content Materials &
Intervention Programs

School & Library
Improvement Program
Block Grant-$10,282
Funding for materials and
assessments is in line with
recommendations from
the model.

Library block grant
provides $27 per pupil
22. Student
Activities
$200/Pupil After school athletics-6
events involving 6 teachers
with a $1200 stipend for
$7200. ASB, STEM,
CHAMPS, Journalism, etc.
are part of the school day
as electives or pull-out
programs using 1 FTE or
$57,000 (average
teacher salary)
$80,000 for student
activities would require an
increase of approximately
$16,000

Lessons Learned
The Washington Learns: Successful Districts Study (Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates, 2006) identified eight basic elements found in each of the successful districts
within the study, which provide a useful framework for discussing the various elements
within the case studies here in identifying successful reform strategies for comparison
purposes. Each element is identified as a header for discussion around the school’s
228
attempts to implement similar strategies with the exception of Student Support since
these strategies are identified throughout. (For a complete copy of the study, see
www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/SuccessfulDistReport9-11-06Final.pdf.)

Educating All Students
First, the research from the Washington Study showed the importance of
educating all students. This is clearly evident in both the school motto and vision at
NSMS-2: “Capable Students; Powerful Adults” and “committed to becoming a school
where all children achieve at high levels”. The school mission echoes this sentiment as
well in ensuring “each and every child reach grade level standards while developing
personal responsibility”. Both the Principal and Assistant Principal articulated the “moral
obligation to the community [they] serve” to overcome poverty and not allow any child to
“fall through the changed the school motto to reflect the importance of high expectations
and supporting all students in being successful to “Success is the only option”. Students
are tracked in terms of both behavior and academics to ensure appropriate services are
provided and that every kid is connected to an adult for “shepherding”. It is the personal
responsibility of both students and staff to improve student learning.

Using Data
The second element from the Washington Study is the importance of data in
driving instructional decisions. One of the first comments the principal made during the
229
interview was that “data drives everything we do”. From the tracking sheets evaluated
every six weeks for attendance, academics, and attitude to common assessments and data
chats with students, NSMS-2 is results-oriented with measureable, identified goals that
all staff and students are aware of and striving for on a daily basis. Professional Learning
Communities provide a vehicle for staff to analyze data, compare samples of student
work, and problem-solve to differentiate instruction based on the individual needs
of students.

Rigorous Curriculum and Alignment with State Standards
The third element focuses on a rigorous curriculum and alignment with state
standards. The site uses state-approved texts for core programs and intervention support
as well as supplemental resources to ensure mastery of standards for all students.
Benchmark assessments are standards-aligned and results are posted on data-walls
throughout the school with each child striving for 80% accuracy. Accountability is public
but not punitive with the school focus on personal responsibility for students doing their
best and for teachers adjusting to meet the needs when students are unsuccessful. High
expectations include all subgroups with closing the achievement gap a major priority for
the staff.

230
Effective Professional Development
The fourth finding from the Washington Successful Districts study centers on
supporting instructional improvement through effective professional development. After
an initial needs assessment was conducted by the new leadership at the site two years
ago, a three-year plan was developed based on the needs of both staff and students. The
focus for the first year was discipline, the second year instruction, and this current year
rigor, depth, and complexity in instruction. Professional development was planned
accordingly with experts brought into the site to facilitate learning while providing
coaching and follow-up throughout the implementation phase. Undergirding the topical
learning for the year was training in Professional Learning Communities, leadership, and
data analysis to support the ongoing cycle of learning for staff. As the principal put it:
“we determine a need from the data and then provide the professional development to
address the need”.

Restructuring the Learning Environment
Restructuring the learning environment is the next element discussed in the
Washington study on successful districts. In addition to bringing in new leadership, the
6th grade was eliminated to reduce the overall school size and focus efforts on the
remaining two grade levels. Separate schedules were created to further narrow the focus
of teachers and support staff in working predominantly with a single grade of students.
Multiple subject teachers were hired to block classes and a minimum day was created to
allow for PLC time once a week. A second guidance counselor was hired to help support
231
the needs of students, and electives were aligned to student need. For example, students
needing additional support in language arts and mathematics take a parallel course for
support with opportunities for other electives, such as band and athletics, available before
and after school so all students can participate.
This restructuring of the master schedule also provides the time necessary for
struggling students to receive extended learning opportunities, another key factor in
successful districts according to the Washington study. As mentioned above, students
who need additional support for language arts and mathematics are scheduled into
parallel classes to provide additional time in these two core areas. Students scoring Basic
on CSTs are pulled out of PE once a week to receive additional support on what it means
to be proficient, test-taking strategies, personal accountability, study skills, and so forth.
Students involved in the AVID program have an elective designed to support academic
progress in core classes as well as provide information on colleges and strategies for
academic success. Blocking core content areas like math and science with multiple-
subject teachers allows for integration of learning as well as differentiation over the
course of the block to increase small group learning and more one-on-one support from
the classroom teacher.

Instructional Leadership and Professional Learning Communities
The remaining factors identified in the Washington include Leadership and
Professional Learning Communities both of which have already been alluded to
throughout the preceding paragraphs. The principal and assistant principal were brought
232
to this site two years ago to “make something happen” in the words of the principal.
NSMS-2 consistently met its API growth without making progress on closing the
achievement gap or meeting AYP targets. With proven track records in increasing student
performance elsewhere, these seasoned administrators paved the way for the teachers to
truly implement instructional strategies that made and continue to make a difference in
the learning environment for students at the site. Both expressed the importance of
creating the system and the schedule to help support teachers in the real work of teaching
kids. They created a leadership team, identified and built on the strengths of teachers, and
provided professional development where teachers were struggling to create a sense of
efficacy in teachers that has turned the school around. Professional Learning
Communities became the vehicle for professional development including research on
closing the achievement gap, Marzano’s Nine Instructional Strategies that Work, Direct
Instruction and others, all designed to support the mission of proficiency on state
standards and personal responsibility in making it happen. Coupled with efforts to
involve parents and students in the learning process, NSMS-2 is well on its way to
meeting the goal of becoming an 800 school on the API.
While not a part of the aforementioned study, student recognition is an important
part of the overall program at NSMS-2 in helping to motivate and sustain both staff and
students. There are a number of recognition programs for academics and athletics
including CST awards, sports banquets, Viking for Valor, Renaissance, noon time
competitions, scholarship awards, Friday Fun, ASB, CHAMPS, Mathapalooza, Word
Mania, Robotics, Journalism, Band, AVID, and so forth.
233
Future Implications or Additional Resources
When asked what additional resources would be needed to continue and/or
expand reform efforts at NSMS-2, the principal was very clear: none. There is a
commitment from both the leadership and staff to the success of all students regardless of
the resources available. The principal wants to continue the efforts that are currently
underway with the success already demonstrated, so any additional resources or funding
might support those efforts, but there is no feeling that anything else is needed for the site
to ultimately reach its goal of success for all students. The administration is committed to
integrating resources from the district and other sites for more expensive elements
connected to professional development, but the structures are in place to allow teachers to
develop professionally in PLCs and to provide the necessary support systems to “catch all
kids” regardless of their varied needs.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study explored resource allocation patterns at California middle schools in comparison to the Evidence-Based Model. Three schools completing the second year of state sanctions (SAIT) were selected to determine how schools under watch allocate resources. The remaining two were selected from the Similar Schools List from the state to create matched pairs.

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

Resource allocation practices in start-up charter schools in relation to identified school reform strategies

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator McDonald, Sheryl Lyn (author)

Core Title Resource allocation practices in relation to identified school reform strategies

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/28/2009

Defense Date 03/02/2009

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

Tag evidence-based model,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation,SAIT,school finance,school reform

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email sherimcdonald@earthlink.net,smcdonald@ocde.us

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2142

Unique identifier UC1187675

Identifier etd-McDonald-2715 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-223676 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2142 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-McDonald-2715.pdf

Dmrecord 223676

Document Type Dissertation

Rights McDonald, Sheryl Lyn

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