University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A gap analysis inquiry project on district-level reform implementation for Rowland Unified School District

(USC Thesis Other)

A gap analysis inquiry project on district-level reform implementation for Rowland Unified School District

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A GAP ANALYSIS INQUIRY PROJECT ON DISTRICT-LEVEL REFORM
IMPLEMENTATION FOR ROWLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
by
Gilda Dixon

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Gilda Dixon
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to all the educators who work tirelessly to make a
difference in children‘s lives through their work and who continue to put forth their very
best day in and day out despite increasing challenges and tumultuous times. I applaud
you.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and thank my husband and children who have made
the sacrifices necessary to allow me to complete this work and my parents for instilling in
me a passion for learning. Without their support none of this would have been possible. I
also want to thank all those patient people in my life who were willing to allow me the
flexibility to devote the time needed to this project. I also thank both of my professors
and third Chair (Dr. Rueda and Dr. Marsh and Dr. Escalante) for all their guidance and
work to support me in this accomplishment and lastly, my cohort members and extended
family that were always willing provide encouragement, to lend an ear and wipe away
occasional tears.
iv
LIST OF TABLES

Table H-1: Comprehensive School Reform Solutions Chart Tier I Solutions ... 103

Table H-2: Comprehensive School Reform Solutions Chart Tier II
Solutions ....................................................................................... 104

Table H-3: Comprehensive School Reform Solutions Chart Tier II
Solutions ....................................................................................... 105
v
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure A-1: RUSD Strategic Plan Solutions Graphic ........................................ 75

Figure A-2: Ball Foundation Partnership Graphic ............................................. 76

Figure B-1: Title Slide ...................................................................................... 77

Figure B-2: Introduction Slide .......................................................................... 77

Figure B-3: RUSD Demographics..................................................................... 78

Figure B-4: RUSD Description ......................................................................... 78

Figure B-5: Background ................................................................................... 79

Figure B-6: Problem ......................................................................................... 79

Figure B-7: Significance of Study ..................................................................... 80

Figure B-8: Overview of Literature Review ...................................................... 80

Figure B-9: Overview of Literature Review 1 ................................................... 81

Figure B-10: Overview of Literature Review 2 .................................................. 81

Figure B-11: Overview of Literature Review 3 .................................................. 82

Figure B-12: Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis Framework ......................... 82

Figure B-13: Proposal ........................................................................................ 83

Figure B-14: Methodology-Qualitative Approach .............................................. 83

vi
Figure B-15: Collaborative Goal ........................................................................ 84

Figure I-1: Title Slide ..................................................................................... 106

Figure I-2: Introduction Slide.......................................................................... 106

Figure I-3: Gap Analysis Process .................................................................... 107

Figure I-4: Inquiry Methods ............................................................................ 107

Figure I-5: Project Timeline ............................................................................ 108

Figure I-6: Possible Gaps Identified by all Three Teams ................................. 108

Figure I-7: Root Causes of Gaps ..................................................................... 109

Figure I-8: Comprehensive School Reform Team ........................................... 109

Figure I-9: Positive Findings ........................................................................... 110

Figure I-10: Possible Gaps .............................................................................. 110

Figure I-11: Current RUSD Reform Initiatives................................................ 111

Figure I-12: Alignment of Organizational Goal Structures: Considerations ..... 111

Figure I-13: Recommendations ....................................................................... 112

Figure I-14: Goal Alignment ........................................................................... 112

Figure I-15: Questions and Discussion ............................................................ 113

Figure I-16: High School Team ...................................................................... 113

vii
Figure I-17: Positive Findings at the High Schools.......................................... 114

Figure I-18: Possible Gaps Affecting the High Schools ................................... 114

Figure I-19: Goals – Alignment ...................................................................... 115

Figure I-20: Goals – Perspective Building....................................................... 115

Figure I-21: Goals – Celebrate Accomplishments ........................................... 116

Figure I-22: Resources .................................................................................... 116

Figure I-23: Implementation and Accountability ............................................. 117

Figure I-24: Cultural Settings.......................................................................... 117

Figure I-25: Questions and Discussion ............................................................ 118

Figure I-26: Hispanic English Language Learner Team .................................. 118

Figure I-27: Positive Findings for ELs ............................................................ 119

Figure I-28: Possible Gaps .............................................................................. 119

Figure I-29: Process of Change ....................................................................... 120

Figure I-30: District Support ........................................................................... 120

Figure I-31: Cultural Proficiency .................................................................... 121

Figure I-32: Recommendations ....................................................................... 121

Figure I-33: Questions and Discussion ............................................................ 122

viii
Figure I-34: Sustainability .............................................................................. 122

Figure I-35: Questions and Discussion ............................................................ 123

Figure I-36: Special Thanks ............................................................................ 123

Figure J-1: District-Level Reform Implementation Title Slide......................... 124

Figure J-2: Introduction Slide ......................................................................... 124

Figure J-3: Introduction to the Project ............................................................. 125

Figure J-4: The Rowland Unified School District Demographics .................... 125

Figure J-5: Rowland Unified School District Description ................................ 126

Figure J-6: Background .................................................................................. 126

Figure J-7: Problem ........................................................................................ 127

Figure J-8: Significance of Study .................................................................... 127

Figure J-9: Overview of Literature Review 1 .................................................. 128

Figure J-10: Overview of Literature Review 2 ................................................ 128

Figure J-11: Overview of Literature Review 3 ................................................ 129

Figure J-12: Overview of Literature Review 4 ................................................ 129

Figure J-13: Overview of Literature Review 5 ................................................ 130

Figure J-14: Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis Framework........................ 130

ix
Figure J-15: Inquiry Process –Overview 1 ...................................................... 131

Figure J-16: Inquiry Process – Overview 2 ..................................................... 131

Figure J-17: Inquiry Process – Focus .............................................................. 132

Figure J-18: Inquiry Method ........................................................................... 132

Figure J-19: Collaborative Goal ...................................................................... 133

Figure J-20: Chapter Two Title Slide .............................................................. 133

Figure J-21: What We Know .......................................................................... 134

Figure J-22: CSR Effectiveness – A Peek Through the Literature ................... 134

Figure J-23: CSR Effectiveness – Factors for Effectiveness ............................ 135

Figure J-24: Findings ...................................................................................... 135

Figure J-25: Findings II .................................................................................. 136

Figure J-26: Findings III ................................................................................. 136

Figure J-27: Findings IV ................................................................................. 137

Figure J-28: Findings V .................................................................................. 137

Figure J-29: Findings VI ................................................................................. 138

Figure J-30: Chapter Three Title Slide ............................................................ 138

Figure J-31: Recommendations – What We Know .......................................... 139

x
Figure J-32: Recommendations – What We Know .......................................... 139

Figure J-33: Recommendations – What We Know .......................................... 140

Figure J-34: Recommendations – Overall Focus ............................................. 140

Figure J-35: Recommendations – Goal Alignment .......................................... 141

Figure J-36: Recommendations – Performance Goals ..................................... 141

Figure J-37: Recommendations – Clearly Define ―Non-negotiables‖ .............. 142

Figure J-38: Conclusion .................................................................................. 142

xi
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this inquiry project was to assist Rowland Unified School District
in a collaborative effort in evaluating the current district level reform strategies. Through
the use of the Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis Model, a review of the
comprehensive school reform literature and inquiry methods, the team of researchers
investigated possible gaps in implementation of the district level reform, uncovering
emergent themes related to knowledge/skills, motivation and organizational culture.
Findings were presented to the District personnel for input. Finally, research-evidenced
proposed solutions addressing findings were recommended to the District executive
cabinet for consideration.

xii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION .................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................ iii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. v
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE.................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ......................................................................... 2
Importance of the Problem .......................................................................... 7
Significance of the Inquiry Project .............................................................. 9
Comprehensive School Reform Strategies and Programs .......................... 10
The Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis Model ...................................... 14
Purpose of Analysis .................................................................................. 17

CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................... 20
A: Analyzing the Roots of the Problem ........................................................ 20
Literature Review ..................................................................................... 20
Comprehensive School Reform Strategies and Programs ..................... 20
Exploration of Possible Root Causes ................................................... 23
Knowledge and Skills ......................................................................... 24
Motivational Causes ............................................................................ 28
Organizational Culture and Structure - Context ................................... 31
B: Inquiry Process ......................................................................................... 37
Participants ............................................................................................... 38
Key Informants ................................................................................... 38
Administrators, Teachers and Ball Foundation Partners ....................... 39
Inquiry Procedures .................................................................................... 39
xiii
Scanning Interviews ............................................................................ 41
Stages of Concern Interviews .............................................................. 41
Month-long Interviews ........................................................................ 42
Strategic Plans .................................................................................... 42
Professional Development Meeting ..................................................... 43
Ball Foundation Survey ....................................................................... 44
Human Subjects Considerations .......................................................... 44
C: Findings.................................................................................................... 45

CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................... 54
Possible Solutions to the District‘s Reform Efforts .................................... 54
Determining Possible Solutions: Literature Review ................................... 54
Summary of Proposed Solutions ............................................................... 65

REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 70

APPENDICES ................................................................................................... 75
Appendix A: RUSD Reform Structures ........................................................ 75
Appendix B: Inquiry Project Proposal PowerPoint ....................................... 78
Appendix C: Scanning Interview Questions .................................................. 85
Appendix D: Stages of Concern Questionnaire Directions ............................ 86
Appendix E: Stages of Concern Interview Questionnaire .............................. 87
Appendix F: One Month Interviews.............................................................. 88
Appendix G: Executive Summary ................................................................ 89
Appendix H: Comprehensive School Reform Solutions Charts ................... 103
Appendix I: Presentation of Proposed Recommendations to RUSD .......... 106
Appendix J: Completed Project PowerPoint Presentation .......................... 124

1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Background of the Problem
American schools face increased pressures at both the state and the federal levels
to improve student achievement in academic subjects as assessed by standardized
measures of student achievement. This pressure comes in the form of a series of
legislations aimed at closing the achievement gap between non-minority and minority
and socially or economically disadvantaged students. With the passage of the Improving
America‘s Schools Act in 1994, the shift became that of providing districts with a model
for a systematic approach to address gaps in student achievement. This Act mandated
states to provide more effective learning opportunities through curriculum changes linked
to annual assessments without providing direct guidance on development and
implementation of these changes. As a result, districts developed plans independently to
improve student achievement through various curriculum modifications.
Additional federal and state mandates emerged in the late 1990‘s that called for
standards-based reform that would hold schools accountable for student achievement and
focused more on challenging curriculum geared toward higher order thinking and
application of concepts to real world problems (McLaughlin & Shephard, 1995). These
policies, however, did not provide enough guidance on the process of how to increase
student performance resulting in states and districts developing isolated programs
addressing specific areas, sometimes implementing programs with documented negative
impact, in an effort to meet state mandates that ultimately produced little change in
student performance (Berends, Bodilly & Kirby, 2002).

2
The focus would soon shift with the reauthorization, at the federal level, of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) leading to the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act of 2001 under the administration of former President George W. Bush. This
Federal legislation added an accountability component to standards-based education and
built upon the notion that states, districts, and schools would be held strictly accountable
for student achievement across the board, especially for minority and socially and
economically disadvantaged students. Under NCLB, states were mandated to align
assessments with standards and monitor student progress toward proficiency. The new
law financially penalized districts and schools that did not meet their Annual Yearly
Progress (AYP) goal. NCLB effectively cemented the government‘s control over public
schools and districts and mandated accountability for results in the form of student
performance measures on standardized tests (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001).
Yet, these new federal and state policies did not initially address a void in the
practical application of methods and procedures to attend to the increased call for
improved student achievement. Districts and schools faced a new challenge in how to
effect large scale changes to produce improvement in student performance and meet
accountability standards mandated by the new federal regulations.
As a result, New American Schools (NAS), a private organization, was launched
with a focused effort toward whole school reform to help schools and districts increase
student achievement on a large scale. This new approach deviated significantly from past
methods in its use of systemic change through private sector involvement from a venture
capitalist approach, whole school design as a reform strategy, and national large scale
change (Berends, Bodilly & Kirby, 2002).

3
The new shift to Comprehensive School Reform (CSR), with the goal of
producing systematic change, targeted school-wide strategies affecting all aspects of
education including curriculum and instruction, professional development, organizational
structure, and parent/community involvement (Desimone, 2002). CSR implementation
resulted in the creation of a myriad of programs aimed at addressing the new shift in
strategies targeting improved student performance. Programs such as Accelerated
Schools, Core Knowledge, High Schools That Work, and Success for All, came into
existence and many were readily adopted by some districts, while others opted to
incorporate creative strategies to effect school-wide change in a milieu where
accountability tied to student improvement meant allocation of funding and continued
student success as required by not only federal and state mandates but by all stakeholders,
including the school community (Borman, 2009).
However, despite the many programs and different reform efforts, districts
continue to experience difficulty meeting NCLB and statewide mandates for all student
subgroups. Even though districts have made overall gains in student achievement as
measured by the state Academic Performance Index (API) and the federal gauges of
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO), the increases
in student achievement in the State of California fall below the proficiency level targets
for a significant portion of students in the following subgroups: Hispanic/Latino, Black or
African-American, English learners, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and/or Students
with Disabilities.
Rowland Unified School District (RUSD), a mid-sized district serving a
predominantly Hispanic/Latino and Asian student population in the San Gabriel Valley of

4
Los Angeles County mirrors the statewide dilemma of the achievement gap between
student subgroups. As a result, the RUSD has taken on the challenge of meeting the
NCLB mandates and statewide goals in innovative ways, such as partnerships with
outside groups like the Ball Foundation, a non-profit organization that provides support
in school reform with an emphasis in professional development, the creation of an
Instructional Cabinet, a district team with representatives from all employee groups
within the organization, aimed at closing the gaps in student achievement, and intra-site
Communities of Practice designed to further flatten the organizational hierarchy in a
culture of decentralization. The RUSD leadership‘s efforts toward increased student
achievement have paid off with the designation of four National Blue Ribbon Schools, 16
California State Distinguished schools, and a high school named ―One of the Top High
Schools in the Nation‖ by Newsweek Magazine.
Despite all its accolades and distinctions, Rowland Unified School District
(RUSD) has yet to achieve the national NCLB goal of math and English proficiency for
all students and the statewide goal of an 800 or above API score for all schools, a
challenge for many districts within the state. RUSD has over 50% of its schools
identified as being in Program Improvement (PI) status as a result of not meeting the state
and national goals.
The Rowland Unified School District has made significant gains in student
achievement as evidenced by the data provided through the California Department of
Education (www.cde.ca.gov.dataquest) with district‘s AYP and API with increases 7.5%
and 5.2% respectively. However, there is still a significant achievement gap between the
subgroups, specifically, the Latino subgroup with an achievement gap in AYP in English

5
Language Arts of almost 40 percentage points when compared to the other major
subgroup, Asian. There is a gap of 38 percentage points in the area of mathematics. The
gap for the Latino subgroup API is 132 points below the other major subgroup.
As reported by district leadership there are disparities in the success in reducing
the achievement gap for different geographical areas within the district. Specifically, the
district appears to be divided by a North-South Corridor bisected by Interstate 60,with
geographic areas of higher socioeconomic status (SES) having more success than other
areas within the district. For RUSD, there are twelve schools on the northern side of the
district, which serve larger numbers of English Learners when compared to the southern
portion of RUSD; ten of these schools are in program improvement. There are ten
schools located on the south side, two of which are in Program Improvement with the
Alternative School site being one of them. Based on these statistics, one could conclude
that the northern schools represent a higher proportion of students with economical
and/or language barriers within the district, supporting the notion that the areas in greatest
educational need have fewer community resources when measured by district
performance data and SES state data.
One component echoed as essential to successful comprehensive school reform,
as already mentioned, is the need to incorporate strategies that target system-wide
change, are research-based and have a documented rate of success. NCLB proposes the
incorporation of the following components as an important part of any comprehensive
school reform strategy: 1) measurable goals and benchmarks for student performance, 2)
support for staff and from staff, 3) external assistance, 4) evaluation, 5) coordination of
resources, 6) professional development, and 7) use of proven methods and strategies that

6
are research-based and target student learning, teaching and school management, and 8) a
design that is comprehensive in scope and aligned to a school-wide reform plan to
provide an opportunity for all students to meet state content and performance standards
(Tushnet, et al, 2004). RUSD‘s executive leadership has committed to the use of such
strategies researching current literature and adopting components documented to be
effective in the change effort. As such they have incorporated structural changes to
increase capacity throughout the organization, have increased collaborative efforts and
professional development opportunities, enlisted the Ball Foundation, an outside agency
to assist in the process, and instituted a strategic plan.
Adopting effective strategies, as RUSD appears to have done with efforts
mirroring components essential to success, however, is only one step in the complex
process of comprehensive school reform. No matter how efficient the strategies are, how
they are implemented can impact their effectiveness. As noted by Desimone (2002), a
major contributor to effectual comprehensive school reform in addressing achievement
gaps is the fidelity of implementation of reform strategies not only within the district but
also within schools and by the different stakeholders. Spillane, et al (2002) adds that
local implementation can be difficult as it challenges deeply rooted beliefs about teaching
and learning. Fidelity can be further complicated through a lack of alignment in priorities
or goals from the district, to the site, through the classroom (Elmore, 2002). Given that
RUSD has been successful in some of its schools and not others in increasing student
achievement and meeting statewide goals, a closer examination of how district-level
school reforms have been implemented at all levels would shed light as to possible
challenges faced within their PI status schools. Interestingly these reforms consist of

7
structural (Strategic Plan), federal mandates (Program Improvement Addendum), and
leadership models (Ball Foundation as capacity builder). Furthermore, examining the
alignment of goals throughout RUSD may help identify immediate gaps consistent with
the Gap Analysis Model (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Importance of the Problem
Effectiveness of comprehensive school reform for districts and schools has
evolved into a necessity if student achievement and continued funding is the goal. This is
of particular interest to RUSD as they have recently entered P.I. status as a district and
have sustained unprecedented staffing cuts due to the current statewide budget pitfall.
Districts and schools do not have the luxury of playing Russian roulette in their program
implementation. For RUSD, whose effort appear to be based on sound best practices,
such that strategies are not haphazardly chosen, the focus shifts to implementation in a
consistent manner across all levels and across all stakeholders (administrators, teachers,
students, parents and the community) to improve student performance, with consistent
implementation through goal alignment as one possible strategy for the purposes of this
study. For districts that must meet accountability standards through the state measures
such as the Academic Performance Index (API) in addition to meeting federal AYP
mandates for annual student achievement growth targets, on-going evaluation as to the
effectiveness of comprehensive school reform policy implementation is paramount. This
holds especially true for RUSD with its commitment to empower students to actualize his
or her fullest potential.
RUSD, while having earned many accolades for its efforts, was placed on the
Program Improvement (PI) for underperformance within subgroups under AYP

8
mandates. Given the current situation, the importance of reducing the achievement gap
defines the importance of the problem for this district, in that achievement gains must be
made despite geographical, socio-economic and linguistic barriers. The challenge RUSD
faces is one which the district readily seeks to tackle in alignment with their vision of
creating opportunities for students to maximize his or her potential. To address these
challenges, RUSD has implemented district-level reform efforts for increased student
achievement and learning. It also looks to evaluate its current reform strategies as a way
to improve student achievement. This study intends to assist RUSD by identifying gaps
in the areas of intent and implementation while positing practical solutions grounded in
best practices for RUSD leadership that are actionable in a political as opposed to a
theoretical environment (Bolman and Deal, 2003). Working in a collaborative way with
district leadership will be vital to the eventual adoption of solutions by RUSD.
Measuring the effectiveness of school reform strategies in meeting student
achievement goals can be complex. Although there are different proposed methods, one
that addresses the system in a holistic fashion is Clark and Estes‘ (2002) Gap Analysis
model. The Gap Analysis Model presents a framework for classification and
achievement of goals through the identification of gaps and root causes of those gaps,
identifying possible solutions and addressing implementation and evaluation for
continued success. It allows for the examination of school wide reform strategies‘
implementation at all levels by various stakeholders (district administrators, school site
administrators, teachers, parents, students and community). By exploring skills and
knowledge, organizational culture and motivational causes, the Clark and Estes (2002)
Gap Analysis model targets root causes and challenges to successful comprehensive

9
reform implementation allowing districts to make strategic changes aimed at closing the
gap in student achievement, while at the same time implementing on-going, systematic
evaluation useful in meeting accountability requirements in the era of NCLB that have
the potential of being customized and replicated across different schools and/or districts
for school improvement purposes.
This project utilized the Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis model to inform
RUSD as to the effectiveness of their comprehensive district-level school reform efforts
in meeting student performance goals and benchmarks and closing the achievement gap
to address its current PI status. We examined, 1) what key stakeholders in the district
perceived to be the roots of the problem, goals, and possible solutions related to effective
district-level school reform strategies‘ implementation, 2) what root causes and gaps were
identified, 3) what solutions were proposed and how the stakeholders in the district
responded to the proposed solutions
Significance of the Inquiry Project
At state and local levels, effective implementation of comprehensive school
reform is a necessity for any school or district in Program Improvement status, in the era
of NCLB, with its overall goal of ensuring educational systems provide appropriate and
effective education for all the nation‘s students as demonstrated by a system of
accountability and data-driven decision-making. Districts failing to meet federal and/or
state mandates in terms of student achievement and AYP can be penalized in their
funding allocations if student achievement gaps persist. As a result, districts must make
every effort to ensure that district-level comprehensive reform strategies are effective in

10
meeting measureable goals for student performance and must put in place systems for
evaluation of progress and to identify barriers to implementation.
This project, through the use of the Clark and Estes (2002) model, assisted RUSD
to evaluate the effectiveness of its district-level school reform effort and its
implementation. In doing so, the approach became a tool by which to address challenges
to achieving the district‘s goal of closing the achievement gaps for subgroups not meeting
state and federal targets and to move out of PI status across all schools. In collaboration,
results of this project in the form of recommendations for practice provided a starting
point from which to continue to implement change to effectively address student learning
needs.
As RUSD faces increased pressure to comply with state and federal mandates of
accountability by meeting student performance targets and improving student learning
within all of its subgroups, district-level comprehensive school reform strategies have
been put into place. As a result of their leadership, RUSD has been creative in its design
of district-level school reform, modeling their efforts after scientifically-based CSR
programs and designing their own strategies to address their particular needs while
incorporating major components of effective comprehensive school reform as described
in the literature. However, like other districts, RUSD faces challenges in implementation.
Comprehensive School Reform Strategies and Programs
Current literature documents specific features of comprehensive school reform
from a research-based standpoint shown to have a positive effect on student performance
and models that incorporate these components are clearly presented (Tushnet, et al, 2004;
Levin and Wiens, 2003). Most agree that reform strategies and programs that are

11
research-based offer a systematic and proven approach to implementation of
comprehensive school reform that is not fragmented and haphazard, addressing previous
concerns with early reform efforts (Desimone, 2002; Berends, Bodilly & Kirby, 2002).
Although no single program may effectively address the overall goal of closing
gaps in student achievement in all settings, there are components found to be essential to
increase success in the change process and ultimately impact student learning. Levin and
Wiens (2003) describe strategies found in their study that have been utilized by various
districts and include: 1) greater specification of curriculum standards and outcomes, with
more focus on reading, writing, mathematics, science, and technology; 2) more
assessment of student outcomes and public reporting of the results on a school-by-school
basis; 3) greater opportunity for parents and students to choose the school the student
attends; 4) more pressure on teachers through measures that control their work, limit their
pay, test their competence, etc; 5) altered finance structures to reward schools that are able
to increase academic results or attract more students or both; and 6) greater
decentralization of managerial responsibility to individual schools. NCLB expands this
list to include: 1) measurable goals and benchmarks for student performance, 2) support
for staff and from staff, 3) external assistance, 4) evaluation, 5) coordination of resources,
6) professional development, and 7) use of proven methods and strategies that are
research-based and target student learning, teaching and school management, and 9) a
design that is comprehensive in scope and aligned to a school-wide reform plan to
provide an opportunity for all students to meet state content and performance standards
(Tushnet, et al, 2004).

12
In support of the tenets enumerated above, there is evidence in the literature that
school reform efforts that incorporate particular components tend to show improvement
in student achievement through fidelity in implementation. Reform strategies that are
externally developed, aligned, and clearly defined, positively affect student learning,
along with reforms with strong accountability, professional development and training
components. In the latter, the addition of follow-up to assist teachers in the classroom
with implementation, have been associated with effective reform implementation as has
stakeholder ―buy in‖ at all levels (Borman et al, 2003).
One aspect that is clearly echoed throughout the comprehensive school reform
literature is the need for a systematic approach, as a long term process, requiring the
commitment of all stakeholders, from district to central office to school personnel to
parent, students, and community (Levin & Wiens, 2003). Literature which directly
responds to the barriers associated with commitment and collaboration of all stakeholders
toward adhering to district-level reform strategies and having the ―buy-in‖ from all levels
informed this project as to how these strategies were successfully implemented and the
challenges encountered in the process.
Once reform efforts are proven in nature and encompass system wide change,
implementation can create barriers to success. Desimone (2003) posits that school wide
reform can be slow and challenging and suggests that implementation factors be
addressed before connecting reform designs to student outcomes. One challenge to
effective school reform implementation is the variability that exists with and among
different levels: state, district, school (Hamilton et al, 2003). Stakeholders‘ interpretation
and policy implementation may differ, leading to differences in goal attainment at and

13
within different sites. Consistency and alignment of school efforts with state and district
policy affects effectiveness of comprehensive school reform efforts (Desimone, 2003).
The Gap Analysis structure can identify discrepancies between where the organization is
now and where it wants to be within these factors and assist in identifying the root causes
for each area (Clark & Estes, 2002). The Gap Analysis model with the identification of
gaps and root causes in the spheres of knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational culture will inform the literature review portion of this work.
Another important literature component to explore is the composition and
implementation of the major CSR programs and their rate of success. Programs such as
Success for All have been identified as having significant effects on student achievement
(Borman, Hewes, Overman & Brown, 2003) and work done by the NAS, can provide
comparative data on the implementation and incorporation of district-level reform within
the past decade to inform current policies and practices which may have been deemed not
as effective as once thought.
Several other components can impact the effectiveness of comprehensive school
reform: clarity of communication, leadership styles and accountability measures.
Patterns of communication between and among different stakeholders can influence
school reform implementation from administrators to teachers to students, parents and the
community (Desimone, 2003). Indeed, perception and interpretation of school reform
strategies can differ with different stakeholders and this too can influence fidelity in
implementation and ultimately student outcomes (Spillane, 2002). Holding stakeholders
accountable can motivate engagement in implementation of new strategies, as can

14
leadership styles that are matched to the organizational culture/context and are tailored to
varying situations.
The Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis Model
In utilizing the Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis model as a framework to
assist RUSD in meeting the state and federal student performance and accountability
goals, several areas within the literature helped to create a starting point from which to
begin implementation of this project, including identification of the gap to be addressed
for the district and in this case, the gap in student achievement leading to PI status,
framed under the effectiveness of district-level school reform. Once the goals were
identified, gap identification began through the investigation of root causes of the gaps
which in turn lead to proposed solutions aimed at closing the gaps and meeting the pre-
determined goals.
First, Clark and Estes (2002) indicate that in order to begin the process, global,
intermediate and instructional goals must be set to drive improvement efforts. Goal
setting and benchmarking are important components driving the gap analysis model and
need to be aligned across all levels. Consistent with this thought, a consensus on goals
and measurement of progress towards goals (Elmore, 2002) may prove helpful as RUSD
strives to meet state and federal mandates of increasing student achievement to meet both
AYP and API targets for all subgroups. It must also identify which intermediate and
instructional goals are necessary to achieve the overall global goal. The goals ideally
should be attainable, based on the present data compiled by the district, on capacity,
resources, vision, etc. Relevant literature within this area provided information as to the
current processes related to goals and objectives and benchmarking to aid in creating a

15
clear picture of what is to be accomplished and be able to effectively evaluate whether or
not that particular goal has been met.
Secondly, the skill and knowledge component were addressed. Clark and Estes
(2002) incorporates in this area an assessment of whether those expected to perform a
task have the required skills and knowledge necessary to complete that task. Literature
relevant to learning theories provided a lens through which assessment of root causes in
this area are grounded and systematic research-based evaluation can take place in the
process of assisting districts in the improvement efforts. As an example, socio-cognitive
theory elucidates how different types of knowledge are required to meet various tasks and
describes how a mismatch in the types of knowledge acquired and that required by the
task itself can produce unwanted outcomes, especially when district-level reform
involves curriculum, instruction, and use of professional development and training
without clearly delineated data-driven performance goals.
Along with the skills and knowledge component is the fact that districts are in and
of themselves organizational structures within their own cultures. Implementation of
district reform strategies cannot happen in a vacuum and attempts at implementation
without taking into consideration organizational culture may not be effective (Sipple et
al, 2004). Studies such as Camburn et al‘s (2003), describe different organizational
configurations, effective leadership styles, and various settings similar to the district
useful for investigative purposes when data collection and methodological approaches
came into play and when evaluating existing implementation of policies and strategies in
meeting the stated district goals and objectives. Leadership frames such as those
presented by Bolman and Deal (2003) which describes leadership styles and their

16
effectiveness inform our work. Moreover, leadership theories such as contingency
(leader-match) theory whereas leaders are matched to appropriate situations and suggests
that a leader‘s ability to be effective depends on how well the leader‘s style fits the
context, and path-goal leadership theory where leaders who can motivate subordinates to
accomplish goals are assigned with the goal of enhancing employee performance and
employee satisfaction through increased motivation (Northouse, 2007) were instrumental
within this area of the Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis model as a powerful
evaluative tool.
Finally, motivation, in terms of choice, persistence and effort within all levels of
reform implementation are crucial as an integral part of the Gap Analysis model.
District-level reform efforts can be thwarted when key players are not motivated to
perform the tasks required for success in improving student performance. Motivational
theories assisted in understanding how different motivational components interact when
goal achievement is the expected outcome. Constructs such as self-efficacy, beliefs,
interest, expectancy and value helped to guide the analysis of root causes in this area and
became useful in addressing potential solutions.
Within all of the root causes mentioned above, goal setting, knowledge and skills,
organizational culture, and motivational factors are barriers which districts have had to
face in their efforts to implement district-level school reform. Studies such as that of
Borman et al‘s, (2003) meta –analysis evaluating other districts responses to
comprehensive school reform implementation shed light into the possible challenges and
root causes of the gaps identified by districts. In doing so, examination of various

17
components incorporated in CSR programs informed current practices in addressing
gaps.
Purpose of the Analysis
This inquiry project proposed a systematic investigation with the use of the Clark
and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis model as a framework, and district cooperation in their
attempt to address achievement gaps, utilizing outside resources to assist the district in
looking at the progress of their reform strategies at this time, through the effectiveness of
their implementation efforts. Examination of the root causes (knowledge/skills,
organization/culture, and motivation) through structured interview questionnaires,
unstructured interviews, focus groups, artifacts and available data shed light into the
challenges districts may face in implementing district-level school reform as a means of
closing achievement gaps and meeting state and federal mandates requiring increased
accountability and improved student performance.
More specifically, this inquiry project focused on district-level school reform at
the Rowland Unified School District, as a partner, assisting RUSD district leaders in
evaluating current district-level reform strategies‘ implementation, providing documented
analysis of its efforts while at the same time suggesting possible solutions to assist RUSD
to meet its goals. The intention was to provide a comprehensive evaluation, through the
framework of Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis model, grounded in a research-based
theoretical perspective, as a consultative evaluation.
Through collaborative efforts, Rowland Unified School District was chosen for
this project, based on among other criteria, their research-based, innovative district-level
reform strategies and commitment to reform with the goal or transforming teaching and

18
learning in the face of serious budgetary constraints (Gopalankrishna, 2010). In creating
this partnership, the focus of our work at Rowland Unified School District centered
around the RUSD redesign process which incorporates the adoption of Holladay‘s (2009)
―Values-Functions-Structures‖ Model, and major structural changes such as the creation
of an Instructional Cabinet, Learning Directors, and K-12 structure of schools.
To accomplish this goal, initially, our team (comprised of three persons with
experience in the district, administration and educational psychology fields) established
rapport and a supportive network through the connection with key district personnel who
were able to assist the team in navigating through the organization. Clearly defining the
framework under which the team functioned and getting a sense of what the district
already has in place were also critical initial components of this study. Interviews and
artifact collection were integral parts of the early team contact with Rowland Unified
School District and were utilized in on-going data collection. Scanning, stages of
concern and month-long interviews were conducted through the use of interview
protocols, specifically developed for this project. The purpose of the scanning interview
was to provide insight at the macro level as to how key personnel view the root causes
and gaps within the context of their organization and their district-level school reform
strategies. Stages of concern interviews provided an awareness of how those that do the
work have captured the information, how it is being applied and their perceptions of the
process and how the innovation is working.
Analysis of root causes and gaps continued as different levels of stakeholders
(administration, teachers, parent, and community) provided information, with the
interview process as the data collection method. Triangulation efforts useful in data

19
validation included utilization of existing documentation such as documented
implementation of instructional strategies, test scores, strategic plans, etc.
Finally, our team utilized its data collection findings to analyze and identify root
causes and gaps that impact the success of district-level reform strategies and goal
attainment and provide insight into possible challenges. Driven by this data analysis, our
team created possible research-based solutions specifically targeting the root causes and
linked to best practices for district consideration.
Our qualitative approach to data gathering by our team, each with an area of
expertise (school site administration, District-level staff, and education psychology),
provided a very powerful tool when combined with the Clark and Estes (2002) Gap
Analysis model to inform current practice, possible solutions, and root causes that must
be weighed in any school reform strategy implementation, with the ultimate goal of
increasing student performance. A team inquiry process and solutions chapter is included
in this document reflecting the conclusions of a consulting team in accordance with the
guidelines of this Capstone Project.

20
CHAPTER TWO
A. Analyzing the Roots of the Problem
Literature Review
First, a review of the current literature on challenges to implementation of
comprehensive school reform will be conducted in this chapter to inform common areas
where possible gaps may be found. This understanding will be analyzed through the lens
of the Clark & Estes Gap Analysis Model in providing a set of possible gaps to
implementation with a focus on three areas: knowledge and skill, motivation and
organizational culture and processes.
As RUSD faces increased pressure to comply with state and federal mandates of
accountability by meeting student performance targets and improving student learning
within all of its subgroups, district-level comprehensive school reform strategies have
been put into place. RUSD has been creative in its design of district-level school reform,
modeling their efforts after scientifically-based CSR programs and designing their own
strategies to address their particular needs while incorporating major components of
effective comprehensive school reform as described in the literature. However, like other
districts, RUSD faces challenges in implementation.
Comprehensive School Reform Strategies and Programs
It has been documented in the literature that certain features of comprehensive
school reform from a scientifically-based standpoint have a positive effect on student
performance and models that incorporate these components are clearly presented. Levin
and Wiens (2003) describe strategies found in their study that have been utilized by
various districts and include: 1) greater specification of curriculum standards and

21
outcomes, with more focus on reading, writing, mathematics, science, and technology; 2)
more assessment of student outcomes and public reporting of the results on a school-by-
school basis; 3) greater opportunity for parents and students to choose the school the
student attends; 4) more pressure on teachers through measures that control their work,
limit their pay, test their competence, etc; 5) altered finance structures to reward schools
that are able to increase academic results or attract more students or both; and 6) greater
decentralization of managerial responsibility to individual schools. NCLB expands this
list to include, 1) measurable goals and benchmarks for student performance, 2) support
for staff and from staff, 3) external assistance, 4) evaluation, 5) coordination of resources,
6) professional development, 7) use of proven methods and strategies that are research-
based and target student learning, teaching and school management, and 8) a design that
is comprehensive in scope and aligned to a school-wide reform plan allow student to
meet state content and performance standards (Tushnet, et al, 2004).
As with any reform effort understanding the change process allows for greater
success (Bonner, et al, 2003). Others, like Fullan and Miles (1992) alliterate seven basic
lessons derived from successful change reform efforts, and elucidate that reform efforts
by definition require change so that without an understanding of the change process
successful school reform efforts may not be achieved. They contend that effective reform
cannot be accomplished until the following themes are incorporated into and reflected in
the actions involving change efforts. The focus is on the leadership understanding the
change process and how organizations who manage change by activating knowledge and
skills components succeed. The following factors are listed as essential: 1) Change is a
learning process, riddled with uncertainty, 2) Change is a journey, not a blue print, 3)

22
Problems are our friends, 4) Change requires resources, 5) Change requires the power to
manage it, 6) change is systematic, and 7) all large-scale change is implemented locally.
In support of the components listed above, there is evidence in the literature that
school reforms efforts that incorporate particular aspects tend to show improvement in
student achievement through fidelity in implementation. Borman et al, (2003) in his
meta-analysis of 29 reform models throughout the nation contends that reform efforts that
are externally developed and clearly defined, positively influence student learning, along
with reforms with strong professional development and training component. The
incorporation of follow-up to assist teachers in the classroom with implementation, have
been associated with effective reform implementation as has stakeholder ―buy in‖ at all
levels as evidenced by (Borman et al, 2003).
One aspect that is clearly echoed throughout the comprehensive school reform
literature is the need for a systematic approach, as a long term process, requiring the
commitment of all stakeholders, from district to central office to school personnel to
parent and community (Levin & Wiens, 2003). Literature which directly responds to the
barriers associated with commitment and collaboration of all stakeholders towards
adhering to district level reform strategies and having the ―buy-in‖ from all levels inform
this project as to how these strategies were successfully implemented and the challenges
encountered in the process.
Desimone (2003) posits that school wide reform can be slow and challenging and
suggests that implementation factors be addressed before connecting reform designs to
student outcomes. One challenge to effective school reform implementation is the
variability that exists with and among different levels: state, district, school (Hamilton et

23
al, 2003). How stakeholders interpret and implement policy may differ, thus leading to
differences in goal attainment at and within different sites. Consistency and alignment of
school efforts with state and district policy affects effectiveness of comprehensive school
reform efforts (Desimone, 2003).
Another important literature component examined is the composition and
implementation of the major CSR programs and their evaluation. Programs such as
Success for All have been identified as having significant effects on student achievement
(Borman, Hewes, Overman & Brown, 2003) and work done by the NAS, provide
comparative data on the implementation and incorporation of district-level reform within
the past decade to inform current policies and practices which may have been deemed not
as effective as once thought.
Several other components can have an impact on the effectiveness of
comprehensive school reform. Patterns of communication between and among different
stakeholders can influence school reform implementation from administrators to teachers
to students, parents and the community (Desimone, 2003). Additionally, perception and
interpretation of school reform strategies can differ with different stakeholders and this
too can affect fidelity in implementation and ultimately student outcomes (Spillane,
2002).
Exploration of Possible Root Causes
Effectiveness of comprehensive school reform for districts and schools has
evolved into a necessity for student achievement and continued funding. Districts and
schools cannot afford to haphazardly implement reform strategies. The focus must be on
the system-wide implementation in a consistent manner across all levels and across all

24
stakeholders (administrators, teachers, students, parents and the community) to improve
student performance.
Implementation, however, posits challenges to the fidelity and effectiveness of
school reform efforts in that multiple factors contribute to its success or failure: such
factors include clarity and alignment of goals, leadership style, accountability structures
and effective use of professional development. One framework useful in
conceptualization of the various entities influencing reform implementation is through an
exploration of root causes through the Gap Analysis Model (Clark & Estes, 2002):
knowledge/skills, motivation and organization culture.
Knowledge and skills
Implementation of school reform occurs through different role groups -
administrators, teachers and policy-makers/partners. All of these groups must be able to
understand and interpret the reform strategies and policies presented.
Moessinger (2000) posits that differences in how the reform strategies are
interpreted can be accounted by the individual group members‘ lack of desire to engage
in the process in that the new ideas are ignored as implementers have no personal interest
in them and they see no utility value. Proponents of this view see role group members as
just ignoring the new reform or just dismissing it as non-important and not incorporating
them into their skill base, thus hindering implementation efforts.
Others like Spillane, et al (2002) argue that role group members are dedicated and
wanting to incorporate the reform efforts and meet the mandates at the policy,
administrative and teacher level. Spillane (2002) takes a cognitive approach in the
understanding of the knowledge and skills gaps by examining implementation through a

25
cognitive lens in how participants make sense of information. In fact, he argues that even
when teachers and other role group members debate, collaborate and discuss reform
strategies, there is still inconsistency in the comprehension and implementation leading to
the conclusion that other mechanisms are at play such as differences in beliefs and
knowledge structures (Brownell, et al., 2006; Spillane et al., 2000). Brownell alliterates
that prior knowledge plays an important role in the disparity between the policy/reform
strategy and the individual‘s understanding of it. They propose that prior knowledge
shapes how we interpret new information and that colors our understanding which in
turn, creates lack of fidelity in implementation as well-intentioned role group members
implement their own comprehension.
Furthermore, not only does prior knowledge color how we make sense of
information, what happens to that information is also dependent on our schemas or
knowledge structure Schemas are mental structures that allow us to organize our world.
They provide a way to make sense and predict what can happen. When new information,
such as reform policies are presented, our cognitive processes take that information and
the cognitive developmental processes of accommodation or assimilation described by
Piaget (Santrock, 2009, p. 24) engage, so that the information is either added to an
existing schema or the schema is altered to incorporate the new information. In such
instances, individual different in how the information is understood emerge and again
lack of fidelity in implementation is the result.
Along with prior knowledge and schema construction, Spillane, et al (2002) also
posits that attention to superficial details and paying attention to information that is
familiar rather than novel ideas also add to the difficulty encountered in reform

26
implementation. First, it is important to note that in the learning process, novices are
drawn to superficial features of new information and may not have the experience
necessary to make more meaningful connections. Such lack of experience steers novice
(in all role groups, and especially teachers) to focus their attention on superficial details,
not making more global, big picture connections. For reform strategies this causes a
challenge in that new reform ideas presented to this population may not be understood as
intended.
Complicating matters is also the notion that we are cognitive misers (Santrock,
2009). When encountering new information, the tendency is to pay attention to those
features that we are familiar with and not novel ideas. Two potential problem with this
way of making sense of information are that 1) important features of reform efforts which
inherently incorporate novel components are missed, and 2) those that must implement
the reform strategies may see the new information as an extension of what they are
already doing so that changes needed through the new reform strategies are not
incorporated (Spillane, et al, 2000).
CSR literature also documents ineffective professional development as possibly
adding to knowledge and skills gaps in the implementation of comprehensive school
reform (Stein and Nelson, 2003; O‘Day, 2002; Desimone, 2002). The assumption is that
stakeholders need additional training to be successful. Clark and Estes (2002) contend
that while professional development is useful, knowledge and skills gaps require that
distinctions be made as to the type of knowledge required to address the gap. They argue
that some gaps are the result of not enough prior knowledge, or need for information.
Others necessitate self-help information on how to perform a task or information and

27
guided practice and feedback through training; the latter addressing more procedural
knowledge components. Finally, when the need is to address novel problems, then
education, which is researched-based may be more useful.
In addition, professional development in and of itself is not enough; it must be
researched-based and tightly aligned with the performance goals of the organization, be
tied to best practice and linked to instructional changes in the classroom and implemented
in such a way that the emphasis is in demonstrating the most effective research-based
practices with quality materials, while guiding participants in learning and
implementation in the classroom with specific action plans developed for implementation
and data collection (Clark & Estes, 2002; Little & Houston, 2003; Stein & Nelson, 2003).
In the area of goal alignment, when performance goals are not clear and not aligned then
people create their own goals and may work in a way that does not support the global
goals of the organization (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Along with sense-making, professional development, and goal alignment
associated with reform strategies, another knowledge/skill component is the quality and
clarity of goals the organization is attempting to reach. Goals that are clearly articulated,
challenging but attainable and current such that there are day-to-day goals, weekly,
monthly, etc. are more likely to be understood and implemented with fidelity (Clark &
Estes 2002; Finnigan, 2010; Thompson & Katzell, 1990). Marzano, et al (2003), concur
stating that among the factors found in effective comprehensive school reform efforts are
challenging goals and effective feedback in terms of progress towards a goal. Feedback
can take the form of accountability structures and have an impact on motivation.

28
Motivational Causes
Knowledge gaps alone do not describe the complex processes in which reform
implementation takes place. Affective factors influence how role groups make judgments
about the reform strategies in that inherently it proposes changes to one‘s self image,
affecting motivation and goals. These factors can influence motivation at the individual,
group and organization levels through different mechanisms which will be explored in
this section.
As discussed earlier, familiar concepts and experiences carry more weight than
unfamiliar ideas (Spillane et al, 2000) and so new information may be judged as already
being integrated into current practices/behaviors, so that if one believes that what one is
doing now is the same as what is being proposed then there is no motivation to make
fundamental changes which can adversely affect self-image. This process can be adopted
by different role groups, including teachers. For example, if a teacher believes the new
reform no different from what she already does in the classroom then she will not be
motivated to change instructional strategies to accommodate reform changes and
implementation is thwarted.
In adopting this way of framing reform, role group members use what Spillane et
al., (2002) refer to as the self-affirmation bias in response to threats to self-image. For
teachers, who may be asked to make changes to their core teaching practices, an
important aspect of their self-concept, reform strategies aiming for changes in teaching
practices may triggers affective components resulting in responses to affirm their own
professional value, leading to the motivation to discard any information that may threaten
that self-concept (Zembylas, 2002).

29
In reform implementation, which in and of itself asks for changes in teaching
practices, the self-affirming bias can be problematic and play out in different ways. One
way is that a teacher may opt to protect self-concept by deciding that the reforms are
consistent with what they already do and become motivated to advocate the new reform
strategies or they may discount the new ideas as inconsistent with their realities in their
experience or they may accept that change is needed by focusing on outside factors as
such as students, parents, etc. as barriers to implementation (Spillane et al., 2002).
Motivation to embrace or at least implement change is closely tied to feedback,
especially when those in the change process are asked to take risks in embarking and/or
instituting novel ideas or solutions. For comprehensive school reform, accountability is
one way to increase motivation through a feedback mechanism. Fullan & Miles (1992)
posit that individuals are motivated by being held accountable, even when they
themselves did not choose the performance goal. Clark and Estes (2002) also concur
with this idea and add that although participation in the performance goal creation
process is helpful, it is not necessary in order to motivate individuals to work toward the
goal, rather creating an environment that facilitates goal attainment is key (Katzell &
Thompson, 1990). What is optimal is to have a system or accountability that provides
timely feedback as to what is working and what is not and allow for corrective action
geared toward success of reform efforts (Tucker, 1996).
Accountability, however, can take make forms. Moller (2008) distinguishes
between four different forms of accountability: 1) political and public accountability –
focused on being responsible to both that organization‘s societal mandates and toward the
local community, 2) managerial responsibility – having to do with responsibility to

30
superiors, focusing on monitoring inputs and outputs and being accountable to higher
levels in the educational system, 3) professional accountability – professional standards
are adhered to by virtue of being a member of that profession and holding a commitment
to that community of professionals, and in the educational area refers to teaching as a
moral endeavor, and 4) personal accountability – involving personal values, and those
related to respect for human dignity, responsibility for how one affects others‘ lives, and
having a personal conscience in the basic values already mentioned.
Moller (2008) further states that in relation to school improvement, while most
reference to accountability is related to managerial accountability, professional
accountability appears to offer the most promise as a motivating factor for engagement in
risk-taking and adopting novel ideas. It also draws more attention to teaching as a
practice. It may promote more publicly acceptable forms of accountability, implying that
the teaching profession ―has the right and duty to uphold standards of good teaching‖
(p.42). As Elmore (2006) explains school improvement hinges on the capacity for being
professional by engaging in successful practices aimed and at specific students with
specific needs, and through the use of internal accountability measures.
At a macro-level, districts can also influence motivation and although the
literature refers more broadly to the school as the unit of change, the district also plays an
important role in change efforts as a motivating agent. Rorrer, et al (2008) explicitly
discuss the district‘s role in creating will (motivation) in those involved to implement
changes as needed in comprehensive school reform efforts. They posit that along with
building capacity, which has to do with developing knowledge and skills within the
organization, especially in situations with diminishing resources, the district‘s role is to

31
create will by establishing an environment conducive to the new changes. That
environment usually relates to factors in organizational culture and structure such that
there is support in terms of leadership, resources, etc. for those doing the work.
Organizational Culture and Structure – Context
Implementation of reform has been discussed in terms of knowledge and skill,
and motivational factors influencing fidelity. But implementation does not occur in
vacuum, the context in which reform takes place is also important. For organizations
context can mean the structure in which individuals work and the social environment,
leadership styles, resources, norms and rules found within their work settings and can
shape how implementation is interpreted.
For teachers, the context in which they interact with each other can lead to shared
discussion and creation of shared meaning of reform efforts. There can be different
interpretations of reform strategies based on how teachers are grouped (all language
teachers, math teacher, and elementary vs. middle school vs. high school). Also the
composition of the group in terms of years of teaching experience can also affect how
reform is interpreted and implemented. For example, in a study by Coburn (2001)
dealing with implementation of reading curriculum reform, more experienced teachers
opted for direct instruction while less experienced teacher sought an opportunity for
innovation and creative practices in the same reform policy.
Additionally, reform efforts in which organizational arrangements are considered
become important. Wolf, et al (2000) describes how norms affect reform implementation
by creating opportunities for role group members to interact and deliberate the
implementation of reform. These opportunities or lack thereof, created differences

32
among teachers‘ constructed meaning of the reform implementation. The same was
found to be true at other levels within the educational organization such that when
responsibility for reading instruction was divided among different departments at
different levels within one district, different segments provided information to
administrators which reflected the segmented responsibility so that constructed messages
were not congruent (Spillane, 1998).
Along with organizational structures as affecting fidelity implementation of
reform efforts, is the notion that organizational culture is nested in the history of the
organization and the norms. Organizations have histories which shape the norms and
what is expected within the particular organization. Lin (2000) describes her experience
with organizational culture in how new policies are enacted. In one organization with a
history of being innovative and open to new ideas, reform efforts were supported and
understood as important even by those who did not necessarily believed in them, even
after prominent supporters of the new policies had left.
Trends in what constitute effective organizational culture/structure have also
evolved over the years as districts and schools react to new accountability measured at
the federal and state level. There appears to be a shift to a loosely coupled structure or
decentralization from a tightly coupled (centralized) and some now see a emergence of a
combination referred to by some as re-centralization or student learning culture, where
decision-making that influences student outcomes directly are left to local educators and
community member, while broad outcomes, goals and accountability systems are the
responsibility of the state and district policy makers (Firestone, 2009; Little & Houston,
2003). The movement toward decentralization has been adopted by many educational

33
agencies since the 1970‘s with highly debated discussion as to how to strike a balance
between decentralization and centralization and clearly defining what this means for the
particular organization (Meyer, 2006). This debate has resulted in findings indicating that
decentralization can mean different things for different organizations and that whatever it
means to a particular district must be clearly defined. Additionally, effectiveness of effort
toward reform rests in a balance between centralization and decentralization with
fluctuation between the two, creating some points which must be centralized and some
that must be left to school-site control (Meyer, 2006; Ostrom, 2009).
As an integral piece in the organization‘s culture, leadership can affect
implementation efforts, especially given diverse context (Marzano, et al, 2003).
Northouse (2003) presents various types of leadership theories which are found to be
effective depending on the situational state of the organization. One example is path-goal
theory which describes leadership as being able to adjust to the situation such that the
leadership role becomes one of clearing barriers and obstacles for subordinates in an
effort to allow for goal attainment. Thus, leadership styles become important factors in
addressing an organization‘s needs, especially when changes brought about by
comprehensive reform are at play, such that having the flexibility to implement various
styles suitable to the particular state of the organization is important.
Bolman and Deal (2003) describe four leadership frames and how effective
leaders are able to navigate through these four frames to meet the needs of the
organization at different times. The four frames are described as follow: 1) the structural
frame emphasizes formal relationships, goals, specialized roles, creating rules and
procedures and coordinating diverse activities into an unified strategy; 2) the human

34
resource frames focuses on tailoring the organization to the individual while finding ways
for tasks to be completed, while allowing for individuals to feel good about their work, 3)
the political frame sees organizations as jungles or contests riddled with conflict over
power and scarce resources where bargaining, coercion and compromise are the norm;
and 4) the symbolic frames emphasizes rituals, ceremonies and culture, with the
organization being a theater where actors play their roles to an audience.
Each of the frames offers advantages and disadvantages and their effectiveness
relies on situational factors within an organization. The human resource frame is useful
in situations where commitment and motivation are not essential, there is lack of
ambiguity and uncertainty, resources and conflict are not significant issues, and the work
is top down. In contrast, the human resources frame is effective when motivation and
commitment are crucial, there is certainty, conflict, resources are abundant and the work
is done from the top down. The political and symbolic frames work in environments of
high ambiguity, conflict and scarce resources, encompasses bottom up strategies and the
technical quality of decision are not important. They differ in the need for commitment
and motivation, with the political frame more effective in situations where these factors
are essential.
Certainly, situational factors are extremely important and this is especially true
when structural changes are taking place as in many comprehensive school reform efforts
and surely, in the Rowland Unified School District. Fullan & Miles (1992) and Bonner,
et al (2004) speak to the idea of considering the change process as an entity to be
understood and internalized in any school reform effort. The contention is that change
itself is sorely misunderstood and not considered many times by leadership as a potential

35
challenge to the implementation efforts. They propose to debunk several ―myths‖ related
to comprehensive school reform and suggest that a knowledge of how the change process
affects an organization at all levels is a crucial component necessary in the knowledge
base of the leadership staff, especially when motivation is involved, so that resistance to
implementation can be analyzed at a deeper level and not used as blaming and finger
pointing leading to stagnation. The notion is that without this knowledge other key
components in the change process toward successful reform will not be effectively
implemented.
Marzano, et al (2002) also speak to the change process and how leadership must
respond, describing first-order and second-order change and how each of these constructs
requires different leadership skills for effectiveness of implementation. First order
change refers to new ideas, innovations or structures that are mainly superficial in nature
and require little adjustment in the day-to-day working of those affected by it. Second
order change, on the other hand, requires a deeper ―readjustment‖ for those involved.
Fullan & Miles (1992) describe both as necessary and useful in different circumstances,
but state that organizations with successful comprehensive school reform implementation
and efforts have instituted second order change at some point.
But as with any change, organizational change takes time and requires persistence
in reaching established goals. For some reform efforts, it may take 5-10 years or more for
effective changes to become ingrained and for improvement outcomes to be evidenced
(Bonner, et al, 2004; McAdams, 1997). Comprehensive school reform effectiveness
hinges on staying the course as gains are slow at the beginning, may dip in the middle,

36
and can be substantial as the reform continues to exist (McAdam, 1997; Fullan & Miles,
1997).
In sum, knowledge and skill, motivation and organizational structures/culture all
play a vital role in reform implementation among all role groups. Prior knowledge in
terms of schema and experiences inform implementation in the variation in interpretation
of policy. Reform strategies which introduce changes perceived as a threat to self-concept
and self-efficacy can results in negative affect and judgments in which implementation
efforts are not adopted as a way to preserve personal value. Lack of accountability and
mismatched leadership can also contribute to motivational gaps. In such situations,
motivation to implement reform as related to choice and persistence may not be high.
Finally, organizational culture such as decentralization, centralization or student learner
models, the histories of educational organizations and the norms within particular
contexts, as well as the structures in which teachers are able to deliberate about reform
and in which administrations gather information can also be barriers to successful
implementation.
All of these factors help to inform out systematic investigation and consultation
with Rowland Unified School District in that they are consistent with the framework of
the Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis Model. These root causes found in the literature
guide our inquiry and provide a preliminary basis for examination of findings within our
data collection efforts.

37
B: Inquiry Process
Authored by Gilda Dixon in collaboration with Brent Forsee and Monalisa Hasson
Through collaborative efforts, Rowland Unified School District was chosen for
this project, based on among other criteria, their innovative district-level reform strategies
and commitment to reform with the goal or transforming teaching and learning in the face
of serious budgetary constraints (Gopalankrishna, 2010). In creating this partnership, the
focus of our evaluation at Rowland Unified School District centered on the RUSD
redesign process which incorporates the adoption of Holladay‘s (2009) ―Values-
Functions-Structures Model‖, and major structural changes such as the creation of an
Instructional Cabinet, Learning Directors, and K-12 structure of schools. The intention
was to provide a comprehensive evaluation, through the framework of Clark and Estes
(2002) Gap Analysis model, grounded in a research-based theoretical perspective, a
consultative evaluation.
Our investigation in consulting with RUSD took place through the use of the Gap
Analysis model as presented by Clark and Estes (2002) which targets the identification of
performance gaps, in connection with performance goals in organizations through the
examination of root causes: knowledge and skills, motivation and organizational
structure. In evaluating the implementation process at the Rowland Unified School
District, our team sought to gain insight into the root causes from three different role
groups: district personnel, Ball Foundation partners, administrators and teachers. These
role groups were selected based on the hierarchical nature of school reform and the
interrelatedness of processes at different hierarchical levels within the district.

38
With this focus, our team adopted a qualitative approach to data collection to
yield detailed information to inform gaps in the district‘s goal attainment related to
implementation of its reform efforts. Our team believed that conducting the inquiry
project in this manner would allow the team to gain a richer understanding of the
different individuals within each of the role groups. Understanding the individuals within
each role group more broadly informed the team as to the knowledge/skills, motivation
and organizational root causes at all levels that were barriers to effective reform
implementation.
Participants
Initially, our team met with the District Superintendent and its leadership staff in
order to gain an overarching sense of the district‘s history, its efforts at school reform, its
financial outlook, and the goals for improved student achievement. Along with these key
pieces of information, district personnel provided information on the district‘s current
strategic plan, goals for the district, possible challenges to meeting its district reform
goals, and district administration‘s response to these challenges. This informational
meeting allowed our team to ask broad questions to gain an understanding of the district‘s
desired focus and it also provided an opportunity to meet some key informants.
Key Informants
After gathering other information from available public records as well as those
provided by the district leadership such as strategic plans, demographic information,
financial support; AYP, and API scores for the district, key informants were identified.
Our team met with the district‘s Assistant Superintendent to conduct the first scanning
interview. The Assistant Superintendent was chosen as the first contact because he

39
would be able to provide insight into the history of RUSD school reform from a high
level administrative perspective, ease access into the organization, and present a global
picture of the district efforts. He was instrumental in accessing school personnel for
interviews needed to gain insight into the potential root causes associated with school
reform efforts in the district. This key informant became the liaison between our team
and the district and provided us follow-up contacts for interviews.
Administrators, Teachers, Ball Foundation Partners
Our key informant, RUSD‘s Assistant Superintendent, selected a combination of
follow up contacts for our initial round of scanning interview to be representative of the
different levels of implementation within the district (Ball foundation partners,
administrators, and teachers); these included two Ball Foundation partners, three
principals, four teachers. Second round month-long interviews had the same informant
composition incorporating administrators, Ball Foundation partners and teachers, which
allowed us to capture the extent of implementation related to the root causes in a more in-
depth manner.
Inquiry Procedures
The main instruments in this investigation were 1) structured scanning, semi-
structured stages of concern, and month-long interviews, 2) strategic plans, 3) district
information meeting, 4) observational data and 5) Ball Foundation surveys. All
interviewees were assured of their anonymity and that results shared would not identify
them in any way. Scanning interviews provided a way to understand how each role group
sees the reform strategies‘ implementation, through success/unsuccessful strategies, goals
(district and personal), awareness/knowledge, and barriers (knowledge/skills, motivation

40
and organizational culture). Stages of concern interviews aimed at assessing the stages
of concern on how implementation efforts were perceived and the feelings associated
with them. Month-long interviews focused on identifying the interviewees‘ goals for the
month (in this case April), what strategies were used, and the extent of success achieved.
Strategic plans and organizational charts allowed for understanding of how district
structures assist or hinder reform efforts and finally district meetings inform integration
between and within role groups. We used these methods concurrently to triangulate
information provided from all sources such as Ball questionnaires and observations to
gain a richer understanding of possible root causes.
Additionally, our team presented a summary of the findings to the District
Executive Cabinet in the fall in a collaborative effort to gain perspective on how the
district personnel conceptualized the possible gaps found by our team of researchers. The
information gathered at this meeting became the foundation for prioritizing and tailoring
proposed solutions to the gaps that were found in a way that could be practical and useful
for the district and would have the best likelihood of being implemented in the successful
work already in progress.
Following this initial meeting, a summary of the proposed research-based
solutions (Appendix H) was again presented to the Executive Cabinet members and the
Ball Foundation liaison for consideration. These solutions were tailored to fine-tune the
work already in progress while at the same time the solutions were focused and tied to the
decentralization focus of the district and its move toward adding a non-negotiable
component in defining and aligning global goals. Results of the meeting will be shared

41
with the district‘s Board of Directors in February 2011, per request from the
Superintendent.
Scanning Interviews
We designed a set of scanning interview questions (Appendix B) aimed at
gaining knowledge of how different goal groups within the school district understand the
historical perspective, the district goals (both informal and formal) for both what the
district was trying to accomplish and what the interviewee was personally trying to
accomplish, what goals and future achievement the interviewees identified and where
they would like to see themselves, whether they thought the district reform had or had not
been successful, what barrier to success might be present in RUSD, as well as
knowledge, skills, and motivational difficulties associated with various role groups.
Finally, we asked suggestions of other possible interviewees which would inform district-
level reform implementation.
Stages of Concern Interviews
Stages of concern interviews (Appendix E) were conducted with a second set of
interviewees again comprising the different role groups within the district and
representative of the district composition. These interviews aimed to identify different
stages of concern and feelings related to district-level reform. Responses were coded
based on the following stages: awareness (level of awareness of reform), information
(level of information present/or lack thereof), personal (how it affects the interviewee),
management (need for managing reform efforts), and consequences (effect of reform use
in kids, staff, etc). This data was analyzed in understanding more regarding the role of

42
motivational, knowledge, and skill factors and how each factor affects the
implementation of district-level reform within the district.
Month-long Interviews
Next, administrators, teachers, and Ball partners were asked to complete month-
long interviews (Appendix F) at their work site. The team members selected the month
of April and asked interviewees to elaborate on their goals for that month related to
school reform. They were asked about the strategies they had used, with whom, where
and how, and then to speak about the extent of their success. Probes were used at each of
the levels of questioning to further delve into the roots causes as identified by the
interviewees.
Interviews were conducted by each of the three member team, recorded and
transcribed for analysis without identifying the interviewees. Interviews were coded in a
way that allowed our team to evaluate themes related to the root causes from the Gap
Analysis Model (Clark & Estes, 2002): knowledge and skills, motivation and
organizational culture by each of the different role groups, the goal being to inform our
study in terms of not only roots but by role group as to the potential barriers to
implementation. Individual team members coded their interviews, and then each one
exchanged their transcript with the other group members, who then each coded them.
Coding results from each member were then compared for inter-rater reliability of at least
90 percent.
Strategic Plans
Within the Gap Analysis Model (Clark and Estes, 2002), organizational culture
can encompass both structures and unwritten rules. For RUSD, district-level reform also

43
involves restructuring efforts and a guided mission and vision for the organization.
Accordingly, our team found it crucial to examine artifacts related to the district‘s
organizational structure. The Ball Foundation effort at RUSD assisted the district in
creating a visual representation of its strategic plan illustrating different ―branches‖ each
representing various aspect of school reform. Among those branches were the creation of
several collaborative groups aimed at ―flattening‖ the organizational structure and
increasing communication in and among various role groups. As a result, Communities
of Practice, Instructional Leaders, and the Executive Cabinet were created.
Action plans were also shared which initially were intended to very specifically
guide the implementation of the strategic plans through the different role groups within
the organization that would lead to goal attainment of improved student achievement.
The structure of these action plans indicated some awareness by those developing the
strategic plans of the need for clear instruction within the various district role groups as
an important component of an effective implementation process.
Professional Development Meeting
Additional information utilized to facilitate insight into the root causes of our
analysis came from the Leadership Conference in which different role groups convene to
discuss the successes of the district reform efforts at the Rowland Unified School District.
This format served as an unstructured way to gather information from members from
each role group in a natural setting. One of our team members attended the leadership
conference and participated as an interested observer initially, following up with
additional stages of concern questions to administrators, teachers and Ball foundation
partners present at the meeting. As with the interview questions presented earlier, data

44
gathered from this format was coded in response to themes related to root causes from the
Gap Analysis Model (2002) such as knowledge/skills, motivation and organizational
culture to assess achievement gaps in district-level reform implementation.
Ball Foundation Survey
Additional information was gathered through results of a Ball Foundation survey
distributed to different role groups working on school reform and involved in the various
collaborative teams in an effort to assess the level of involvement and views on the
school reform strategies being implemented. This survey was used for information
purposes only to add to the already developing themes from data collection through
interviews and other artifacts.
Human Subjects Considerations

The purpose of this alternative capstone project was to provide assistance to a
specific school district on issues of practice identified by the district administration. The
intent of the project was not to produce generalizable knowledge, as in a traditional
dissertation, but rather to document activities carried out in the process of providing
consultation to the district on these issues. Therefore, this project is not considered as
research and therefore does not fall under the guidelines for research designed to produce
generalizable knowledge. The following sections from a University Institutional Review
Board (IRB) publication clarify the status of the present project:
Federal Regulations define research as “a systematic investigation, including
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
generalizable knowledge
1
” (45CFR46.102(d)). As described in the Belmont

1
"Generalizable knowledge" is information where the intended use of the research findings can be applied to populations
or situations beyond that studied.

45
Report
2
―...the term 'research' designates an activity designed to test a hypothesis
[and] permit conclusions to be drawn... Research is usually described in a formal
protocol that sets forth an objective and a set of procedures to reach that
objective.‖

―Research‖ generally does not include operational activities such as defined
practice activities in public health, medicine, psychology, and social work (e.g.,
routine outbreak investigations and disease monitoring) and studies for internal
management purposes such as program evaluation, quality assurance, quality
improvement, fiscal or program audits, marketing studies or contracted-for
services. It generally does not include journalism or political polls. However,
some of these activities may include or constitute research in circumstances where
there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge. (Office for the
Protection of Research Subjects, p. 2)

Further clarification is provided in the following section:

Quality improvement projects are generally not considered research unless there
is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge and use the data derived
from the project to improve or alter the quality of care or the efficiency of an
institutional practice. (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, p. 4)

C: Findings
Rowland Unified School District in its partnership with the Ball Foundation is
headed down a path of whole systems change. Evidence from multiple interviews, a Ball
survey, and observational data provide evidence of a desire to expand a shared leadership
model throughout the district. The Ball Foundation has been very forthright with the goal
of increasing literacy through systems change, while the district appears to have taken
substantial steps toward a shared leadership model. Evidence of this finding is the
creation of a district-wide Instructional Cabinet, Communities of Practice, and increased
collaboration time for school-site teams.

2
The Belmont Report is a statement of ethical principles (including beneficence, justice, and autonomy) for human subjects
research by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

46
The Instructional Cabinet model is not indigenous to RUSD; however, the size
and scope of its team reflects the shared leadership model promoted by the Ball
Foundation. It incorporates the executive cabinet as well as principals, labor leaders, and
other school site level instructional leaders. With over 25 members, the Instructional
Cabinet sets the democratized leadership tone for the district. Currently, they are
concentrating on RUSD‘s new status as a Program Improvement district and district-wide
assessment. Interview data indicates that prior to the current format, the district was
extremely decentralized. School site leaders did what they thought was best with little
direction from the central office. In meetings, ―often the person with the loudest voice
won the argument‖ (personal contact Ball Foundation). Numerous interview subjects
pointed to a lack consistency in direction from school to school. Ball and upper-level
management agreed that RUSD was moving toward a democratized sense of leadership
throughout the district and away from a laissez-faire atmosphere.
Communities of Practice (COPs) are a communication strategy brought by Ball
and used in its work with RUSD. In theory, COPs may be formed by any member in the
district and may include any level or number of people within the district. COPs are
formed by people that have a like interest or goal and meet periodically to discuss or take
action toward the group‘s goal. COPs need not be instructionally or educationally-based.
Interviews evidenced the creation of numerous non-work related COPs that met
periodically to pursue recreational interests. When this practice was brought to Ball
foundation representatives‘ attention they seemed to believe this was an important part of
the process. When asked how many COPs were operating within the district, no
respondents could give an accurate count. When asked how COPs benefits students,

47
some respondents felt that the COP model opened lines of communication for sharing
educational practices.
Collaboration time within RUSD has been almost exclusively funded by Ball.
Upper level management, via interviews, has made it very clear that they do not know
how they will continue to fund the collaboration and professional development time once
the Ball Foundation funding ends. While observing a day-long staff development
culminating activity between RUSD and Ball it seemed hard to determine who was
leading. The superintendent receives high marks for her willingness to become a
participant in the activities of the day rather than lead the activities. She served as a
model for the type of leadership she would like to promote district-wide. This
collaboration time produced valuable information for school site teams as they discussed
information gleaned throughout the year. One of the most popular initiatives brought by
Ball was the ―learning walk‖. This is a practice where school site teams composed of
administrators and teachers observe each other during instructional time. Non-
judgmental feedback is given as the school site teams serve as another set of eyes within
the classroom. These learning walks were just beginning to develop into ―best practices‖
within school sites.
Interviews with Ball members reveals that they feel RUSD is on the correct path
toward systems change, but is not there yet. When asked what will happen when Ball
funding ends and the Foundation leaves Rowland, there was no definitive answer as to
how this transition would look. Seemingly, upper level management is taking a big yet
noble risk heading down the path of systems change while under the pressure that comes
from entering Program Improvement.

48
One upper level participant noted that things did not look good as ―the strategic
plan is in shambles‖. Yet during the professional development day with Ball there was a
sense of optimism. Participants seemed to communicate freely about gains made
throughout the year. Balancing this with interview data made one wonder what was
being communicated beyond the structured time with Ball. Interviews with site level
administrators and teachers gave pause to the belief that this type of democratic
leadership has taken hold. There are still school site administrators who do not know the
priorities of the Instructional Cabinet. Many individuals at sites are not sure whether they
should be following the Ball model or attempting to follow a now decimated Strategic
Plan. A district administrator clarifies this, ―We have so many things going, but nothing
is connected. We have Ball, Strategic Plan, a coming PI Addendum, which one am I
supposed to be working through? I don‘t know what the Instructional Cabinet is doing or
supposed to be doing.‖ (RUSD Interview) Clearly this indicates a broad gap in the
organizational culture of RUSD. Recognizing this, district leadership is attempting to
incorporate the shared leadership model to attend to this gap. Unfortunately, this may not
be successful unless the knowledge gap of capacity is bridged as well. This will be
discussed in a following paragraph. When one Ball respondent was asked about the
strategic plan he said he wished Ball partners could have written the Plan with the district
so that it could be a living document. When pressed regarding the value of the Plan to
the district, he indicated there was little, if any. ―I think our biggest mistake was not
being more involved in the development of the Strategic Plan. I don‘t believe it is a poor
plan, I‘m just not sure if it is easily linked to the work we [Ball] are doing in the district.

49
I believe there are links, but they are not clear or easily evident.‖ (Ball Interview, 4-15-
10)
In sum, there seems to be a sense of accomplishment and optimism amongst those
participants receiving the most help and feedback from Ball. However, it does not seem
to take very long to find school site members that are confused or completely
unknowledgeable regarding the direction of the district. There seems to be little evidence
of alignment of school goals to district goals, with classroom goals even further
distanced. Again, this points to a gap in knowledge and skills and organizational culture.
Interview respondents overwhelmingly addressed the lack of accountability toward the
central office. The organizational culture was such that each principal could do whatever
they wanted at their school site. Seemingly, RUSD‘s status as a PI may be rooted in this
organizational gap that lacks direction or sound educational alignment as referenced in
the literature review. During school site visits, the saturation of Ball felt at the
professional development day was lacking. There was little if any observational evidence
one could use to support Ball‘s effect at the school site level. While much was celebrated
at the professional development day, there was little evidence in student achievement or
in feedback from school site personnel present to support Ball‘s effect at the school site
level. One interview respondent agreed saying, ―The principals smile and nod at the
meetings and then come back to the school site and do their own thing. If you have a
strong principal then you probably have a strong school, but if you don‘t there is no
accountability to the D.O. [district office]. Half the district is PI now so realistically what
is the D.O. going to do?‖ This brings into question whether the capacity exists within
RUSD to solve its problems. Harkening back to a few years ago when people within the

50
district largely did what they wanted, it would seem difficult to build a democratic
foundation. District leadership supports the desire to remain decentralized despite the
barriers this may cause in developing district-wide continuity. ―Keeping the C.O.P.s
(Communities of Practice) in place is a high priority. I believe these will be the lever
through which we will achieve our goals. C.O.P.s are aligned with our decentralized
nature and will help us develop creative solutions to our problems.‖ (RUSD interview, 6-
12-10) While Ball has certainly sought to build capacity within district employees it
remains questionable whether it has been in the district long enough or cast its net wide
enough to realize the gains on which both Ball and RUSD are banking. This again points
to a knowledge gap that may not be bridgeable under a shared leadership model. A
question regarding a knowledge gap or capacity may not be readily solved by sharing
leadership amongst those that do not know the direction of the district.
Along with the knowledge gaps in the administrative role group within RUSD in
the clarity of the communicated reform strategies, there are also knowledge gaps in the
implementation at the teacher level. Several teachers reported in their interviews that
despite efforts in collaboration through Communities of Practice, other than building
leadership skills, they did not seem to make a clear connection between this type of
collaboration and the classroom instruction to the extent that when asked about the stated
goal of moving out of program improvement, several informants conceptualized the
process as separate from the reform efforts rather than the reform efforts leading to
program improvement. One interviewee stated when asked about the PI status of the
school, ―Oh, yeah. That‘s a whole other situation.‖ (RUSD Interview 4-15-10).

51
Additionally, the superficial aspect of the reform efforts were clearly articulated
with statements related to the need to learn from others, and the idea that the
collaborative structure allowed for more dialogue with other role groups as strategies to
encourage communication between district-level personnel, teachers, administrators, and
executive cabinet members. Substantive information regarding reform and how teachers
see this process implemented, resulted in responses such as ―We are learning to be
‗leaderful‘. We have a chance to learn how to lead by facilitating collaborative groups.‖
(RUSD Interview, 6-6-10). It appeared that reform strategies had not been
communicated in a concrete way to teachers with clear action items for implementation.
Compounding the challenges to implementation are the differences in skill level
of the teachers. Informants mentioned the lack of experience of the new teachers as a
deterrent from incorporating reform efforts. They explained that new teachers seem
willing to collaborate with other colleagues but they are overwhelmed with just being
able to master the task of being a new teacher and many times when they go back to the
classroom, they fall back on what is within a particular new teacher‘s personal level of
comfort given the beginning teacher‘s new and developing skills. For veteran teachers,
who also saw themselves as advocates of the reform efforts, lack of implementation was
reported due to the veteran teachers‘ perceived understanding that he or she already
incorporates these new ideas into his or her teaching practices and therefore, no changes
are needed.
Along with knowledge/skills gaps, themes around motivation also surfaced. The
majority of those interviewed endorsed the reform effort as they understood it, again,
mostly in superficial terms. Those interviewed responded, for the most part, with

52
enthusiasm and willingness to adopt the strategies and participate in the newly created
collaborations. There were a few that mentioned other colleagues as not motivated to
participate and learn from others. These individuals were characterized as ―stuck in their
own classrooms‖ and ―wanting to do what they always do because they know what they
are doing.‖ Others mentioned their fear of evaluation by an unfriendly administrator as
the reason for wanting to participate in collaborative effort. Others interviewed related
the feeling that they had been teaching for a long time and that they were competent in
his or her teaching craft. Reform efforts to these teachers appear to threaten their self-
concept and hinder motivation to actively choose to participate in the reform strategies, or
persist at the task if engaged in it at all. Some expressed that the administrator would do
what she wanted anyway and that this was just a phase that would soon be gone.
Along with motivational causes, teachers also discussed the organizational culture
in relation to school reform. Many expressed the history of the district as one in which
role groups did not communicate with each other and even within their own role groups.
Teachers mentioned working in isolation in their classroom with little contact in the form
of department meetings. Communication between elementary, middle and high school
staff was non-existent as reported by the majority of the interviewees. According to
several interviewees, the district-level personnel did not communicate well with site staff
and information was not disseminated or if it was disseminated many times what was
happening at the school sites did not align with what the district office envisioned. Some
teachers, however, did endorse their school as a place where staff was passionate about
student learning and teachers were very willing to try new ways to instruct students.

53
They viewed their culture as one of experimentation. Other school sites viewed its
culture as one of appeasing the school administrator and not really ―making waves.‖
Organizational structural changes were readily evident to all the interviewees,
given the newly created collaborative groups within the RUSD and the loss of district-
level personnel leading to restructuring of the roles of the assistant principals now
incorporating district-level responsibilities. Other changes mentioned included the
participation in the Communities of Practice and the lack of professional development
due to budgetary constraints.
In sum, gaps in goal alignment from various levels within the organization play a
role in the difficulties of implementation of district-level reform for RUSD. This reality
is coupled with an unclear understanding by those who need to implement the reform as
to what is to be implemented. The lack of concrete action items is evident in the varying
interpretations by teachers of meaningful reform which results in the adoption of
superficial aspects. Motivational factors also influence fidelity of implementation
possibly caused by the perception that reform is a possible threat to self-concept which
negatively affects motivation in choice and persistence. Finally, organizational culture
and structure and capacity are the context in which all of these root causes take place and
different histories, resources, rules, and norms at different sites impact fidelity as well.

54
CHAPTER 3
Possible Solutions to the District‘s Reform Efforts
Authored by Gilda Dixon in collaboration with Brent Forsee and Monalisa Hasson
Determining Possible Solutions: Literature Review
Solutions for RUSD are presented as a result of collaboration with district
leadership. Traditional research studies may present solutions derived purely from a
strong literature and research. While recognizing the primary role research must play in
the presentation of solutions, the nature of this project, under a practical problem solving
lens, dictates proposed solutions must fit within the political and systemic boundaries of
the educational entity studied. This solutions piece seeks to meld literature-based
solutions to the political and cultural climate while building upon current strengths and
positive activities within RUSD. As a result, broad solutions requiring extensive
organizational change have been dismissed in favor of solutions that may better fit within
the context of the district‘s current reform initiatives.
RUSD has faced unprecedented budgetary issues due to the economic collapse of
2008. As this collapse was unexpected, the budget shortfall caught many districts
including RUSD off guard and in the middle of numerous reform and restructuring
movements. An additional challenge was created when the district entered program
improvement status in December, 2009.
Over the past three to four years, RUSD has moved to create an eight pillar
strategic plan, a professional development plan, a partnership with the Ball Foundation,
and developed a program improvement addendum to its Local Educational Agency
(LEA) plan, all while initiating necessary, yet critical personnel cuts at the district-level.

55
In response to all the impeding pressures, RUSD has been able to establish a solid
foundation from which to build a strong district-level reform effort to ultimately target
improved student achievement. In doing so, it is obvious that RUSD has considered
research-evidenced practices which have proven essential in school reform success
efforts. McCombs & Quiat (2003) propose that the following criteria is an integral part
of successful reform movements: 1) using research-validated principles and their
corresponding assessment tools, 2) considering both student and teacher perceptions of
instructional practices, and 3) assessing impacts on both learners and learning and on
both motivation and multiple achievement measures. Also RUSD‘s work takes into
consideration creating school capacity through: principal leadership, professional
community, program coherence, technical resources, knowledge, skills, and dispositions
of individual teachers, and learning opportunities for teachers (Borko, et al, 2003).
Additionally, incorporation of an outside agency has been described as a means to
effective district level comprehensive school reform (Borman et al, 2003). Programs
such as Success for All and America‘s Choice sustain that this component is crucial.
Outside entities provide district with a fresh lens and guidance toward solutions that may
not be so readily apparent to those within the organization (Borman, et al, 2003).
For RUSD, this step has been evident in their cooperation with the Ball
Foundation, in instituting many effective research-based strategies such as creating a
partnership with an outside organization (Ball), moving toward a decentralized system to
promote creating solutions and buy-in from those who do the work (administrators,
teachers and support staff) and allow for site-based decision-making affording more local
control and creating collaborative communities. Although these efforts have been in

56
place for a limited amount of time, it is obvious that the district is moving toward
improvement as would be expected given the short time since implementation and the
similarities as an ―exemplar‖ effort rather than the outcome measures. As Borko, et al
(2003) states comprehensive school reform takes time and it is best understood in terms
of school capacity rather than outcome.
RUSD leadership has instituted a culture of decentralization in the district and
within this milieu had begun to implement district-level reforms efforts. The movement
toward decentralization has been adopted by many educational agencies since the 1970s
with highly debated discussion as to how to strike a balance between decentralization and
centralization and clearly defining what this means for the particular organization
(Meyer, 2006). This debate has resulted in findings indicating that decentralization can
mean different things for different organizations and that whatever it means to a
particular district must be clearly defined. Additionally, effectiveness of effort toward
reform, rest in a balance between centralization and decentralization with fluctuation
between the two, creating some points which must be centralized and some that must be
left to school-site control (Meyer, 2006; Ostrom, 2009).
Given the current research findings as to maximizing effectiveness in district-
level reform implementation and the desire of RUSD leadership to work with the
―Essential Priorities,‖ our team of researchers analyzing RUSD from the district-level
recommend a simplification or narrowing of solutions to address goal alignment focusing
performance goals and clearly defining the ―non-negotiables‖ in a decentralized
organization in order to drive instructional reform at the classroom level. The aim is to
build on the current foundation in fine tuning the work already in progress. Elmore

57
(2002) and Collins (2001) support the honing of goals in an environment of shared
leadership, such as that in RUSD. While the reaching of goals must be shared, the clear
defining of goals and how they are measured must be benchmarked (Dowd, 2005) in a
way so the entire system understands expectations and when they have been met
(Resnick & Hall, 2005).
These proposed solutions take into consideration the limitations of our inquiry:
limited number of interviewees, limited time to conduct interviews, tumultuous timing of
the inquiry process, and lack of representation of all stakeholders in the interview
process. Additionally, the team understands and has taken into account the fact that
reform efforts evolve over time and that current findings capture a snapshot of where the
district is at this particular moment.
The team also understands the current budgetary pressures and time constraints
and the need for time-limited progress especially while facing Program Improvement
status. Togneri (2003) suggests in her article documenting paths for districts to move
away from islands of excellence and towards more consistent district-wide reform that
old district structures do not easily support new approaches. She further alliterates the
struggles district leaders sometimes have with site based personnel. ―District leaders
expected school staff to take on multiple roles: to analyze data and to diagnose student
needs, to determine the efficacy of their own practices, to align their instruction to
standards, to research new practices, and to collaborate frequently with colleagues. Yet
district leaders had not created the full complement of support systems for teachers to
meet these new expectations‖(Togneri, p. 9). In numerous ways these are the same
expectations placed on staff throughout Rowland Unified, despite the harsh impact of the

58
budget on resources. As a response, Rowland has sought to ―flatten‖ their leadership
hierarchy via the work with The Ball Foundation to create leadership capacity throughout
the district. This may be a well intentioned and effective response to the increased
demands.
Togneri (2003) offers a solution to this dilemma by aligning professional
development opportunities to district goals and emerging themes based on data. This
effort, while somewhat supported through the district‘s use of Communities of Practice,
may be more effective if linked more concretely to developing collective efficacy
throughout the district. A shared belief that the staff has the ability to positively affect
students (Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2004) is a belief of collective efficacy and appears
evident in pockets throughout RUSD. The transformational leadership style employed by
the highest level of leadership within RUSD as a dedication to fostering the growth of
members to enhance their commitment to elevate their goals (Burns, 1978) aligns with
the collective efficacy model. DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2006) further describe this as
educators committed to working collaboratively in processes of action research and
inquiry in order to produce more effective results.
Styles of leadership have been explored by Bolman and Deal (2003) in their
Four-Frame Leadership Model.
- Political Frame: The political frame requires leaders understand the political
climate of their organization. This involves the building and maintaining of
coalitions, negotiating, and finding acceptable compromises. This frame must
be mastered in climates of resource scarcity or conflict over organizational
direction.

59
- Symbolic Frame: The symbolic frame requires a visionary leadership style
that makes the work of individuals personal within the organization. Cause
and effect relationships become important and are clearly defined.
- Human Resource Frame: The human resource frame values people and the
work they do each day. The focus on people seeks to keep moral high
throughout the organization and can be effective during times of relative calm.
- Structural Frame: This frame requires a clear definition of systems and
practices throughout the organization. In some ways it can be more
bureaucratic, but can be effective when alignment and clarification issues
permeate the organization.
In many ways the culture of RUSD lies heavily within the human resource frame
as evidenced by their decentralized nature and self efficacious beliefs in the capacity of
their members. Ball resources clearly believe flattening of the organization will provide
for forward movement as teachers become instructional leaders. However, despite the
decentralized culture, a more structural approach may provide a frame for creative
solutions sought through the Communities of Practice. As Bolman & Deal (2003)
indicate, a structural approach allows for clarification and alignment of goals which may
narrow the organizational gap that currently exists within the district. As a solution,
RUSD leadership should develop a structural frame that can highlight, define, and clarify
its ―Essential Priorities.‖ Providing a structure that does not overreach will be essential
for success, but can bring clarity to expectations and goals. Collins (2001) explores the
transition of ―good‖ companies to ―great‖ companies as a narrowing of focus.
Companies that narrowed their focus and directed their resources toward that focus far

60
outgained companies that did not have an organizational focus. RUSD may be able to
make similar gains in an era of declining resources. Rather than deploying multiple
reform strategies, a narrowing of focus, through a negotiated structural frame, may
provide the ―hybrid‖ type solutions acceptable within the decentralized culture of RUSD.
Simply adapting an established model to such a culture seems counterintuitive for
success.
Nevertheless, there are several areas from the findings which present an
opportunity for refinement. One area has to do with goal alignment. Guhn (2008)
indicates that along with district support, an important process that facilitated goal
implementation was goal alignment. While global and intermediate goals for RUSD have
been developed, goal implementation at the performance level was found to be
inconsistent. Clark & Estes (2002) indicate there is solid research-based evidence that
work motivation depends largely on the availability and quality of performance (work)
goals. According to Clark and Estes, the best work goals are C
3
goals that are: 1) concrete
– clear, can be easily understood and measured, 2) challenging – difficult but can be
accomplished, and 3) current – short term goals (daily, weekly) which tend to be more
motivating than long-term goals. In some instances, lack of clarity of the performance
goals in Rowland may be the culprit. One solution to mitigate this problem rests in
creating C
3
performance (work) goals.
Lack of clarity and specificity of performance (work) goals can be frustrating for
those in the ―front-lines‖ (teaching staff) as evidenced by interviewees‘ responses where
reform strategies were not clearly articulated at the classroom level. These findings are
commensurate with other organizational research which indicates that in a decentralized

61
organization for which bottom-up solutions and creativity are highly valued, those in the
―front-lines‖ such as teaching staff, may feel confused and experience a sense of chaos
while attempting to create solutions to meet instructional and curricular mandates
(Meyer, 2006). Such confusion, although more pronounced in the initial stages of
implementation, may need to be addressed as increased pressures and time constraints
may not afford extended time for development without intervention and as sustained
engagement from those involved may wane without increased pressures or incentives.
(Meyer, 2006)
One recommendation to expedite and possibly create a sense of direction while
still allowing for site autonomy, would be for the executive leadership to identify and
clarify which reform efforts are non-negotiable and become more centralized in this
particular area. It is recommended the district leadership team decide which instructional
needs or expectations they consider to be ―non-negotiable‖ throughout the district. As
RUSD values the creativity stemming from the decentralized culture embraced
throughout the district, the leadership team can honor this by making concrete decisions
regarding the non-negotiables, while leaving the pathway to addressing these non-
negotiables open to local school site determination.
Much of the current efforts have been carried out within a collaborative and
supportive structure involving RUSD and the Ball Foundation. Research indicates issues
with professional development in school systems generally arise when trying to get such
practices rooted into the very systems the professional development is designed to affect
(Elmore, 2002). The issue then becomes, ―connecting the ideal prescriptions of the
consensus model with real problems of large-scale improvement and accountability‖

62
(Elmore, 2002). RUSD has embarked on the challenge of instituting a more enlightened,
less prescriptive, professional development strategy, centered on shared leadership and
accountability. However, research again indicates this approach, ―requires more explicit
guidance and attention to the practice of improvement‖ (Elmore, 2002).
O‘Day (2002) discusses the use of a focus, or targets, as being a motivation for
change. RUSD‘s status as a program improvement district indicates it has not met
proficiency mandates under the federal accountability measure. Theorists (Levitt &
March, 1988) indicate organizations generally orient themselves toward a target while
reacting to feedback. This outcomes based feedback can be problematic as proficiency
scores become available once a year. However, the theory of orienting toward a target
may be effective for RUSD if the target is defined as a non-negotiable within the district
as it relates to instructional practice. As Elmore (2002) explains everything must lead
back to instructional practice. Establishing a district wide goal or focus, known as a non-
negotiable, may allow for more usable and consistent feedback than an annual exam.
Along with a balance between centralization and decentralization or
recentralization is the need for an accountability structure to ensure system-wide success
(Wong, 2000). Organizations with outcome-based accountability systems in place tend
to demonstrate better implementation of reform efforts when leadership has the capacity
to implement such systems (Wong, 2000). Accountability structures therefore assist in
providing for a system of evaluation and use of data for decision-making both at the
district and site level to measure performance.
Since the pathway to achievement will remain a school site determinant at RUSD,
the district-level staff should also require some form of accountability measure from each

63
school site. As stated previously, the decentralized nature of RUSD can be of
tremendous value if sites are required to address district determined non-negotiables and
expected outcomes in their own creative ways. This will assist in the alignment of
district-level goals with the school site goals, continuing on through classroom instruction
and student performance goals.
Given that one of the key limitations of decentralization is that organizational
change at the school level is not a sufficient condition for academic improvement
throughout the system (Wong, 2000), one recommendation of a non-negotiable, as
determined by RUSD literature, is the use of efficacious instruction to drive the reform
movement into the classroom. This term appears to be of significance throughout RUSD
as evidenced by its placement as an ―Essential Priority‖. Clearly defining this term as a
district, requiring each site to provide examples of how they deliver efficacious
instruction will further unite the district without becoming prescriptive. Clearly defining
what efficacious instruction looks like at each level within the district can provide clarity
in expectations for teachers, thus providing more effective use of their chosen model of
staff collaboration which exists in the Communities of Practice. These examples may
then link to the professional development opportunities hosted by Ball as ―best practices‖
to be shared throughout the district.
In order for professional development to be most effective, it must move away
from one-time workshops for individuals and toward the linking of development through
many levels within the organization. These ―principles‖ for professional development
use research-based methods to guide practice. These include connecting site leadership
training with teacher training based on goals and student needs (Togneri, 2003). RUSD‘s

64
chosen professional development approach, through the Ball Foundation, has touched on
some of these processes, but falls short on others. Connecting principals with teachers
through site instructional teams can be further strengthened when provided guidance via
clearly stated district goals. The ―Essential Priorities‖ document provides an excellent
opportunity to fill this void. However, it must be clearly set forth, supreme to all other
reform documents currently in place and should align with the district‘s Local
Educational Agency (LEA) plan and its program improvement addendum. The Ball
principles and driving documents may serve as an excellent vehicle by which to arrive at
successful implementation of the ―Essential Priorities‖. Communication must occur
throughout the district to define Ball as a professional development facilitator as opposed
to a professional development destination in order for the ―Essential Priorities‖ and the
Ball Foundation initiatives to work effectively toward a common goal. Interview data
and Ball survey results indicate confusion amongst staff as to the Ball Foundation‘s
purpose within the district. ―I know Ball is here to assist the district, but I don‘t know
exactly what they [district] want me to do. Sometimes I wish they [district] would just
tell me what they [district] want and what I am supposed to do with Ball.‖ (RUSD
Interview 5-7-10). Leithwood et al (2002), describe successful professional development
as a situation where the teacher is respected as a professional. Leadership can provide
opportunities for teachers to come together as a community to share in decision making
and best practices. This in turn may increase teacher motivation to participate in such
forums.
In sharing of instructional practices, collaborative efforts can be more clearly
focused so that performance goals are driven from the global and intermediate goals.

65
Focused and directed collaboration through professional development can drive program
implementation success through the use of best practices as the focus of collaborative
efforts. Such structure creates a foundation which will still allow for creative solutions at
the school site level.
Summary of Proposed Solutions
The inquiry project process identified three proposed solutions to effectively
implement the comprehensive reform efforts currently in place in the district. The three
proposed solutions are 1) strengthen the understanding of the goals of the four initiatives
currently in place in the district; 2) align or clarify the goals of the four current initiatives;
and 3) strengthen the accountability component to include those expectations that are
non-negotiable (Essential Priorities for Teaching and Learning); 4) align or clarify goals
and roles of district structures: executive cabinet, instructional cabinet, and communities
of practice. Based on the literature review conducted, the team believes that these three
solutions will maximize the district‘s ability to effectively implement its current
Comprehensive School Reform initiatives.
Effective performance improvement must begin with clearly understood
performance goals (Bandura, 1997) and an understanding of the gaps between current
and desired performance (Gilbert, 1996; Rummler and Brache, 1995; and Locke and
Latham, 1990). According to Clark and Estes (2002), many organizations fail to make
the connection between global organizational goals and specific performance or work
goals. Without clear and specific goals, people within the organization tend to focus on
tasks that are not conducive to assisting the organization achieve its goals. The
performance goals should be concrete defined as clear, easily understandable, and

66
measurable; challenging in a manner that is difficult but attainable; and current defined as
short-term. Daily or weekly goals are more motivating that long term monthly or annual
goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). Clarification of the roles and the goals of the four reform
initiatives, the Strategic Plan, The Ball Foundation work, Program Improvement, and the
Three Essential Priorities, and how they are related is the overarching solution to the
systemic issues identified during the inquiry process. Clarification and simplification of
multiple reform strategies and/or policies can reduce teacher overload and increase
capacity for reform implementation. Visual representations can assist key players
understand their role within the reform movement, as well as strategize prospective
interaction that could drive implementation (Meyer, 2006; Ghun, 2008; Johnston, 2002).
Alignment between the district and its personnel begins with compatible goal
structures (Clark & Estes, 2002). In absence of this component, all other attempts to
improve performance are like sailing at sea without a compass. The ultimate objective for
performance improvement is that it must support the larger goals of the organization.
Every member of the organization should have a clear and concise description of their
performance goals and know how it is aligned with the district global goals. There is a
lack of goal alignment across the district, especially at the site level. The team
recommends goal alignment to support goal implementation. Activities such as priority-
setting to provide authority to reform should be designed. The team suggests that the
Three Essential Priorities which are to strengthen first, best instruction, EL instruction
and RTI (squared); implement district-wide agreements about efficacious instruction and
support for teaching and learning; and build cultural proficiency across the system to
improve teaching and learning serve as the global district goals that will be aligned with

67
strategic plan, program improvement, and the Ball Foundation initiatives. The alignment
of these goals will drive effective implementation from the district-level to classroom
instruction and student performance goals.
Continuing with the theme of alignment, the roles and goals of district structures
could be more clearly communicated. The role of the newly developed Instructional
Leadership Team should be clear in its interactions with the Executive Cabinet.
Furthermore, the diverse interests of the Communities of Practice groups could be further
defined and standardized within the district. How these smaller groups influence
instruction within the district and the Instructional Leadership Team could be clarified by
identifying tangible instructional priorities within RUSD, such as The Essential Priorities
for Teaching and Learning.
Last but most important is the need to identify the non-negotiables in a
decentralized organizational culture, define efficacious instruction, and develop an
effective accountability system to monitor all levels of school reform implementation.
Benchmarks and standards related to the reform serve as resources that allow a school
site to track its progress, evaluate fidelity of implementation, and develop the capacity to
self-monitor (Elmore, 2002; O‘Day, 2002; Meyer, 2006; Ostrom, 2009; Wong, 2002;
Johnson, 2002).
A reduction or narrowing of district reform initiatives very likely could provide
for greater success in attaining reform goals. Foley (2001) believes government
mandates create a reform bureaucracy forcing organizations to take on too many reforms.
This seems evident in RUSD as interview data indicates confusion over, ―which reform
are we on now‖ (RUSD Interview, 5-9-10). As the multiple reforms receive superficial

68
implementation they become less and less effective. This effort is further hampered by a
lack of effective feedback throughout the organization. Timely and specific feedback can
increase understanding, therefore increasing the speed and effectiveness of the reform
(Mayer, 2008). Furthermore, the use of a multitude of reform movements can have the
unintended effect of dispersing scarce resources. As the budgetary woes of RUSD, and
the state as a whole persist, the incorporation of multiple reform movements within a
district can very likely lead to an unintended, but very real consequence of draining
valuable resources whether time or money. (Au & Valencia,, 2010). Studies indicate a
narrow and consistent focus is maintained at schools showing success in raising
achievement levels (Cambone, 1995; Lipson, Mosenthal, Mekkelson, & Russ, 2004).
The aim is to build on the current foundation in fine tuning the work already in
progress. These proposed solutions take into consideration the limitations of our inquiry:
limited number of interviewees, limited time to conduct interviews, tumultuous timing of
the inquiry process, and lack of representation of all stakeholders in the interview
process. Additionally, the team understands and has taken into account the fact that
reform efforts evolve over time and that current findings capture a snapshot of where the
district is a this particular moment. The team also understands the current budgetary
pressures and time constraints and the need for time-limited progress especially while
facing Program Improvement status.
In conclusion, clearly defining what the non-negotiables are within RUSD, while
respecting the decentralized nature of site determination may help align RUSD goals
without mandating prescriptive solutions. This may assist with buy-in as sites determine
their pathway to address the non-negotiables and the manner in which they will assess

69
their progress (accountability). Furthermore, the practice of efficacious instruction seems
to be a priority within RUSD, yet remains undefined in practice. Clearly defining this
term as a district, while requiring sites to determine concrete examples of how their
instruction addresses the definition can assist in forming deeper connections to the work
the Ball Foundation is currently performing in RUSD.

70
References

Au, K. H., Valencia, S. W. (2010). Fulfilling the potential of standarads-based education:
Promising policy principles. Language Arts, 87 (5), 373-380.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Berends, M. B. (2002). Looking back over the decade of whole-school reform: The
experience of new american schools. The Phi Delta Kappan , 84 (2), 168-175.
Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (2003) Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and
Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008.
Borman, G. D. (2009). National Efforts to Bring Reform to Scale in America's High-
Poverty Elementary and Secondary Schools: Outcomes and Implications.
Washington, D.C.: Center of Education Policy.
Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive
school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 73, 125-230.

Bonner, M., Koch, T. & Langmeyer, D. (2004). Organizational theory applied to school
reform: A critical analysis. School Psychology International, 25, 455-471.

Borko, H., Wolf, S. A., Simone, G. & Uchiyama, K. P. (2003). Schools in transition:
Reform efforts and school capacity in Washington State. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25 (2), 171-201.

Brownell, Mary T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., & Waldron, N. (2006). Learning from
collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 72 (2), 169-
185.

Burns, D. M. (1978). Human resources in academe: Challenge for leadership, Journal of
the College and University Personnel Association, 29, 3, 6-10, F 78.

Cambone, J. (1995). Time for teachers in school restructuring. Teachers College Record,
96 (3): 511-540.

Camburn, E. R. (2003). Distributed Leadership in Schools: The case of elementary
schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Education Evaluation
and Policy Analysis , 25 (4), 347-373.
Clark, R. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies make The Leap…and Others
Don’t. Harper Business.

71

Coburn, C. (2001). Collective sense-making about reading: How teachers mediate
reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 23 (2), 145-170.

Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully
implemented? Review of Educational Research , 72 (3), 433-479.
Dowd, A. (2005). Data don‘t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to
assess Community college performance. Lumina Foundation for education
research report, University of Massachusetts.
DuFour, R., DuFour R., & Eaker, R. (2006). Professional learning communities at work
plan Book. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Elmore, Richard F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Albert
Shanker Institute, 10-20.

Elmore, Richard F. (2006). Leadership as the practice of improvement. Paper presented
at the International Conference on Perspectives on Leadership for Systematic
Improvement, sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Developmet (OECD), London.

Finnigan, K.S. (2010). Principal leadership and teacher motivation under high-stakes
accountability policies. Leadership and Policies in Schools, 9 (2), 161-189.

Firestone, W.A. (2009). Accountability nudges districts into changes in culture. Phi Delta
Kappan, 90 (9), 670-677.

Foley, E., & Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia, PA. (2001).
Contradictions and control in systemic reform: The ascendancy of the central
office in Philadelphia schools. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Fullan, M.G. & Miles, M.B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn‘t.
The Phi Beta Kappan, 73 (10), 744-752.

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs:
Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future
directions.Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-13.

Gopalakrishnan, S. C. (2010). Embracing the "Gift Story". OD Practitioner , 42 (1), 1-9.
Guhn, M. (2009). Insights from successful and unsuccessful implementations of school
reform programs. Journal of Education Change , 10, 337-363.

72

Hamilton, L.S., Mccaffrey, D. F., Stecher, B.M., Klein, S. P., Robyn, A., Bugliari, D.
(2003). Studying large-scale reforms of instructional practices: An example
from mathematics and science. Educational Evaluation and Policy, 25 (1), 1-
20.

Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state
standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289-318.

Johnston, B. J. (2002). Absent from school: Educational policy and comprehensive
reform. The Urban Review, 34(3), 205-230.

Leithwood, K., Steinbeck, R. (2002). School leadership and teacher‘s motivation to
implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38,
94-119.

Levin, B. (2003). There is another way: A different approach to education reform. Phi
Delta Kappan , 84 (2), 658-664.
Levitt, B., March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14,
319-340.
Little, M. E., Houston, D. (2003). Comprehensive school reform: A model based on
student learning. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14(1), 54-62

Lin, A. (2000). Reform in the making: The implementation of social policy in prison.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lipson, M.L., Mosenthal, J. H., Mekkelsen, J., Russ, B. (2004). Building knowledge
and fashioning success one school at a time. The Reading Teacher, 57 (6)
534-542.
Locke, E. A. &. Latham, G. P. (1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the
end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1(4), 240-246.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and
Development.
McAdams, R. P. (1997). A systems approach to reform. The Phi Delta Kappan, 79
(2), 138- 142.
McCombs, Barbara L.; Quait, Linda. (2002). What makes a comprehensive school reform
model learner centered? Urban Education, 3(4), 476-496.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Improving education through standards-based reform.
Stanford, CA.: National Academy of Education.

73
Meyer, H., D. (2006 February 27). Saying what we mean, and meaning what we say –
unpacking the contingencies of decentralization, 223-224.NewYork, New York,
Albany.

Mayer, R. (2008). Learning and instruction, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Merrill
Prentice Hall.

Moller, J. (2009). School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between
managerial and professional accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 10,
37-46.

Moessinger, P. (2000). The paradox of social order: Linking psychology and sociology.
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2001). Retrieved February 5, 2010, from http://www.
nclb.gov.

Northouse, P.G. (2007). Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage
Publications.

O'Day, Jennifer. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard
Educational Review. 72 (3) 293-313.

Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.

Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, Office of the Provost. (n.d.). Is your
project human subjects research? A guide for investigators. University of
Southern California.

Pintrich, P.R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 4, 667-686.

Resnick, L. & Hall, M. (2005). Principles of learning for effort-based education. Institute
for Learning: Learning Research and Development Center, University of
Pittsburgh, 20-26.

Rorrer A. K., Skria, L, Scheurick, J. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in
educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 307-358

Santrock, J. W. (2009) Lifespan development, 12th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

74

Sipple, J. W. (2004). Adoption and Adpatation: School District Responses to State
Imposed Learning and Graudation Requirements. Education Evaluation and
Policy Analysis , 3 (2), 143-168.

Spillane, J. P. (1998a). A cognitive perspective on the role of the local educational
agency in Implementing instructional policy: Accounting for local variability.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 34, 31-57.

Spillane, J. R. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policy-makers and
the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18 (2), 141-
179.

Spillane, J. R. (2002). Policy Implementation and Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing
Implementation Research. Review of Educational Research , 72 (3), 387-431.
Stein, M. K. & Nelson, B.S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, (25), 423-448.

Togneri, W., (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve
instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington D.C: The Learning First
Alliance and The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Thompson, D. E., & Katzell, R. A. (1990). Work motivation: Theory and practice.
American Psychologist, 45(2), 144-153.

Tucker, S. (1996). Benchmarking: A guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin
Press.

Tushnet, N. C. (2004). Longitudinal Assessment of Comprehensive School Reform
Program Implementation and Outcomes: First-Year Report. Los Alamitos, CA:
WestEd.
Wolf, S., Borko, H., Elliott, R., & Melver, M. (2000). ―That dog won‘t hurt!‖ Exemplary
school change efforts within the Kentucky reform. American Educational
Research Journal, 3(2), 349-393.

Wong, K.K. (2000). Big change questions: Chicago school reform: From centralization
to Integrated governance. Journal of Educational Change, 97-105.

Zembylas, M. (2002). Constructing genealogies of teachers‘ emotions in science
teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 79-103.

75
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: RUSD Reform Structures
Figure A-1: RUSD Strategic Plan Graphic

76
Figure A-2: Ball Foundation Partnership

77
APPENDIX B: Inquiry Project Proposal PowerPoint

Figure B-1: Title Slide

COMP R E HE NS IVE S CHOOL R E F OR M:
Addres s ing the Achievem ent Gap in the
R owland Unified S chool Dis trict
P res enters : Gilda Dixon, B rent F ors ee, and Monalis a Has s on
Date: March 1, 2010
US C R os s ier S chool of E ducation

Figure B-2: Introduction Slide

Introduction to the Project
 Overview of the Project
 Introduction to the Rowland Unified School
District
 Background
 Problem and Significance of Study
 Literature Review
 The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Model
 Rationale
 Clark and Estes Model as a Consultative Model
 Proposal
 Methodology – Qualitative Approach
 Collaborative Goal

78

Figure B-3: RUSD Demographics

T he R owland Unified S chool Dis trict
 P res chool through Adult E ducation Dis trict located in S an Gabriel Valley in
L os Angeles County
 21 s chools (13 elem entary s chools ; two K-8 s chools ; three m iddle s chools ;
two com prehens ive high s chools ; and one alternative education high s chool)
 Approxim ately 16,000 S tudents (K-12)
E thnic ity %
Am erican Indian 00.1%
As ian 20.8%
P acific Is lander 00.3%
F ilipino 08.3%
His panic 60.8%
AfricanAm erican 02.4%
White 03.7%
Multiple or No R es pons e 03.6%

Figure B-4: RUSD description

R owland Unified S chool Dis trict
 Dis trict boundary of attendance includes the
unincorporated area of R owland Heights ; portions
of L a P uente, Walnut, and Wes t Covina
 F our National B lue R ibbon S chools and16 California
Dis tinguis hed S chools
 Guided by its m is s ion to provide an academ ic
program dis tinguis hed by rigorous academ ics ,
innovative us e of technology, creative exploration,
and nurturing learning experiences that em power
s tudents

79
Figure B-5: Background

B ackground
 No Child L eft B ehind Act of 2001 has placed an
em phas is on s tudent achievem ent acros s all
s ubgroups
 R owland has taken s teps to addres s the needs of all
s tudents
 Collaborative relations hips with all s takeholders
 R es earch-B as ed P rofes s ional Developm ent
 E xternal P artners hips
 Ins tructional Cabinet
 F am ily R es ource Center

Figure B-6: Problem

P roblem
 P roficiency levels in E nglis h and L anguage Arts (E L A) are below
the target of 45% for His panic, S ocioeconom ically
Dis advantaged (S E S ), E nglis h learners (E L ), and S tudents with
Dis abilities (S WD) s ubgroups bas ed on 2009 data
 S tudents with Dis abilities did not m eet the Math proficiency
target of 45.5; His panic, S E S , and E L s ubgroups were jus t
above the target of 45.5
 S ix elem entary s chools were placed in program im provem ent
s tatus in 2009 for a total of 11 s chools or more than half of
its 21 sc hools
 T he target will increas e to 56% and 56.4% res pectively in E L A
and Math in 2010

80
Figure B-7: Significance of Study

S ignificance of S tudy
 T he inves tigation and analys is of the Dis trict will
provide new data to as s is t in identifying s trategies
to im prove s tudent learning
 No action, m ay m ean los s of funding that could lead
to los s of local control and los s of s tudents to other
dis tricts and/ or charter s chools .
 T he overarching s ignificance is to provide a
com prehens ive s chool reform m odel that m ay be
em ulated by other dis tricts experiencing s im ilar
challenges

Figure B-8: Overview of Literature Review

Overview of L iterature R eview
 E lem ents of Com prehens ive S chool R eform
Greater s pecification of curriculum s tandards
and outcom es .
More as s es s m ent, increas ed opportunities for
parents , res earch bas ed ins tructional
m ethods , and coordination of res ources .
What are ins tructional expectations ?
What are the perform ance expectations ?

81
Figure B-9: Overview of Literature Review 1

Overview of Literature Review 1
 Systematic Approach
 Long term process requiring commitment from all
stakeholders.
 District, site, and community must communicate.
 Implementation factors must be addressed before
connecting reform to student outcomes.
 Further investigation of barriers to multi-level
commitment will be helpful.

Figure B- 10: Overview of Literature Review 2

Overview of Literature Review 2
 Echoing a need for a systematic approach
includes the realization that
comprehensive reform can be slow and
challenging.
 Review of popular reform models such as
Success for All.
 Review of Gap Analysis model as a tool
for understanding goals and identifying
root causes of gaps.

82
Figure B-11: Overview of Literature Review 3

Overview of Literature Review 3
 Review of the three reasons for
performance gaps, motivation, knowledge,
and culture.
 Thorough examination of causes and
possible solutions, through the literature,
for all three.

Figure B-12: Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis Framework

Clark and E s tes (2002) Gap Analys is
F ram ework as a Cons ultative Model for R US D
 Goals
 Gaps
 R oot Caus es
 Knowledge/ s kills
 Motivation
 Organizational Culture
 S olutions
 Outcom es

83
Figure B-13: Proposal

Proposal
 Investigate and clarify the goal(s) RUSD
propose they would like to achieve
 Clarify gaps in meeting proposed goal(s)
 Gather evidence for current status of RUSD’s
reform strategies
 Uncover and rule-out root causes of gaps
 Propose solutions
 Evaluate outcomes

Figure B-14: Methodology-Qualitative Approach

Methodology-Qualitative Approach
 Conduct interviews (s tructured interview
ques tionnaires , obs ervations , focus groups , etc.)
With different s takeholders and at different levels
 T riangulate with artifacts (tes t s cores , s tate and
federal data, docum ents , reports , etc.)
 S ynthes ize data under conceptual fram ework and
theoretical approaches
 P ropos e s olutions bas ed on data analys is and bes t
practices

84
Figure B-15: Collaborative Goal

Collaborative Goal
Qualitative, s ys tem atic approach to data collection
and analys is utilizing the Clark and E s tes (2002)
fram ework in as s is ting R US D in generating real
world s olutions to current challenges in goal
attainm ent:
Im pro ved S tuden t Ach ievem en t

85
APPENDIX C: Scanning Interview Questions

1. Please give me an overview of (topic)?
 What is the current situation?
o What is being done about it?
o Is the situation a ―problem‖—in what sense?

2. Now, I‘d like to get some historical perspective on this situation.
1. Over the past 5 or 10 years, what has changed regarding (topic)?
2. Has the district tried to address the (topic) in specific ways? Please
describe.
3. Was there any success with these efforts?
4. Do they continue to this day—or what happened to the efforts?

3. Regarding the (topic), are there any formal or informal goals for what you or the
district are trying to accomplish?
 What is the goal(s) of this effort?
 What do you aspire to? In what time frame?
 How will you/the district know if it is successful?
 Do different role groups have different goals for this effort? (Get details)
 How big is the gap between where you are now and where you aspire to
be?

4. Let‘s talk some more about the gap between where you are now and perfect
success on this topic. I‘d like your perspective here. What is keeping the district
from achieving perfect success on (topic)? Is the problem linked to many role
groups or one? Is the problem one of lack of knowledge/skill, of motivation, of
culture, of politics or what?
1. Probe using knowledge/skill, motivation, organizational culture/structure
2. Probe by role group

5. Finally, we hope you can help us by suggesting what our team could do to better
understand the (topic) here in the district—any suggestions?

86
APPENDIX D: Stages of Concern Questionnaire Directions

Name (optional)______________________________ ID#____(please leave blank)
Note: Identifying data is confidential and will not be shared as part of this inquiry project.

The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine what people who are implementing or
thinking about implementing RUSD‘s district reform strategies are concerned about at
various times during the innovation adoption process. Some of the items on this
questionnaire may appear to be of little relevance or irrelevant to you at this time. For
completely irrelevant items, please circle ―0‖ on the scale. Other items will represent
those concerns you do have, in varying degrees of intensity and should be marked higher
on the scale.
For example:
This statement if very true of me at this time 01234567
This statement is somewhat true of me now 01234567
This statement is not at all true of me at this time. 01234567
This statement seems irrelevant to me 01234567
Please respond to the items in terms of your present concerns, or how you feel about your
involvement or potential involvement with RUSD‘s reform strategies. We do not hold
any one definition or this innovation, so please think in terms of your own perceptions of
what it involves. Remember to respond to each item in terms of your present concerns
about your involvement or potential involvement in the reform strategies.

Thank you for taking time to complete this task.

87
APPENDIX E: Stages of Concerns Interview Questionnaire

RUSD District Level School Reform
Concerns Questionnaire about RUSD School Reform Strategies
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
7
Irrelevant Not true of me Now Somewhat True of Me Now Very
True of Me Now

1. I am very interested in knowing other teacher’s attitudes
about District School Reform.

2. I now know of some other approaches that might work
better than current reform strategies

3. I don’t even know what RUSD’s reform strategies are
4. I am concerned that I don’t have enough time to organize
myself each day (in relation to reform strategies)

5. I would like to help other colleagues in my use of reform
strategies

6. I have very limited knowledge about reform strategies
7. I would like to know the effect of reform strategies on my
professional status.

8. I am concerned about conflict between my interests and
responsibilities in relation to reform strategies.

9. I am concerned about revising my use of reform strategies
10. I would like to develop working relationships with others
colleagues using reform strategies

11. I am concerned how reform strategies are helping students
12. I am concerned about how reform strategies are helping
teachers

13. I am not concerned about reform strategies
14. I would like to know who will make decisions about reform
strategies

15. I would like to know what resources are available to assist in
implementing reform strategies.

88
APPENDIX F: One Month Interview Questions
1. Since our last meeting about one month ago, how have RUSD reform strategies
impacted your work in the last month?
2. What are the pros and cons of implementing or not implementing reforms strategies?
3. How do you see sustaining reform efforts after Ball Foundation funding ends?

89

APPENDIX G: Executive Summary

Executive Summary

District Level Reform Implementation:
A Gap Analysis Inquiry Project for Rowland Unified
School District

Gilda Dixon, Brent Forsee, and Monalisa Hasson
University of Southern California
August 24, 2010

90
Executive Summary
Background
At state and local levels, effective implementation of comprehensive school
reform is an absolute necessity, in the era of NCLB, with its overall goal of ensuring
educational systems provide appropriate and effective education for all the nation‘s
students as demonstrated by a system of accountability and data-driven decision-making.
Districts that do not meet the state mandates in terms of student achievement and AYP
are penalized in their funding allocations and student achievement gaps persist. As a
result, districts must make every effort to ensure that district-level comprehensive reform
strategies are effective in meeting measureable goals for student performance and must
put in place systems for evaluation of progress and to identify barriers to implementation.
As a result Rowland Unified School District has responded to these mandates by
adopting reform efforts to incorporate creative strategies to effect school-wide change in
a milieu where accountability tied to student improvement means allocation of funding
and continued success as required by not only federal and state mandates but by all
stakeholders.
Purpose
This project was undertaken through collaborative efforts with RUSD by a three-
person team to provide the district with an analysis of their implementation of their
district reform efforts, more specifically their Partnership with the Ball Foundation,
Strategic Plan and the creation of the Communities of Practice, Instructional Leadership
and Executive Cabinet.

91
The investigation focuses on identifying current gaps in implementation of
district-level reform strategies, providing documented analysis of their efforts while at the
same time suggesting possible research-based interventions to assist RUSD to meet their
goals. The intention is to provide a rich inquiry grounded in a research-based theoretical
perspective through a consultative model.
The Gap Analysis
This inquiry project utilizes the Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis model as it
provides a viable framework from which to draw information to investigate district-level
school reform strategies in making systematic changes to create solutions for improved
student performance. It allows for the creation of a deeper understanding of how skills
and knowledge, organizational culture, and motivation work in concert influencing
implementation of district-level school reform and ultimately informing goal
achievement. Solutions specifically tailored to address documented root causes of the
gaps, including effective implementation strategies with a focus on long-term changes
can then be recommended.
Steps in the Gap Analysis Process
1. Develop and set goals – where do we want to be in terms of our
performance? Long-term goals, intermediate (weeks or months) goals and
performance (day-to-day) goals are developed, defined and aligned.
2. Determine gaps – are there gaps between how the district is performing now
and where they aspire to be based on their goals.
3. Determine causes of gaps – what are the barriers to reaching our goal(s)?
Knowledge/skill –do we know what to do? Motivation – do we want to do it?

92
Organizational culture – do we have the resources to do it? Do policies,
procedures and processes get in the way or do they support our goal?
4. Investigate and implement existing research – solutions that are research-
based are presented and implemented to address causes of gaps.
5. Evaluate– gather systematic information about the effectiveness of the
program, its viability and assess and modify solutions as required.
Goals
The gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2002) identifies three types of goals:
global, intermediate and performance goals. Global goals relate to the long-term vision
of the organization with implementation timelines of five to ten years. As an example, an
organization‘s strategic plan would fall in this category. Next, are intermediate goals
aimed at implementation in weeks or months and are narrower in scope than global goals.
Intermediate goals can be implementation of curriculum changes, as an example. Finally,
day-to-day goals form the performance goal piece with examples being changes that take
place at the classroom level, such as a new teaching strategy.
Goals at all levels must be aligned and well-defined for an organization to reach
desired performance, so the work is done in concert and each of the different goal levels
support the others. In looking at goals, the first step is to assess where the organization is
currently in its performance and compare that with the goal of where it wants to be. For
example, in looking at a strategic plan, one can investigate whether or not all components
are being implemented at the district, administrative and teacher level and compare that
to what the desired implementation goal. Any difference in the current status and the
desired performance is defined as a gap.

93
Gaps and Root Causes
Once goals are identified, the next step in the process is to investigate the barriers
to achieving those goals. Causes of identified performance gaps can be diverse and may
be the results of lack of knowledge/skill, motivation or organizational culture. Barriers to
reaching a goal related to knowledge and skills have to do with whether staff has the
skills and knowledge to implement what is asked of them. Motivational barriers are those
challenges to implementation whereby individual are not motivated to work toward
reaching that goal. Finally, organizational cultural barriers include having the resources
necessary to achieve the goal and whether or not the current policies and procedures
support goal attainment or hinder it.
Proper identification and investigation of possible causes of the gaps will assist
the development of interventions targeted at closing the gaps.
Proposed Interventions
Once root causes of the gaps are identified, solutions/interventions can be
implemented to address those barriers. For example, if a gap is found in the
implementation of the strategic plan because there is a lack of concrete knowledge as to
what needs to be done at the administration and or classroom level, then solutions in
which specific action items are articulated concretely to all involve can address this root
cause. Or it may be that the strategies are not being implemented because staff feels that
there are not enough resources to meet the goal, such that solutions in this situation would
center on creative ways to provide needed resources.
Finally, a rich investigation of the root causes of gaps in goal attainment is crucial
if effective solutions are to be implemented.

94
Inquiry Process
In investigating the implementation process at Rowland Unified School District,
our team began by utilizing the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2002) as a problem-
solving tool. Through this framework, identification and addressing performance gaps
becomes feasible by exploring barriers associated with deficit in knowledge/skills,
motivation or organizational resources, policies and/or procedures. Our team sought to
gain insight and a foundation for the already existing reform strategies and successfully
implemented interventions, by meeting with the executive leadership team and reviewing
existing artifacts and documents such as the Strategic Plan, Ball Foundation Partnership
Reports, School Accountability Report, Ball Survey, etc. The focus was to gain a baseline
on the areas of strength for RUSD reform efforts and build on these accomplishments as
a starting point for our inquiry. Further discussion delineated global, intermediate and
performance goals set by the district, their PI status in relation to overall student
achievement and their efforts at implementation of reform strategies through structural
changes such as Communities of Practice, Instructional Leaders and the Executive
Cabinet.
After careful examination of existing data, our team spoke with one key informant
and 18 follow up contacts from different role groups: district personnel, Ball foundation
partners, administrators and teachers. These role groups were selected based on the
hierarchical nature of school reform and the interrelatedness of processes at different
levels within the school district. Additionally, these individuals had involvement at some
level in the reform efforts.

95
Findings
RUSD has responded to pressures to meet federal and state mandates for student
achievement through its district-level reform efforts – Strategic Plan, Ball Foundation
Partnership. As a result, this inquiry project focuses on the implementation of the district
goals aimed at achieving improved student performance and moving out of PI status.
Through the inquiry process, areas of strength in successful implementation were evident
as were other emergent themes. Conversations with district, administrative and school
personnel yielded information regarding some successful goal implementation, usually in
the global and intermediate level, with performance goals implementation being
inconsistent. Some performance goals are not clearly defined, and therefore not
understood by those who will need to implement them, resulting in some lack of
implementation. Other performance goals may not be aligned such that reform efforts
may not drive the overall goal. Moderate to low implementation of RUSD‘s district level
reform strategies as identified in the themes are associated with challenges in
knowledge/skill, motivation and organization culture – resources, policies and
procedures.
On-going Activities
Rowland Height Unified School District (RUSD) has taken on the challenge of
meeting the NCLB mandates and statewide goals in innovative ways, as in partnerships
with outside groups such as the Ball Foundations, creation of an Instructional, Leadership
and Executive Cabinets, all aimed at closing the gaps in student achievement. RUSD‘s
leadership‘s goal for increased student achievement has paid off in a district focused on
excellence with four National Blue Ribbon Schools, 16 California State Distinguished

96
schools, and a high school named ―One of the Top High Schools in the Nation‖ by
Newsweek Magazine. RUSD has created the Executive Cabinet, Instructional Leadership
Team, Instructional Cabinet and the Communities of Practice in an effort to more
efficiently utilize resources, build collaboration and increase implementation efforts. For
example, one teacher commented on the positive learning experience of the COP‘s by
stating, ―Being part of a COP has allowed me the opportunity to collaborate with others
to both be a resource and to learn from other colleague‘s ways to be more effective with
our changing population of students.‖
The culture within RUSD is overwhelmingly positive, yet realistic, while
perpetuating a sense of collaboration where shared leadership is highly valued. Staff is
positive about the district and supports the high expectation for both students and staff
and values professional ethics. All individuals interviewed expressed pride in the
organization while acknowledging the challenges RUSD has and will face in the coming
years. All parties communicated the belief that RUSD currently retains the capacity
within the current staff to successfully take on the challenges of funding and P.I status.
One staff member replied, ―I feel very comfortable taking on a leadership role and also
being able to collaborate with a district person or administrator.‖ Another stated, ―Our
district has done good work with our students and our teachers expect only the best.‖
Themes
Conversations with key district personnel pointed to several themes related to the
implementation of the district reform strategies, more specifically their work with the
Ball Foundation and creation of the strategic plan. In our follow up talks with other

97
district personnel, administration and teaching staff, several themes emerged around goal
implementation, decentralization, and sustainability of reform efforts.
Emergent Theme: Goal Implementation
It became apparent in our conversations even at the initial stages that RUSD
leadership and Ball partners had indeed done an enormous amount of work in goal setting
at the global and intermediate level and to some extent the performance level, both within
the strategic plan and the Ball Foundation collaboration. Our conversations with district
staff revealed that under the performance goals, there were little if any action items, so
that staff did not have a clear definition of what they were to do to accomplish the district
goal. When speaking with district staff, most could articulate the goals that RUSD had set
regarding student achievement. School site personnel, however, vaguely stated that they
were aware of the district structural changes, but could not articulate the district level
reform goals or strategic plan items. When asked about the specifics of the strategic plan
and the districts reform efforts, several staff members stated being unaware of what
exactly these items were. Others responded with limited awareness and lack of clarity as
to how reform efforts tied into the district‘s goals. For example, one teacher spoke of the
Program Improvement status as something unrelated to the reform efforts stating, ―That‘s
a whole other issue.‖
Lack of clarity of performance goals for school site staff seemed to be tied to the
difficulty in implementation as expressed by various teacher comments. One teacher
indicated that ―we hear about these ‗reform‘ that the district office wants to implement,
but we are not sure how that translates into our classrooms.‖ Another commented that,
―our administrators talk a good game when it comes to the district office, but when they

98
return to the school site, it‘s business as usual. Not much goal setting is happening down
here.‖
Emergent Theme: Decentralization
Decentralization was a common theme in interviews of key staff. Many saw the
historical, decentralized, culture of RUSD as strength. As RUSD is a diverse community,
the decentralized model works best to successfully serve all the clientele within the
organization. When the theme of decentralization moved to sub themes of accountability
and communication the support waned. While the culture of decentralization makes
RUSD a pleasant place to work it does not work best for the implementation and
consistent use of best practices. The Ball Foundation has worked with RUSD leadership
towards a shared leadership model working on the goal of building collective efficacy
within the district.
This goal seems to have had a positive effect as expressed by staff at a
culminating event with Ball in May. Leadership teams present at the meeting
overwhelmingly supported the direction of the district and the changes being
implemented. Communication lines have become much easier to navigate as
instructional teams had made some inter-school learning walks, an unheard of practice
just a few years ago. Many within this group, including Instructional Cabinet members,
verbalized the change in ownership within the district. Comments centered around the
theme that district personnel were now much more likely to see student achievement
issues within RUSD as a district issue (and therefore their issue) as opposed to an
individual schools issue. In short, site leaders now seem to be much more aware and
concerned about what is happening distinct wide as opposed to only at their site.

99
Increased awareness of achievement as a district, rather than as separate school
sites, directs back to the theme of decentralization. Interview data beyond the inner circle
of the leadership teams at each site points to decentralization as an issue of concern.
Staff outside of instructional leadership roles does not seem to feel as positively about the
changes taking place as they are not sure they understand the nature of those changes.
The sentiment being that some staff feel that changes are being implemented
inconsistently due to the decentralize nature of RUSD.
In this sense the decentralized nature of the district makes accountability to and
communication of best practices within RUSD challenging at each site. Based on our
conversations with staff, at the district level, implementation of reform strategies are not
tightly enforced and there is minimal accountability, with site administrator and school
staff given great latitude as to site implementation. One teacher commented, ―Our
administrator will agree with reform at the district office meetings, but in returning to our
school site, she does what she wants.‖
Numerous teachers made mention of their lack of clarity as to how reform efforts
relate to the classroom. For example, one teacher expressed lack of clarity as to how
being a member of a Community of Practice relates to her classroom. When pressed, that
teacher indicated she was learning how to be ―leaderful,‖ but was not able to connect this
to her classroom. Staff members also reported lack of support from the district office in
implementing reform efforts at the sites thereby creating low task value related to reform
strategies. A teacher stated that, ―We just don‘t have professional development like we
used to and that makes it difficult to make changes.‖

100
In sum, a culture of decentralization as expressed by staff appears to be a barrier
to successful implementation of district level reform. Lack of clarity, and the sense
personal discretion as to implementing reform strategies interfere with goal alignment for
the district and hinder desired implementation.
Emergent Theme: Sustainability
At the same time district level reform work was being done, RUSD faced
budgetary constraints resulting in restructuring of work roles and responsibilities such
that district and school staff had increased duties as positions were collapsed or
eliminated all together. One district representative commented that ―we are tasked to do
more with less and less resources and honestly, I do not know how we are going to
maintain some of the reform strategies we have implemented without Ball Foundation
funding.‖
Teachers‘ comments reflected a lack of support from the district as hindering their
ability to implement reform efforts at their level. Several teachers reflected the lack of
professional development as a missing key piece in their effort to implement strategies
targeting their increasing ELL population. Others described the deletion of the Learning
Center as a major blow in terms of teacher support.
Overall, conversations across district office staff, administrators and teachers
reflect an underlying anxiety and uncertainty as to the sustainability of reform efforts
with impending budget cuts and loss of Ball Foundation funding. Some expressed
optimism that collaboration would continue despite financial challenges; while others
reported a lack of task value associated with a reform they perceived as non-enduring and
therefore express their decreased motivation to continue reform strategies. One teacher

101
mentioned, ―There are some of us that feel that this is not going to last and so some
teachers stay in their classrooms and do what they do know to do.‖
Limitations
In conducting this inquiry project our team was keenly aware of various
limitations. Although the project focused on implementation of district level school
reform efforts aimed at student achievement, our team was not able to speak with
students as part of our inquiry. Student input could have been valuable in providing
information about their experience with district level reform and its effect on learning.
Additionally, despite a very willing and prompt response from staff members who
offered their input, our team had two months during the time in the school year where
state testing and end of year activities were taking place, making collection of data and
information very limited. More time and a time slot where school personnel are not
inundated with mandated responsibilities would have provided an opportunity for more
in-depth inquiry – district meeting attendance, classroom observation, increased number
of interviews and several site visits. All of these activities would have added more
richness of information and allowed for being privy to more complex interactions.
Finally, staff members interviewed were selected by a key informant and did not
necessarily represent the organization as a whole and their comments were based on their
perception. Interviews with a more representative group would have yielded a deeper
sense of the implementation efforts and the ability to corroborate individual impressions.
Conclusion
RUSD continues to strive towards excellence in education while facing and
tackling many challenges in meeting state and federal mandates for student achievement

102
in the midst of budgetary constraints. The district‘s innovative approach to school reform
through Partnerships with the Ball Foundation and its implementation of its strategic plan
have put RUSD in a path to making changes to meet its goal. However, this inquiry
project has highlighted inconsistent reform implementation related to goal alignment,
decentralization and sustainability with barriers in knowledge/skills, motivation and
organizational policies and processes. For RUSD, these findings can focus their efforts
towards efficient and cost-effective reform strategies by addressing barriers to
implementation.
Additionally, the inquiry results can provide a basis for focused interventions to
address the gaps found in implementation in alignment with the district goal of improved
student achievement through a set of research-based proposed interventions. This
process will be the next phase of this inquiry project in consultation with RUSD
personnel as our team presents a set of recommendations for consideration.

103
APPENDIX H – Comprehensive School Reform Solutions Charts

TABLE H-1: Comprehensive School Reform Solutions Chart Tier I Solutions
Immediate issues

Type of Root
Cause
Area of Growth
K/
S
Mot Org Proposed Solution(s)
Site-level staff did not seem to
understand the direct relationship
between the reform strategies and
the eight pillars of the strategic
plan and their site/classrooms.
x x
-Cross-strand connections
-Systems to capture and link
learning
- Clearly define how each pillar
relates to classroom instruction
Although most teachers felt they
were doing the work necessary to
meet the organizational goal of
moving out of PI status, they
could not articulate the alignment
to the intermediate level goals.

x
-Cross-strand connections
-Drive indicators toward
efficacious instruction toward
classroom
-Include examples of what
efficacious instruction looks
like.
Executive Cabinet, Instructional
Cabinet, and Communities of
Practice‘s goals not clearly
defined at the site level.
x
-Schedule P.D. time with Ball
for top level management.
-Negotiating bottom up and top
down to create a coherent
system
There is the belief that district-
level reform efforts are non-
enduring resulting in lack of
commitment to implementation.
x
-Plan for sustaining structures/
functions and communicate to
all role groups
-Value collaborative
professional
learning
-Lean on ―Essential Priorities
for Teaching and Learning‖ as
a structure or lens for all other
reforms.
Decentralization efforts have
given way to decreased
accountability and
communication of best practices
at the site level.
x x x
-Create accountability
mechanism
-Communicate to all
participants/ non-participants
-Executive leaders owning
initiatives
-Decide on and communicate
―non-negotiables‖. Suggest
using Essential Priorities as a
start for this discussion.

104
TABLE H-2: Comprehensive School Reform Solutions Tier II Solutions

Issues to be addressed within the next 1-2 years

Type of Root
Cause
Area of Growth
K/
S
Mot Org Proposed Solution(s)
The pervasiveness of the reform
effort tended to differ based on the
stakeholder level – higher with
district and administrative staff and
lesser within teaching staff.

x x
-Systems to capture and link
learning
-Cross-cultural strand
connections
-Clarify what is expected and
identify ―non-negotiables‖
Teachers not directly involved with
the district-wide reform efforts
could not identify the work that led
to achievement of performance
goals. They understood that efforts
were aimed at improving student
achievement and moving out of PI
status, but were not sure how their
own work related to these tenets.
x
-Systems to capture and link
Learning
-Communication to all
participants and non-
participants
-Cross-cultural strand
connections
-Define efficacious instruction
for RUSD
Not all teachers are engaged in the
reform efforts nor are they
knowledgeable of the strategic plan,
its pillars, and how it is directly
linked to the work they are doing in
the classroom. Some teachers have
even elected not to participate.

x x
-Systems to capture and link
Learning
-Communication to all
participants/non-participants
-Cross-cultural strand
connections
-Value professional
collaboration
Across the organization, the
feedback loop is not consistent with
regard to implementation of reform
efforts at the site and classroom
level.
 Lack of consistent monitoring
by district personnel and
administrators to ensure
changes to instructional
practices.
 Lack of specific feedback to
teachers from administrators on
how to modify their instruction
based on the knowledge and
skills they received in training.
x
-System to capture and link
learning
-Communicate to all role
groups
-Sustainability of functions,
not structures
-Deepen definition of rigor
-Simplify loop/reform efforts.
Use Essential Priorities as
lens through which everything
else must pass through. This
will help staff see reform as
unified rather than piece meal.

105

TABLE H-3: Comprehensive School Reform Solutions Tier III Solutions

Issues to address within the next 3-5 years

Type of Root
Cause
Area of Growth
K
/S
Mot Org Proposed Solution(s)
Comments such as ―we were doing
what we know‖ and ―this too shall
pass‖, made by a several teachers
gave a sense of lack of interest.

x
-Cross-strand connections
-Support functions
-Accountability mechanism
-Deepen definition of rigor
-Commitment to Essential
Priorities demonstrates a
commitment to practice rather
than a reform ―program‖. This
will create ―buy in‖ for
sustainable change.
Because of the anxiety created by
the perceived lack of resources and
need to do ―more with less‖ some
teachers do not attribute task value
to the reform efforts.
x
-Value collaborative
professional
Learning
-Mechanisms for capturing and
Sharing learning from different
strands

106
APPENDIX I – Presentation of Proposed Recommendations to RUSD
Figure I-1: Title Slide

Figure I-2: Introduction Slide

107
Figure I-3: Gap Analysis Process

Figure I-4: Inquiry Methods

108
Figure I-5: Project Timeline

Figure I-6: Possible Gaps Identified by all Three Teams

109
Figure I-7: Root Causes of Gaps

Figure I-8: Comprehensive School Reform Team

110
Figure I-9: Positive Findings

Figure I-10: Possible Gaps

111
Figure I-11: Current RUSD Reform Initiatives

Figure I-12: Alignment of Organizational Goal Structures: Considerations

112
Figure I-13: Recommendations

Figure F-14: Goal Alignment

113
Figure I-15: Questions and Discussion

Figure I-16: High School Team

114
Figure I-17: Positive Findings at the High Schools

Figure I-18: Possible Gaps Affecting the High Schools

115
Figure I-19: Goals - Alignments

Figure I-20: Goals – Perspective Building

116
Figure I-21: Goals – Celebrate Accomplishments

Figure I-22: Resources

117
Figure I-23: Implementation and Accountability

Figure I-24: Cultural Settings

118
Figure I-25: Questions and Discussion

Figure I-26: Hispanic English Language Learner Team

119
Figure I-27: Positive Findings for Els

Figure I-28: Possible Gaps

120
Figure I-29: Process of Change

Figure I-30: District Support

121
Figure I-31: Cultural Proficiency

Figure I-32: Recommendations

122
Figure I-33: Questions and Discussion

Figure I-34: Sustainability

123
Figure I-35: Questions and Discussion

Figure I-36: Special Thanks

124
APPENDIX J: Completed Project PowerPoint Presentation
Figure J-1: District-Level Reform Implementation Title Slide
DISTRICT-LEVEL REFORM
IMPLEMENTATION:
A GAP ANALYSIS INQUIRY PROJECT
FOR ROWLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Presenters: Gilda Dixon, Brent Forsee, and Monalisa Hasson
Date: January 19, 2011
USC Rossier School of Education
1

Figure J-2: Introduction Slide
2
Chapter One
INTRODUCTION

125

Figure J-3: Introduction to the Project
3
Introduction to the P roject
 Overview of the P roject
 Introduction to the R owland Unified S chool Dis trict
 B ackground
 P roblem and S ignificance of S tudy
 L iterature R eview
 T he Clark and E s tes (2002) Gap Analys is Model
 R ationale
 Clark and E s tes Model as a Cons ultative Model
 P ropos al
 Inquiry P roces s
 Collaborative Goal

Figure J-4: The Rowland Unified School District Demographics
4
T he R owland Unified S chool Dis trict
 P res chool through Adult E ducation Dis trict located in S an Gabriel V alley in
L os Angeles County
 21 s chools (13 elem entary s chools ; two K-8 s chools ; three m iddle s chools ;
two com prehens ive high s chools ; and one alternative education high s chool)
 Approxim ately 16,000 S tudents (K-12)
E thnic ity %
Am erican Indian 00.1%
As ian 20.8%
P acific Is lander 00.3%
F ilipino 08.3%
His panic 60.8%
African Am erican 02.4%
White 03.7%
Multiple or No R es pons e 03.6%
(http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest)

126

Figure J-5: Rowland Unified School District Description
5
R owland Unified S chool Dis trict
 Dis trict boundary of attendance includes the
unincorporated area of R owland Heights ; portions
of L a P uente, Walnut, and Wes t Covina
 F our National B lue R ibbon S chools and16 California
Dis tinguis hed S chools
 Guided by its m is s ion to provide an academ ic
program dis tinguis hed by rigorous academ ics ,
innovative us e of technology, creative exploration,
and nurturing learning experiences that em power
s tudents

Figure J-6: Background
6
B ackground
 No Child L eft B ehind Act of 2001 has placed an
em phas is on s tudent achievem ent acros s all
s ubgroups
 R owland has taken s teps to addres s the needs of all
s tudents
 Collaborative relations hips with all s takeholders
 R es earch-B as ed P rofes s ional Developm ent
 E xternal P artners hips – B all F oundation
 Ins tructional Cabinet, Com m unities of P ractice, R econfiguration of s chool
s tructure (L earning Directors )
 F am ily R es ource Center

127

Figure J-7: Problem
P roblem
 P roficiency levels in E nglis h and L anguage Arts (E L A) are below
the target of 45% for His panic, S ocioeconom ically
Dis advantaged (S E S ), E nglis h learners (E L ), and S tudents with
Dis abilities (S WD) s ubgroups bas ed on 2009 data
 S tudents with Dis abilities did not m eet the Math proficiency
target of 45.5; His panic, S E S , and E L s ubgroups were jus t
above the target of 45.5
 S ix elem entary s chools were placed in program im provem ent
s tatus in 2009 for a total of 11 s chools or more than half of
its 21 sc hools
 T he target will increas e to 56% and 56.4% res pectively in E L A
and Math in 2010
(http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest)
7

Figure J-8: Significance of Study
Significance of Study
 This inquiry project provides new data to assist
in identifying strategies to improve student
learning through effective implementation of
district level school reform
 The overarching significance is to provide a
comprehensive school reform model that may
be emulated by other districts experiencing
similar challenges
8

128

Figure J-9: Overview of Literature Review 1
Overview of Literature Review 1
 Elements of Comprehensive School
Reform
Greater specification of curriculum
standards and outcomes (Levin and
Wiens, 2003)
More assessment/accountability,
increased opportunities for parents,
research based instructional methods,
and coordination of resources (Levin
and Wiens, 2003)
Performance Expectations (Borman et
9

Figure J-10: Overview of Literature Review 2
Overview of Literature Review 2
 Clearly defined goals with professional
development and training components
attached to goals (Elmore, 2002), (Fullan,
2007), (Desimone, 2003)
 Focus statements for districts and schools
 Fidelity in implementation of programs supporting
goal achievement (professional development)
(Borman et al, 2003)
 Review of literature by Ball Foundation.
10

129

Figure J-11: Overview of Literature Review 3
11
Overview of Literature Review 3
 Systematic Approach
 Long term process requiring commitment from all
stakeholders (Elmore, 2002)
 District, site, and community must communicate
 Implementation factors must be addressed before
connecting reform to student outcomes
(Desimone, 2003)
 Further investigation of barriers to multi-level
commitment will be helpful (Levin & Wiens, 2003)

Figure J-12: Overview of Literature Review 4
12
Overview of Literature Review 4
 Echoing a need for a systematic approach
includes the realization that
comprehensive reform can be slow and
challenging (Fullan, 2007) (Elmore, 2002)
 Review of successful reform models
achievement (Borman, Hewes, Overman,
& Brown, 2003)
 Review of Gap Analysis model (Clark and
Estes, 2002) as a tool for understanding
goals and identifying root causes of gaps.

130

Figure J-13: Overview of Literature Review 5
13
Overview of Literature Review 5
 Review of the three reasons (Clark and
Estes, 2002) for performance gaps,
motivation, knowledge, and culture.
 Thorough examination of causes and
possible solutions, through the literature,
for all three.

Figure J-14: Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis Framework
14
Clark and E s tes (2002) Gap Analys is
F ram ework as a Cons ultative Model for R US D
 Goals
 Gaps
 R oot Caus es
 Knowledge/ s kills
 Motivation
 Organizational Culture
 S olutions
 Outcom es

131

Figure J-15: Inquiry Process – Overview 1
15
Inquiry Process – overview 1
 Fall 2009
 Inquiry Team Formation
 Context of Need
 Understanding District Priorities
 Narrowing Inquiry Focus\
 Spring 2010
 Exploring Roots
 Data Collection

Figure J-16: Inquiry Process - Overview 2
16
Inquiry Process – overview 2
 Summer 2010
 Data Analysis
 Identification of Performance gaps & root causes
 Development of Findings
 Fall 2010
 Presentation of Findings &
Recommendations/Considerations to District
Groups

132

Figure J-17: Inquiry Process - Focus
17
Inquiry Process - Focus
 Investigate and clarify the goal(s) RUSD
propose they would like to achieve
 Clarify gaps in meeting proposed goal(s)
 Gather evidence for current status of RUSD’s
reform strategies
 Uncover and rule-out root causes of gaps
 Present findings
 Propose solutions

Figure J-18: Inquiry Method
18
Inquiry Method
 Phase I - District Context, Scanning
Interviews, Document Analysis
 Phase II – Stages of Concern (SoC),
Innovation Configurations
 Phase III – “One-Month interviews, follow up
on unique issues

133

Figure J-19: Collaborative Goal
19
Collaborative Goal
A systematic inquiry approach to data
collection and analysis utilizing the Clark and
Estes (2002) framework in assisting RUSD in
generating real world solutions to current
challenges in effective implementation of
comprehensive school reform efforts & goal
attainment:
Improved Student Achievement

Figure J-20: Chapter Two Title Slide
20
Chapter T wo
F INDINGS

134

Figure J-21: What We Know
21
What We Know
 R US D entered P rogram Im provem ent s tatus as
a res ult of the data evidenced in s lide 6 .
 S ignificant s truggles to m eet (es pecially E L A)
proficiency m andates (approx. 45%) for
s ignificant s ubgroups (E L s , S P E D , L ow S E S).
 In accordance with NCL B proficiency m andates
will continue to ris e at a rate of approxim ately
11% per year until 2014.

Figure J-22: CSR Effectiveness – A Peek Through the Literature
22
C S R E ffec tiveness
A peek through the literature
 NCL B has dom inated CS R policy
 A gap in the effectivenes s of NCL B has been detected
as its us e of econom ic levers has often punis hed the very
s tudents for whom it s ought to even the playing field
(Gorey, 2009)
 S ince 2007 CS R res earch has gone unfunded by the
F ederal Governm ent, perhaps as the res ult of only 3%
of s tudies producing a “gold s tandard” of res ults for
CS R s effect on s tudent achievem ent (B orm an, 2009)

135

Figure J-23: CSR Effectiveness – Factors for Effectiveness
23
C S R E ffec tiveness
F ac tors for E ffec tiveness
 Coherence within a dis trict/ s chool is im portant. Coherence
within ins tructional fram eworks provides for broader
im plem entation of prom is ing/ bes t practices ( T ogneri, 2003)
(Marzanno, 2003)
 Working together is unnatural. Mos t s ucces s ful dis tricts not
only work on reform , but on com m unication and working
together (T ogneri, 2003) (Hord, 1997) (DuF our, DuF our, &
E aker, (2006) (S pillane, 2002)
 Im proving clas s room ins truction m us t be s trategic ( Guhn,
2009) (T ogneri, 2009) (Dens im ore, 2003)

Figure J-24: Findings
24
Findings
 R US D has im plem ented num erous initiatives
des igned to reform / focus the dis trict
8 P illar S trategic P lan
P rogram Im provem ent P lan
B all F oundation
E s s ential P riorities for T eaching and L earning

136

Figure J-25: Findings II
25
Findings II
 S trategic P lan
F inancially s upported by B all, but with no input or
fidelity to B all goals . E ntire pillars decim ated by
pos ition cuts due to budget fluctuation
 P rogram Improvement P lan
Mandate for com pliance with NCL B
Viewed largely as a bureaucratic neces s ity as
oppos ed to reform guide.

Figure J-26: Findings III
26
Findings III
 B all F oundation
 Viewed as the driving force behind R US D effort to “flatten
their leaders hip m odel ”
 P rovides enorm ous financial res ources as R U S D m oves
towards a P L C m odel. L ittle agreem ent on how B all
interacts with S .P . or P .I P lan
 E s s ential P riorities for T eac hing and L earning
 S trengthen firs t, bes t ins truction, E L ins truction, and
R tI(s quared)
 Im plem ent dis trict-wide agreem ents about efficacious
ins truction and s upport for teaching and learning
 B uild cultural proficiency acros s the s ys tem to im prove
teaching and learning

137

Figure J-27: Findings IV
27
Findings IV
 Cons is tent with the Gap Analys is Model, root caus es
s eem to be evident in the areas of Knowledge/ S kill,
Motivation, and Organizational Culture Clark & E s tes ,
2002).
 Knowledge/ S kill: Gaps in unders tandin g of the role
reform initiatives play throughout the dis trict.
Interview data indicated a lack of unders tanding of
reform initiatives at m os t levels in the organization.
E ffective com m unication was lacking in this area,
res ulting in a root gap in Knowledge.

Figure J-28: Findings V
28
F indings V
 Motivation: Dis trict level adm inis tration views C.O.P .s
as being a m otivational force behind teacher led
input and reform . A gap exis ts at the s ite level as
th ere is little con s is ten cy in wh at a C.O.P . is des ign ed
to do within s ites and from s ite to s ite.

138

Figure J-29: Findings VI
29
F indings VI
 Organization/ Culture: R US D operates within an
extrem e de-centralized m odel. An is s ue is how de -
centralization is defined from s ite to s ite and how
goals can be effectively com m unicated and m eas ured
in this organizational culture (Meyer, 2006). A root
caus e is a dis connect between goal expectations at
the dis trict level and how they are
unders tood/ enacted at the s ite level.

Figure J-30: Chapter Three Title Slide
30
Chapter T hree
S OL UT IONS
S

139

Figure J-31: Recommendations – What We Know
31
Recommendations –What We Know
 Successful reform movements
 Research-validated principles & corresponding
assessment tools
 Teacher and student perceptions of instructional
practices
 Assess impact on learners and learning –
motivation/multiple achievement measures
 Capacity development
 Incorporation of an outside agency
Borko, et al, (2003); McCombs & Quait (2003)

Figure J-32: Recommendations – What We Know
32
Recommendations –What We Know
 Successful reform movements
 Best understood in terms of capacity vs. outcome
 Attainment of goals must be shared, defined and
benchmarked
 Structural changes needed to support new
approaches
 Alignment of professional development to district
goals/emergent themes based on data
 Organization change at school site is not a
sufficient condition for academic instruction
Borko, et al, (2003); McCombs & Quait (2003); Resnick & Hall (2005); Tongeri (2003)

140

Figure J-33: Recommendations – What We Know
33
Recommendations –What We Know
 Successful reform movements
 Organizations with accountability systems
demonstrate better implementation of reform
efforts
 Effective performance improvement must begin
with clearly understood performance goals
B a n d u ra (1 9 9 7 ); W o n g (2 0 0 0 )

Figure J-34: Recommendations – Overall Focus
34
Recommendations –Overall Focus
 To build on the current foundation of a
decentralized organization and fine tune
the work already in progress in an
environment of shared leadership
Collin (2001); Elmore (2002)

141

Figure J-35: Recommendations – Goal Alignment
Recommendations
 Goal Alignment
 Four Frame Leadership Model – Structural Frame
 C 3 Work Goals
Bolman & Deal (2003); Clark & Estes (2002); Ghun, 2008

Figure J-36: Recommendations – Performance Goals
36
Recommendations
 Performance Goals
 Clearly defined & benchmarked –expectations,
how and when
 Essential Priorities for Teaching and Learning
 “efficacious instructions”
 C3 work goals
Bandura (1997); Clark & Estes (2002); Gilber,t 1996; Rummler & Brache (1995);
Locke & Latham (1990 )

142

Figure J-37: Recommendations – Clearly Define ‗Non-negotiables‖
37
Recommendations
 Clearly Define “Non-negotiables”
 Orient to a target – instructional practice
 Essential Priorities for Teaching and Learning
 “efficacious instructions”
 Implement through Ball principles and driving
documents
 Create accountability structures
 Ball Foundation –PD facilitator vs. destination
E lm o re (2 0 0 2 ); W o n g (2 0 0 0 )

Figure J-38: Conclusion
38
CONCLUSION
Questions
S

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Comprehensive school reform implementation: A gap analysis inquiry project for Rowland Unified School District

PDF

An alternative capstone project: A gap analysis inquiry project on the district reform efforts and its impact in narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

Utilizing gap analysis to examine the effectiveness of high school reform strategies in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

An alternative capstone project: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools

PDF

Using the gap analysis to examine Focus on Results districtwide reform implementation in Glendale USD: an alternative capstone project

PDF

Comprehensive school reform: Effective implementation

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective

PDF

Improving college participation success in Glendale Unified School District: An application of the gap analysis model

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district

PDF

An application of Clark and Estes' (2002) gap analysis model: closing knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District students from accessing four-yea...

PDF

An alternative capstone project: A qualitative study utilizing the gap analysis process to review a districtwide implementation of the Focus on results reform initiative: Identifying and addressi...

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model

PDF

An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school

PDF

Increasing college matriculation rate for minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged students by utilizing a gap analysis model

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: central office leadership factors

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors

PDF

Improved math achievement in an urban high school: a case study of a high school in the Vista Unified School District

PDF

The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

Asset Metadata

Creator Dixon, Gilda P. (author)

Core Title A gap analysis inquiry project on district-level reform implementation for Rowland Unified School District

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/13/2011

Defense Date 01/19/2011

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

Tag district-level reform,gap analysis,inquiry project,Knowledge,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,organization

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

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rueda, Robert S. (committee chair), Arias, Robert J. (committee member), Marsh, David D. (committee member)

Creator Email gildad137@msn.com,gildadix@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3744

Unique identifier UC1172501

Identifier etd-Dixon-4303 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-446254 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3744 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Dixon-4303.pdf

Dmrecord 446254

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Dixon, Gilda P.

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